About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 20

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 3:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You expect friends or partners to be straight with you, so you should be straight with them.

I agree with Marcus on this one. My situation was a little bit odd. I wasn't married but I had been living with a guy for several years. Not Mr. Right, but a pretty darned good Mr. Right Now.  And he knew it.

As you all know, I met the man of my dreams on the internet.  I didn't actually meet him until months after we met, but I knew pretty quickly Mr. Right Now had to go.  I had to clear the way for Michael. I don't know if you would call what I did cheating, considering the lack of physical contact, but regardless, I felt I had to come clean with both guys. No sugar coating allowed, and it wasn't easy, but it would have been a hell of a lot worse had I had not been in a relationship where brutal honesty was the norm.

I had make some hard choices and even though my world would turn completely upside down, I had but one choice. The Truth. I now have the man indescribably wonderful as the love of my life, and another wonderful man as a friend for life. What more could a girl ask for?


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 6:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I just read the first two paragraphs of the scenario, and it is quite clear to me what the man should do.

Let's just assume he wants to stay with his wife, and considers the affair a mistake. 

If this affair does not materially affect the guy's relationship with his wife (he wants to stay with her), then it is of no consequence. What the guy should do should depend on what he knows about his wife. If his wife is like what Joe described in the article, then like Dr.Laura advised, don't tell. And don't feel overly guilty either. Yes, it is a mistake. Everybody makes mistakes. Bear it like a man. No need to let it ruin everything.

There are also other kind of woman/wife, who knows man's weakness and do not expect their man to be perfect. For them, knowing the affair (suppose it is an isolated incident) is not necessarily the end of the world, or marriage, or relationship. Things can work out if both are rational and work on it.

In any event, I completely agree with Dr. Laura and Jeff, it's better for the "cheater" (or "sinner" ;-)) not to tell voluntarily. Instead focus on the positive things between him and his wife and work toward it.


Post 22

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 6:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Been there. Done that.

You might be describing the world of Joseph Rowlands -- assuming that you have actually had an extra-marital affair or lent money at interest.  You are not describing the world of Mike Marotta.

You own a business that employess 5,000 people (or five) and you know that sales are behind projections...

You want to sell a house that you know has had backups in the basement...

You notice that an item on the shelf is mismarked ...

You discover a better job opportunity...

You are driving down the road and know that you can get away with 10 miles an hour over the speed limit...

You are participating in an Objectivist forum and you spot a logical contradiction...


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 7:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,
There are no easy answers when you are dealing with the hearts of people.
There are answers when you are dealing with the hearts of rational people.

Couple of other points in the article:
He'll feel guilty whenever she shows him affection because he'll know it's based on a lie. 
If she didn't ask, then he didn't lie. 

He won't be able to enjoy her love because he'll know he didn't earn it. 
Why not? Is it reasonable that his one mistake would negate everything that is between them? He has come back to his wife and chooses her over his mistress, hasn't he? Or did I interpret the scenario wrong?

Also, there are many other things one can do that cause much bigger damage to a relationship than an affair.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 12:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong,
There are answers when you are dealing with the hearts of rational people.
What a nice thought! That just sort of jumped out at me.

You know, in general I agree with Joe's premise about foresight being an important part of exercising virtues. As to his example, there are two presumed unmentioned premises that keep nudging uncomfortably the back of my mind: (1) that humans are monogamous, and (2) that the marriage under discussion was A-OK outside of the affair.

As we know, not all humans are monogamous and this issue is much more complicated than just a simple rule - whether from religion or a philosophy. I know that monogamy is my own nature, so this example served me well in his discussion. But (and here I go opening my big goddam mouth again) how would it have served our founder around the time she was finishing Atlas Shrugged? I am surprised no one brought this up yet. Was honesty and forethought virtue enough for dealing with the other spouses and maintaining core relationship values in that situation?

Also, if the marriage in the example was A-OK, they were monogamous and the man was in love with his wife, then he was a dickhead to have slept around on her. And stupid beyond belief. Point for Joe. But if the marriage was not A-OK - yet still the man wanted to preserve it - and an affair came up, then Objectivism can also provide very useful guidelines on how to deal with what to do about it. The context is completely different and a lot of thinking would be in order to arrive at a satisfactory course of action.

I guess it all boils down to evaluating personal values - which things are more important and which are less. And even who has changed and in what manner over time. Too many marriages survive affairs to say that they are impossible to overcome for a happy marriage to continue - and an affair could even be a heads up that something is wrong that needs to be corrected.

Rational people will take these things into account. Now back to your thought, a rational person will strive to overcome the hurt and keep the core values.

DISCLAIMER: This might be true, but getting yourself into a highly volatile situation like an affair and can be very explosive. Best not to fuck around unless you like adrenaline rushes, guilt trips and near death experiences. Just leave - then do what you want.

Michael


Post 25

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 12:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Great article Joe. I'm going to have to split my article about my tour of the US into multiple parts to get enough sanction points to lend weight to my voting for your articles.

And good call Angela - you got my favourite line too.


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 3:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong's posts describe my view as well. We can never become the property of another person. Living as if you are someone else's property because you love them I believe is a mistake. That you "strayed" and decided to stay says enough by itself. Not mentioning a bygone attraction is not a lie, and not something to be conflicted about. If that's how you feel, you have a psychological problem not an ethical one.

Loaning money (or books, or tools) to friends is a good way to sort out who really is your friend. A way to sniff out the losers when it's time to prune your friend tree. I would never bother to set up a complicated system with written agreements. If they didn't pay me back I think it would be a small price to pay to find out they are not really a friend.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 8:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike and Mikey (aka. Michael SK, "the colonel"),

Yes, I think I am pretty much in full agreement with both of you on this.
There are answers when you are dealing with the hearts of rational people.

What a nice thought!

Well, how else can the world and life make sense?!

After reading your posts and then the article more carefully, I also realize that there might be some implied premises that are different from what I originally thought.
He'll feel guilty whenever she shows him affection because he'll know it's based on a lie. 

As we agree that not mentioning the affair is not a lie, then the only kind of lie I see here is that the guy doesn't love his wife any more but still pretends to. Given that he still wants to stay with his wife, this becomes a much more serious problem, i.e., MSK's "not A-OK" scenario.

As for Rand-Branden affair, yes, honesty was certainly not enough in their case. I think Ayn and Nathaniel were wrong in that they evaded the reality that their action actually hurt Barbara (and Frank?) pretty badly. If they decided to go open with their affair, they should have had the courage and wisdom to recognize its consequence and adjust their action accordingly.

I also agree with MSK's "DISCLAIMER", even under the best scenario, an affair is not something to be taken lightly. As I joked with one of my closest friends sometime ago, it is a crime that deserves severe punishment, but not necessarily death penalty. Oh what fun one can have with the "punishment"! ;-)

PS. As much as I wanted to respond to Mike #3 (Morotta), I just don't understand a thing from his post!

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 5/28, 9:07am)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 9:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There are also other kind of woman/wife, who knows man's weakness and do not expect their man to be perfect. For them, knowing the affair (suppose it is an isolated incident) is not necessarily the end of the world, or marriage, or relationship. Things can work out if both are rational and work on it.

Man's weakness? Perfect?

A marriage can last after an affair. Trust and self-respect cannot. 


Post 29

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 9:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Oh what fun one can have with the "punishment"! ;-)"

Brrr, this has an ominous tone to it. Shades of the famous loooong memories women have in relationships!

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 30

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 10:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
LOLOLOL...

Mike, I decided to not touch that one, not even with a ten foot pole...

Michael


Post 31

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 11:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Doubt the Pole wanted to touch it either.....

Post 32

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 11:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong, does the punishment involve, leather? If he enjoys it, does it still count? The future viability of Objectivism rests in your hands..errr.. umm.. yeah... :)

Adam


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 33

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 11:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Well, luckily I will never have to punish my guy for infidelity, because that kinda crap will never ever happen in our world.  I'll just have to find another use for the leather gear.......


(Edited by katdaddy on 5/28, 12:39pm)


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 34

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 11:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
BDSM talk aside............(think "inner grandmother" people....)

Maybe we can profitably divide the subject in two: preemptive ethics and redemptive ethics. The article has dealt well with the former. Now to address the latter.

The Dr. Laura suggestion (don't tell) is fine if the partner doesn't ask. But what if they do ask? Should it depend then on whether they have proof or witnesses? The fact that they asked may be indicative of both. Silence or lies can go only so far in this scenario.

My suggestion: Prepare yourself for the above scenario, which could be some years down the road*. And when they do ask, tell. If your partner tries to play games** on your past transgression, break off the relationship even if they don't want to. Playing games in these matters means the relationship does not have serious value left to be salvaged. Otherwise, the ball is on their court.

The psychological burden of having to probably fess up one day is the price that has to be paid for making the error in the first place. It's still a trade of values even when the balance sheet goes red.

This is about as accurate as I can state it without bringing contexts of sexual preferences (swingers?) and marital history to account.



*While being an excellently virtuous partner, exercising preemptive ethics.

**Of course they will be hurt, but if you find yourself being guilt-tripped or having to make lavish 'compensation', then it's a game you should get out of.
________________

PS

Hong's PS
As much as I wanted to respond to Mike #3 (M[a]rotta), I just don't understand a thing from his post!
Sometimes, he has something to say, but currently I'm just hoping for a lucid interval. Michael M., will you PLEASE focus your thoughts before you post?



Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 35

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 2:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong said:

"If this affair does not materially affect the guy's relationship with his wife (he wants to stay with her), then it is of no consequence. ... And don't feel overly guilty either."

I honestly cannot believe I'm hearing an Objectivist say that. Not just one, but many.

Then:
"Yes, it is a mistake. Everybody makes mistakes. Bear it like a man. No need to let it ruin everything."

Cheating on your wife is not "oops, I locked the keys in the car." It is enormously dishonest, not to mention a complete betrayal of your lover's trust. She's not a congressional committee; "she never asked" does not mean he never lied. If a man tells a woman "you are the only woman for me", then messes around on the side, you're damn right he lied. Wether or not she knows does not change the fact that he was heinously dishonest. It should go without saying that attempting to cheat reality by pretending something never happened, and then giving or receiving somebody's (not just somebody's, your WIFE'S!) emotional and physical affection under fraudulent pretenses, is NOT compatible with Objectivism.

Any time you catch yourself saying, "I agree with Dr Laura," a thorough premises-checking is long overdue.

Post 36

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 10:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Having an affair is not humanely wrong. why? Because it’s possible to us to do that.
It’s morally wrong? By objectivism ethic yes? But many other cultures consider it a natural thing (to cheat
On their wives.)
I personally think that just few men understand what romantic love is all about.
Cheating is out,period!
dc


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 37

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 2:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What is implicit in a marriage is the expectation of honesty and fidelity -- absolutely no secrets. This kind of marriage makes for the sharing of ideas, emotions and actions -- no gatekeeper on your mind or mouth  -- with the understanding that rationality is your method to work through anything, as long as you both wish to work through it. Anything less is not a marriage of minds and souls. Anything less is a farce.

There can be no good marriage after the transgression of fucking around on your spouse -- until you have fulfilled your obligation for justice. That is, you must judge yourself AND you must let the person you transgressed against judge you for what you did. You must give her the opportunity of knowing where your mind is (or isn't), so SHE can decide whether you are worthy of continuing as her partner. That is one of the points of honesty with people -- you let them know who you are, so they can decide whether to be around you or not.

Infidelity indicates a huge mind-body dichotomy -- someone whose values are foggy and floating, who doesn't really care about his spouse. Working out that dichotomy with one's partner could possibly be a gratifying and unifying experience.

Hong's suggestion of hiding who you are is an attempt to steal a marriage by fiat, pretending to be somebody you are not. Her suggestion belies a contempt for a spouse, saying that one or both parties cannot handle the truth of the matter. But, of course, she can be serene in her knowledge that if her husband is fucking around on her right now, she'll never know about it. Right?


Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 38

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 4:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Does it occur to anyone that making rules for individualist's is not a one size fits all proposition? Tried herding cats lately? If objectivism means anything it means each individual is just that, an individual, with an independent mind. "Marriage" is going to mean something different to ANY pair of true individuals. Two people who marry will know each other better than any outsider. Trying to set some "objectivist" absolute rules for other peoples marriages pretends that people are not individuals and don't know each other. These "absolutists" are merely reflecting their own insecurities and lack of trust. Hong is talking about a situation where the married couple truly love and respect each other. And have a long history of knowing and being known by their partner. Hong's humor about the situation tells me everything. One "transgression" does not destroy this relationship, but brings it into perspective for the value that it has. It is not necessary to "rub it in the face" of your partner that the transgression occurred. Hong speaks from kindness and understanding and goodwill towards her partner. Not the perspective of a nun. It's so easy, but stupid, to create absolute rules for other people to live by.

Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 39

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 5:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So many of the comments on this thread only dealt with the first two paragraphs.  The problem was, the first two paragraphs were supposed to be a lesson in what not to focus on.  The point of the article was that you shouldn't put yourself into these bad situations in the first place.  Rand warned against lifeboat scenarios in ethics.  Ethics is supposed to be primarily concerned with living a normal life.  This bad marriage example is a lifeboat scenario, and is distracting from the real lesson in ethics.  It might be more fun to argue over and think about, but its lessons are not generalizable.

Let me provide another such example.  Imagine you've murdered some people.  The police know it's you, and they're looking for you.  Now you find that you can't get a job to acquire the food you need.  You might need to kill or steal in order to get it, and you have to fight whenever someone recognizes you.  Now, given rational self-interest as your moral standard, what should you do?  Please don't answer!  If rational self-interest was really your moral standard, you wouldn't have murdered the people in the first place.  Once you have, you're screwed.  There is no harmony of interests between you and others.  There is only death and conflict. 

The real lesson here is that you can really screw up your life to the point where you're not left with any good choices.  You can make a mistake that you just can't fix.  If you violate someone's trust, there's no guarantee that they'll ever trust you.  If you hurt someone, they may not want anything to do with you.  If you screw up in life, there will be consequences. 

Those who think morality is a game you play by applying abstract rules to stupid situations may get a kick out of all of this.  But it's not for me, and it's not the point.

Now let me respond to some of the specific posts.

Thanks to everyone who liked it, and especially those who liked it for more than just the first two paragraphs.

Lance, I agree that the relationship was screwed up before the affair.

Luke, my thinking about things seems to be so different from your own, it's hard to communicate it.  The first paragraph in your Post 6 is easy.  Hank and Dagny were being dishonest.  Hank was more guilty, since he cared if they got caught, whereas Dagny didn't.  So Hank lived in fear of getting caught, spent time and energy sneaking around, etc.  One of the lessons he learns towards the end was how incredibly stupid he was to be dishonest about it.  Ultimately, it was used against him many times.  This is in line with the fact that Hank was screwed up in a lot of ways, and he slowly understood the problems as the book progressed.

The second paragraph is where we have problems.  You talk about blaming the wife for not living up to her end of the marriage contract, or at least the possibility of it.  That's alien to my way of thinking about it.  A relationship isn't supposed to be about duties and owing good behavior to the other person.  It's supposed to be that both sides do it because they want to.  That's just one more problem with marriage...it turns choices into obligations, and values into duties. 


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.