Is infidelity immoral?

[Colpy]

You ought to listen to Christopher Hitchens sometime....everyone who has ever taken for granted the supposed irrefutable benevolence of religion should listen to him. Regarding this: "Morality of religion...........mehhhhhhhhhhhhhh. don't think so. You didn't get the play on words re; stoning? not surprised. probably wasn't funny or plain enough. sorry." I'm not really sure what you were trying to get at??

"And fukk Chris Hitchens, whomever he may be. you too for that matter." Just as Jesus would say; right?

Oh, I have listened to Chris Hitchens.........and found him to be an intelligent, charming, skilled orator that has a special knack for pulling an audience to his side. I have read his articles on political matters, and often agree with him.

But he is wrong about God, and about religion.

And Hotchens dreamed-of society, one without God, in which man can be perfected by the application of humanist principles and in the absence of God..........it has already been tried. In the Soviet Union. In China. In Cuba. In Cambodia. In North Korea.

You'd think that 100 million murdered or starved in the 20th Century in the name of that Humanist religion called Communism would kinda offset Hitchens' criticism of the philosophy of a God.....

But no.

 

[Cliffy]

Although I am no atheist, I find the concept of god the rule maker/rewarder/punisher repugnant. It is a very human concept that many have tried to emulate (as in acting like this god) making the rules and punishing those who don't follow them. There has never been a communist government on the planet except in name only. What we have had are totalitarian governments bastardizing the name of communism and acting like the god of Abraham. And that god is just one of many, many of which are far more benevolent and compassionate. The three waring religions are not the only religions but they have given religion such a bad name that most people like Hitchens mistake them to be synonymous with all religions, partly because in the west they are so predominant.

Morality is not dependent on any religion. People are either of moral fiber or they are not. Atheists can be very moral as anybody who is familiar with Dexter would attest. So saying there can be no morality without a god is just plain biased and nonsensical. And of course, morality is a personal matter. Even among people who profess to be of the same religion, morality is relative to the individual and cannot have any hard and fast rules. I believe that is what JC had in mind when he supposedly said "judge not." Nobody can live up to our expectations.

 

[taxslave]

The only thing that is truly immoral is preachers but ****ing little boys.

 

[gerryh]

The only thing that is truly immoral is preachers but ****ing little boys.

I see, so it's ok for you to do it?

 

[#juan]

I don't think there are many relationships out there where infidelity is acceptable to either party. If a person can't be faithful to the significant other, who can he or she be faithful to? In a way cheating is cheating on the whole family including the children and that is the sad part. Nothing to do with religion, just common decency.

 

[JLM]

I see, so it's ok for you to do it?

Don't get cheeky, Gerry. :lol:

I don't think there are many relationships out there where infidelity is acceptable to either party. If a person can't be faithful to the significant other, who can he or she be faithful to? In a way cheating is cheating on the whole family including the children and that is the sad part. Nothing to do with religion, just common decency.

That has generally been my view BUT society appears to accept less. Even presidents and presidential candidates screw around and people write it off as it's his/her own business and doesn't affect their work. Old fashioned me has a bit of a problem with that, if they are going to "screw" their loved ones in one matter, what is to stop them from "screwing" strangers in another matter? :smile:

 

[karrie]

That has generally been my view BUT society appears to accept less. Even presidents and presidential candidates screw around and people write it off as it's his/her own business and doesn't affect their work. Old fashioned me has a bit of a problem with that, if they are going to "screw" their loved ones in one matter, what is to stop them from "screwing" strangers in another matter? :smile:

See, the problem I see there is that just because someone is famous, doesn't mean I 'know' them. I don't know what agreements he/she had with their spouse, I don't know what affairs were hidden and what were common knowledge among them. So until I see the wife/husband react I reserve judgement. I've known more than one couple who dated outside their marriage, they didn't see it as infidelity. It's when I know they've done something that hurts their spouse that I apply it to a moral judgement on them.

 

[darkbeaver]

Mother nature likes irony eh. I wonder if she's ever a victim of infidelity?

 

[TenPenny]

Mother nature likes irony eh. I wonder if she's ever a victim of infidelity?

Mother nature likes irony? My mother liked ironing.

Small world, huh?

 

[ansutherland]

We all end up at the same point though; that being "Cheating is wrong because it's lying" without ever acknowledging that lying in and of itself is not always immoral. So, with that being said, what makes the lie that is infidelity so much worse than many other lies that we commit routinely? Is it merely that it deeply hurts the person to whom we lied? Is that only reason why that lie is so bad? If so, what if one was to be equally emotional to find out that you lied about your favorite colour? Or how much you liked their cooking? If it's only their reaction that really counts, then morality rests not in the person commiting the act, but in the person perceiving it.

 

[karrie]

We all end up at the same point though; that being "Cheating is wrong because it's lying".

No, we don't all end up at that point. Cheating is different from lying. Cheating is essentially a breach of contract (a post I noticed you had no response for). It is not the same thing as lying at all.

 

[ansutherland]

No, we don't all end up at that point. Cheating is different from lying. Cheating is essentially a breach of contract (a post I noticed you had no response for). It is not the same thing as lying at all.

You answer with such vagueness. Tell me what makes the contravention of a contract inherently immoral. Change the stipulation of the contract and then ask yourself if you arrive at the same conclusion.

Contracts are not moral code; not in and of themselves at least. The act of infidelity does not directly affect the spouse, whereas hitting your spouse does. Stealing from your spouse also directly affects them as it is something you are doing to them. Having sex with someone else is not an act against them. You don't have to agree with me, but in failing to see this distinction, you are failing to see the purpose in debating moral relativism.

 

[karrie]

You answer with such vagueness. Tell me what makes the contravention of a contract inherently immoral. Change the stipulation of the contract and then ask yourself if you arrive at the same conclusion.

Contracts are not moral code; not in and of themselves at least. The act of infidelity does not directly affect the spouse, whereas hitting your spouse does. Stealing from your spouse also directly affects them as it is something you are doing to them. Having sex with someone else is not an act against them. You don't have to agree with me, but in failing to see this distinction, you are failing to see the purpose in debating moral relativism.

You fail to realize that injuring your spouse emotionally, or even risking injuring them emotionally, is as much 'doing something to them' as the physical or the financial crimes you speak of.

 

[ansutherland]

You fail to realize that injuring your spouse emotionally, or even risking injuring them emotionally, is as much 'doing something to them' as the physical or the financial crimes you speak of.

So no matter the act, if it causes significant emotion duress to your spouse it's therefore immoral?

 

[karrie]

So no matter the act, if it causes significant emotion duress to your spouse it's therefore immoral?

People who've willingly entered into their marriages, and agreed to the terms of their marriages as equals, understand that basic truth, yes. If you and your spouse have discussed something and agreed to behave in one fashion, and you know acting otherwise will cause distress, but you do it anyway because it suits you in the moment, you are not behaving morally.

 

[ansutherland]

People who've willingly entered into their marriages, and agreed to the terms of their marriages as equals, understand that basic truth, yes. If you and your spouse have discussed something and agreed to behave in one fashion, and you know acting otherwise will cause distress, but you do it anyway because it suits you in the moment, you are not behaving morally.

Well, I suppose you have answered my question. No matter what was agreed to, if you break the agreement to the distress of your partner, you are acting immorally?

 

[karrie]

Well, I suppose you have answered my question. No matter what was agreed to, if you break the agreement to the distress of your partner, you are acting immorally?

that pretty much sums it up yeah.

 

[ansutherland]

that pretty much sums it up yeah.

Would it then be an immoral act for a woman in Iran to be seen by a man while not wearing her Burka? This is afterall part of their marriage agreement.

Would it then be an immoral act for a woman in Iran to be seen by a man while not wearing her Burka? This is afterall part of their marriage agreement.

Nevermind, you've already answered.....the answer is yes she is acting immorally.

 

[Colpy]

Well, I suppose you have answered my question. No matter what was agreed to, if you break the agreement to the distress of your partner, you are acting immorally?

This has got to be the dumbest thread EVER!

Yes, if you enter into an agreement, and you break your vow, without being granted a release from that vow, you are acting immorally.

DUH!

No wonder the world is in so much trouble.

 

[karrie]

Would it then be an immoral act for a woman in Iran to be seen by a man while not wearing her Burka? This is afterall part of their marriage agreement.


Nevermind, you've already answered.....the answer is yes she is acting immorally.

Willingly agree to the marriage and decided upon the issue as equals? No, I don't think that applies in the case you describe.