RoR: Forum

Thank you Mike.

There is a subtext that I am perceiving to those who advocate across-the-board adherence to a principle, regardless of context, and defining values like marriage for individual people in only their own manner. This is that anyone who wishes to examine scenarios of contexts in an issue like what to do if an affair occurs is either (1) dishonest, (2) evading, or (3) looking for a rationalization to sleep around.

I will give another option: (4) seeking truth.

I have learned enough about life to know that anyone who preaches honesty too loudly must be watched carefully. Especially in a marital relationship. A person who looks into his/her own soul and seeks to first see what is there, no holds barred, before deciding what to do is a very trustworthy person. These things life has taught me, not some book.

(And I do love books...)

Michael

Joe - Our posts crossed. I agree 100% with you that one of the purposes of studying ethics is to make choices that will gain/preserve values before things get screwed up, not simply provide an out to a error or bad choice. I just found that this particular example you used could be tailor (mis)fit to suit the arguments of some of the "absolute moralists" (in the Robert Ringer sense) posting. But I do want to emphasize that this detour is not a criticism against an article you did not write, as Linz says. This is a wonderful article.

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 5/28, 5:54pm)

Post 41

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 6:05pm

I love my wife. I have never cheated on her because I know it would destroy our marriage. The only choices would be to tell her or live a lie. Both would equally harm our marriage so both choices are unacceptable. Joseph is exactly right when he wrote, "He shouldn't have had the affair in the first place."

Besides, the only women worth cheating with are those who won't. :-)

Oh, and about Dr. Laura...EWWW! Turn that witch off. BLECH on Dr. Laura.

Post 42

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 8:39pm

Mike E.,
Thank you very much for your very kind post. However, I had not been talking about either myself or my husband. I do speak from my understanding of men. And you are right, I've known some wonderful wonderful men and women with colorful histories, including my husband's best friends who have also become my best friends. And I do have a soft spot form them.

By the way, I completely agree with num++'s post #34 .

Hong

Post 43

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 10:35pm

Joseph Rowlands,

"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."

These statements I agree with completely.

I'd like to ask a question regarding Michael M's post:

I believe the point Mr. Marotta is making is that there are many situations where we have knowledge of a situation and act on that knowledge out of self preservation where we also know that there are other parties who, if they knew what we knew, would act differently to our detriment. Are there any or perhaps all of the situations listed by MM where you think not disclosing the information you have to the other party is necessarily dishonest and immoral? It would seem to me that not taking personal advantage of superior knowledge in these situations would be altruistic therefore immoral under objectivist's standards. My point is, not disclosing information you have to others, even if they would benefit by such knowledge, is not in principle unethical or dishonest. It happens all the time in very ordinary circumstances in our daily commerce.

Hong,

I didn't mean for my references to you to seem so personal. I was just trying to give the sense of goodwill and benevolence that you exhibit in your posts. Thanks for pointing to post #34 of num++. I agree with it also. I've written above about my interpretation of Michael M's post. I've found Michael takes a little time to figure out sometimes, but worth it. If I've gotten it right.

Post 44

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 10:43pm

Joe Rowlands:

That's just one more problem with marriage...it turns choices into obligations, and values into duties.

Ah, yes, we finally have the rub with all your simplistic talk of dependence and relationships, eh, Joe?

Post 45

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 11:21pm

Mike E,

I want to state how much I appreciate your explaining Michael Marotta's post. I have long felt that he is one of the most misunderstood posters on Solo. There is usually good, solid substance to what he writes. Often this substance is beneath the surface and is not so evident.

God knows he does have a tendency to ramble on and there are also a couple of really quirky viewpoints at the essence. But who doesn't have one or two? He is very intelligent and normally gives a wealth of detail missing in other posters.

I am really glad others see value in him also.

Michael

Post 46

Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 11:24am

David Elmore wrote:

Joe Rowlands:
That's just one more problem with marriage...it turns choices into obligations, and values into duties.
Ah, yes, we finally have the rub with all your simplistic talk of dependence and relationships, eh, Joe?

I would like to see you develop your objections in more detail, David. But I recommend first reading Joe's article on marriage at

http://solohq.com/Articles/Rowlands/Marriage.shtml

along with its discussion posts and then post your own thoughts there. I basically agree with Joe's views on marriage but see the rearing of any resultant offspring in a non-marriage as problematic and in need of further exploration.

Post 47

Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 4:53pm

Did we pay for the affair? was someone straked by our beauty? was this just one night stand? what are we talking about here?
Having an affair just for the pleasure of sex is one thing, but to have an affair with someone that we admire and value -- I would not call it an affair any more, but a need, a need for our well being and sometime a reason for keeping our marriage for the children sake.
dc

Post 48

Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 6:24pm

I have heard that in Japanese culture a married man will commonly take a concubine while his pregnant wife gestates their forthcoming child. The wife knows and accepts this as part and parcel of pregnancy. If emotions result from values, and a wife has no expectation of fidelity while pregnant, I suppose her emotions would diverge considerably from those of a wife who does expect fidelity of her husband at all times.

Can anyone here corroborate or refute this hearsay about Japanese culture? This contrast of East and West might shed some light on the nature of man qua man.

Post 49

Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 10:40pm

Luke,

Non-Christian cultures in general, not just the Japanese, are much less intrinsicist about nearly everything. There are, in every culture, people who insist on monogamy. There are also couples who don't. One university I worked at had a married couple of Japanese postdocs. Whenever one of them traveled without the other, the one staying behind would present the one traveling with a bon-voyage gift of a pack of condoms. Whatever a couple agree on is considered OK, although most do agree on monogamy.

One thing all cultures do agree on is no cheating. This is why, for example, even back in Talmudic times, the fact that Bruriah's husband consented to her affair with one of his students did not diminish anyone's stature as paragons of ethical conduct. Informed consent is everything.

That is what I find so bizarre in Christian condemnations of Ayn Rand's conduct in the sexual relationship between her and Nathaniel Branden. Ayn Rand conducted that relationship with the informed consent of everyone involved. If you condemn her, you have to condemn all Jewish couples in similar relationships going back all the way to Bruriah, and maybe before. Nathniel Branden, on the other hand, cheated, and generally behaved as people do in cultures that consider non-monogamous sexual relationships intrinsically shameful, informed consent be damned. Shame - on him.

Post 50

Monday, May 30, 2005 - 5:56am