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 1


Post 20

Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 10:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is a difficult issue. Of course context plays a big part, which is one of the reasons I think there is disagreement. There are two situations where I think what some of the above participants would call breaking the implied contract of a relationship is okay.

The first case is where someone realises that their partner is dishonest, trying to harm them or something else immoral. Clearly they don't owe their partner honesty and are not obliged to be honest. They should end the relationship ASAP, though. If that was the case for Jane, neither she nor Fred is in the wrong.

Second case. What if Fred is just better than Dick? For Jane not to take the opportunity to pursue a relationship with Fred would be self-sacrifice. If she stayed with Dick it would be out of duty, which is a terrible basis for a romantic relationship. If Fred then refused Jane solely out of sympathy for Dick, he would be sacrificing himself, not practising benevolence. The principle is that you should seek the highest value out of your own self-interest. I always thought the Dagny-Francisco-Rearden-Galt thing was unrealistic - it would be hard for anyone not to feel jealous or possessive in a similar situation. But they each had to respect Dagny's independence.

Of course, a more likely situation is that Jane is the dishonest one. In this case, I agree with Joe that Fred is not obliged to place more value on Jane's relationship than she does. However, there is another question about the morality of Fred's actions. Is it really in his self-interest to get involved with someone he knows to be a liar?

Post 21

Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 3:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rowlands,

You asked a pretty good question.  Why should Fred take seriously a relationship that Jane apparently doesn't?  The easiest way for me to answer this is to put myself in Fred's shoes, and by way of that explain why the virtue of benevolence requires restraint on Fred's part.

If Jane approached me for a one-night stand and revealed that she is in a committed relationship (which was the original scenario of this thought experiment), I would of course conclude that that relationship cannot be very good.  Even so, the mere fact that a relationship exists is what I would respect.  How crummy it may be is none of my business and not an excuse to intrude upon it - especially if my only purpose is to satisfy a passing appetite.

For me a relationship represents a boundary I will not cross except in exceptional circumstances.  Would true love, as you suggested, be that exception?  Maybe.  I would understand how it could be for others, even if I thought consummating that love while another relationship exists would not be wise.  But in this case, we are talking about crossing that boundary for a one-night stand.  I would be making no sacrifice by refraining from a one-night stand with Jane just because I am according a modicum of respect for her relationship with Dick.  All I would be doing is delaying the satisfaction of an appetite until more honorable circumstances arise.  It's a matter of letting my reason rule my appetites and not vice versa, or as the old addage goes, not letting my little head think for my big one.

Moreover, my restraint would be an example of the virtue of benevolence.  If we recall that root meaning of benevolence is to wish another well, I think this becomes clearer.  If all that is at stake is the satisfaction of my appetite, that is not enough to deny another, Dick, who has done me no wrong, my good wishes.  Banging Jane and making Dick a cuckold certainly would not be benevolent on my part.

As we depart from the black-and-white circumstances of a one-night stand scenario, I agree with you, Rowlands, that the rights and wrongs are less clear.  In those cases, it really does depend upon the specific facts.

Pukszta


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 10:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Isn't it more benevolent for Fred to decide what kind of woman he wants? Jane doesn't want to be in a monogamous relationship and Dick shouldn't want to be with someone who doesn't want the same things he does.

What kind of benevolence allows the faking of the reality? Obviously the relationship is doomed and should be ended. Maybe Jane and Fred are perfect for each other. Dick should be looking for someone else that would make him happy.

Regards,

Jeremy

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 3:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan, by not sleeping with Jane, Fred would be encouraging her act of dishonesty.  In that case, being dishonest about still being in a happy, loving relationship.  The dishonesty is entirely Jane's, and nothing Fred does affects that.

Now if the choice is between having Jane go back to a crappy relationship where she doesn't love the guy, or have sex before she officially ends it, I can't see that either would be a clear winner.  If Jane won't break up from the relationship for whatever reason, she's the one deciding to live with immoral options.  That's not Fred's decision.  He only gets to decide whether he wants to sleep with her anyway.  Maybe he thinks that'll convince her to leave Dick.  Or maybe he's desperately in love with her and knows that she won't leave Dick, but he can hold her just one time.  Or maybe he just wants to have sex with some hot chick who's single in everything but name. 

If he chooses not to have sex with her, not only might it be a sacrifice on his part, but it would for the sake of trying to make Jane's lie a reality, or at least fake it.  She says to Dick that she's in a happy relationship, when she's not.  Fred doesn't help Dick or Jane by going along with it.  Not sleeping with her doesn't make her monogamous or devoted.

Philip, I agree with your post, especially that duty is a terrible foundation for a relationship.

Rooster, you say "the mere fact that a relationship exists is what I would respect".  My argument is that the relationship that's worth respecting is a sham and a lie.  If you use relationship in the widest sense, as in the way two people interact, then sure there is one still....based on deceit, unhappiness, and duty.  But a relationship how most people discuss it is dead and gone.

Let me go into more detail on how I see it.  If I'm in a relationship, there's two reasons why I want it to be monogamous.  One is for health reasons.  So if Jane doesn't tell me she's sleeping around, I think that's a huge problem.  That's not really Fred's concern if he himself is healthy.  I don't think this is the scenario being discussed.

The other reason is because if she wanted to sleep with other guys, I would have serious doubts about whether she liked me all that much.  I'm not really interested in being in a serious relationship where I don't think the girl likes me very much, or likes other people more.  There's a level of intimacy I wouldn't be able to have like that.  The monogamous part is just a tiny part of this issue.

The problem in the scenario given is that this last value I described is already gone.  The fact that Jane hasn't slept around doesn't change that fact, and if she did sleep around, it would remain the same.  That part of the relationship is gone, and if I don't know about it and she's pretending it is still true, that's the real dishonesty.  So if I'm Dick, the problem started way before Jane sleeps with Fred.  And of course I'd like to know about it.  But that's Jane's responsibility.  If Fred was a friend of mine or something, and I expected him to think about my rational self-interest, I would want him to tell me about it before sleeping with Jane.  But that's out of the trust I have for him.  If he didn't, I wouldn't trust him in the future.  But that's only because as a friend I expect that courtesy from him.

This is the reason why I say the relationship is a sham, and the dishonesty is already there.  Dick may not know it yet, and Jane may not even admit it, but it's already broken.  The final act of sex only underscores the fact.

Rand talked about people who try to "reverse cause and effect".  They realize that cause A makes effect B happen.  They decide they want cause A, so they get effect B through some other means.  In one case, the cause is love and the effect is sex.  Sex doesn't cause the love, the love is what leads to sex.  Some people go for the effect, hoping to pretend that the cause is there.  So they have sex, pretending that they must be in love.

I think that view leads to the idea that the sex is the cause of the infidelity and the end of the relationship.  Instead of wanting the effect as the example above, instead it's a desire to avoid the effect.  If only they don't have sex, the relationship is still meaningful!  When the effect occurs, in this case sex between Jane and Fred, it's being seen as the official end of the relationship and trust.  But sex is the effect, not the cause.  The relationship stopped being meaningful, and that's what created the conditions for the affair.  Blaming the sex is backwards.  Sex is just the consequence.  It highlights and brings into focus the problems with Jane's relationship, but isn't itself the problem.


Post 24

Friday, December 17, 2004 - 8:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hiya Rowlands,

So the sex doesn't further Jane's dishonesty toward Dick? I would think it does because it concretizes Jane's dishonesty, which I would think furthers the dishonesty that would otherwise perhaps just be passive feelings of infidelity. But if the sex doesn't further the dishonesty, then I'd agree with you. That is, I'd agree with you if Fred has no impact on Jane's dishonesty.

I mean, I think it's bad policy for one to benefit from another's immoral behavior, but if her immoral behavior was already there and would continue to be there in the same degree and type, then I suppose Fred should have at it.

Jordan


Post 25

Friday, December 17, 2004 - 6:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rowlands,

You may right about the nature of the relationship between Dick and Jane.  But how does Fred, who is a stranger to both, really know anything about that?  All he knows (per the original scenario) is that a relationship exists.

Yes, some plausible guesses can be made about that relationship by the mere fact that Jane has invited Fred to interfere with her relationship with Dick.  I don't know about you, but if I were Fred I would see a lot of red flags alerting me to stay away from this chick.  Who knows what you are getting yourself into for the sake of a roll in the hay?

Chalk it up to prudence, if that makes better sense that being benevolent to Dick by not cuckolding him.  But if Fred is going to let lust rather than reason dictate his actions, I am going to judge him negatively.

Pukszta


Post 26

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 8:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My viewpoint is a rather simplified one, but I would say Fred's actions would be immoral, but not so much as Jane's. When it comes down to it, his actions have consequences, he shuld be prepared to accept whatever the consequences of those actions are, for example, if Dick wished revenge upon this man (as would be a common wish with people in Dick's situation) then Fred should not consider this immoral. If he cannot accept the consequences of his actions (all of them) then he should not have commited this act in the first place. As a rational human being, he has aided in violating an agreement. No matter of what "quallity" this agreement is in, the agreement is still there.

Andrew


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.