Random Painted HIghway
Member
Do you not believe that an adult can be groomed much like a child can be? Wasn't there a thread here just the other day about saying with an abuser and the psychology behind it?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Is it morally wrong to get involved with someone who is in a relationship?
- Thread starter TheDanger
- Start date
- Status
Do you not believe that an adult can be groomed much like a child can be? Wasn't there a thread here just the other day about saying with an abuser and the psychology behind it?
Reizo Ryuu
Member
The guy who hired him has the final say, in this case the hired person is nothing more then a "service", a murderweapon if you will.
Again with the horrible analogies, I really should just duck out and play mah gamez.
This really also isn't what the conversation is about.
Oh so the actual guy who does do the killing isn't in the wrong at all? I didn't expect you to take that position
Zen_Arcade
Banned
No, the act itself is adultery, and anyone involved in it is committing it. Not everyone coming out of the situation has to be an adulterer, but whoever is involved in it is committing it.
Just as robbing a bank is a crime and anyone involved in it is committing it even if they never set foot inside the bank. Not everyone in the situation has to be charged as a bank robber, but they're all still committing a bank robbery as a whole.
Reizo Ryuu
Member
Thanks for twisting my words. What do you even gain from making stupid posts like this?
Sure, but once again, that is not the situation being asked about by the OP and in this thread, as much as you all want to keep changing the discussion.
If you want to discuss the morality of an abuser, then ask about it. I'll be happy to have the discussion.
Because changing the circumstances or adding more information changes the morality of things.
The point of my analogy was that two people can obviously share responsibility for something even if one of them has the final say.. you said "that's a horrible analogy, because it's the other guy who has the final say", implying that the guy doing the hiring was the only one responsible. Otherwise you sort of agree with me, that responsibility is shared regardless of who has the final say, in which case I don't get why my analogy was bad?
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
So are you saying it could be immoral in some circumstances?
zorlaczerohero
Banned
My wife was living with someone else when we met, we flirted, we went out "as friends", we got drunk and slept together. She left him a week or so later and we've been together for over 15 years, have 3 children and are very happy together. Sometimes people in an unhappy relationship need something else to make them realise they could be happier. She may have stayed with him for another 4 years, got pregnant and then realised she didn't really like him very much. At that point it's more difficult to get out.
I didn't know the other guy and I feel no remorse over what occurred. Their relationship was over, he just didn't know it yet. Saying that, going in with the intention of breaking up a good relationship is all kinds of wrong.
As to the question of trust after something like this occurs, it really has no bearing. He was a different person, their relationship was different to ours. I fulfill her needs whether emotionally, sexually etc. he didn't.
I didn't know the other guy and I feel no remorse over what occurred. Their relationship was over, he just didn't know it yet. Saying that, going in with the intention of breaking up a good relationship is all kinds of wrong.
As to the question of trust after something like this occurs, it really has no bearing. He was a different person, their relationship was different to ours. I fulfill her needs whether emotionally, sexually etc. he didn't.
The influence a 3rd party has over a cheater is not very relatable to a hired hitman.
Absolutely. I have maintained this position throughout this entire thread and discussion.
But with the information provided by the OP, and no further information, which is the subject, nothing immoral has occurred on their end.
Once you add a bunch of other characteristics to the situation, you can't just assume the result will be the same.
Fixed that for you.
So the problem is knowing whether the relationship is good or not beforehand, I agree sometimes you can know, but I'd say usually you don't know if it's beyond repair or not.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
At what point would it become immoral? You mentioned co-worker, would it be immoral to sleep with your co-workers partner?
Random Painted HIghway
Member
Pages and pages later you're stick to the op guy. Alrighty then. An op that Is very scant on the facts of the scenario and call for opinions in a seemingly open ended manner that extend beyond his again,scant facts.
He said the thing that responsibility depends on is who has the final say. I was just pointing out that logic doesn't really seem to hold up.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
That's kinda been mentioned throughout the thread.
For example, sleeping with your best friend's girlfriend is immoral - not because of the "abetting" of cheating, but because he is your friend and you're breaking the bro-code.
I don't think it's a great way to describe it either.
To me it's as simple as "the person responsible is the one who made the promise being broken." That is what cheating is about.. not the sex act.. the promise being broken.
* by responsible I mean morally responsible.. their decision may have been influenced by the other person, but that person has no moral responsibility because they are not part of the promise being broken
Once again, I need more information. Is one member of the situation in a position of power? Morals depend on everything surrounding things.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
With friends it may be possible to have a tacit agreement not to sleep with each other's partners, but I doubt anyone has sat down with their co-worker and agreed not to sleep with their partner. So why would it be immoral? If you never agreed not to sleep with your best friends girlfriend why would it be immoral to do so?
honestly, as long as they aren't married or with kids why not. I mean don't destroy a family.
but as somebody said earlier in the thread, people aren't property. it may suck for the person getting cheated on but that's the partners fault.
this is coming from the viewpoint of somebody in their early 20's. if I'm really into a girl and she has a boyfriend. I'm not going to actively break up their relationship, but if she's unhappy and comes to me I'm not going to say no
but as somebody said earlier in the thread, people aren't property. it may suck for the person getting cheated on but that's the partners fault.
this is coming from the viewpoint of somebody in their early 20's. if I'm really into a girl and she has a boyfriend. I'm not going to actively break up their relationship, but if she's unhappy and comes to me I'm not going to say no
Reizo Ryuu
Member
Wrong, a getaway driver will always be charged with robbery because of conspiracy. Conspiracy makes you an accomplice by default, which at law means you have the same degree of guilt as the person they conspired with. Which again is why it's a terrible analogy to use because the driver is (almost) never a third party.
Please stop using it.
The analogy was bad because it involves an individual solliciting a service, this is what the service does and thus doesn't have "final say" after agreeing to provide said service.
This is almost as if you are suggesting the person cheating doesn't have final say over whether or not they want to cheat.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Just the guy who sits in the cubicle next to you. You discuss game of thrones and complain about your boss together. Go for drinks after work sometimes.
I think morality is more complicated than that. I think you're right that because the promise is there it puts the actual cheater way more in the wrong. But I think the third party who acted without any consideration for another person's feelings is a little at fault too. (Depending on the situation to some extent)
I'll ask here as well: on what basis do you ascribe "responsibility?" That is, what is your reasoning behind your belief that 100% of the responsibility should be placed on the cheater?
Mammoth Jones
Member
To me it's just a bit scummy to be "that guy". Plus I don't want to deal with the drama. Nor the potential STD's involved.
I mean if you're in high school or college that's one thing. Nothing is serious at that stage. But smashing a married woman? Nah. I don't wanna be a part of destroying a family.
I mean if you're in high school or college that's one thing. Nothing is serious at that stage. But smashing a married woman? Nah. I don't wanna be a part of destroying a family.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
It is part of the bro-code, that is the implicit agreement you enter once you bond with a man.
This is a good way to summarize yours (and many other's point.) And it's perfectly understandable.
I just don't personally hold strangers who do nothing directly to me morally responsible for my feelings at all. They aren't breaking a vow with me, they aren't the one who holds the responsibility for that vow being broken.
Like I literally have trouble drumming up any ill will towards the guys who have slept with my ex's.
Perhaps that is something "odd" about my emotional state and has led me to my moral conclusions. But I also just feel it's the more healthy way to be.. in fact I think beyond the fact your partner is "more responsible" for your feelings than a stranger is, YOU are more responsible for your feelings than a stranger is.
People don't "need" to rage, or feel incredibly depressed or hurt over things.. I think part of what teaches them to do so are things like moral absolutism surrounding cheating/cheaters and "3rd parties."
While I have never felt anger towards a 3rd party and can't relate.. I can relate to the devastating feeling of being cheated on..
I can also say that I feel like I've really changed my world view to where I am not really devastated by those things anymore.. and I think that's a better way to be. Part of that is owning my own feelings about things.. owning my own role in feeling pain/rage/etc.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
You mean how multiple people in this thread have said that the person who helps someone cheat isn't as bad as the person who is cheating, but are still at some kind of fault? Are you trying to prove my point? Because now you're just directly adding to my analogy to make it apply more. No one said they have the same degree of guilt, but they're still charged with a crime and are guilty just by being involved with the act. No one looks at the getaway driver and acts like he isn't a bank robber. He's just a bank robber with a lesser role in the bank robbery, so his charges aren't as harsh. Just as you're guilty of committing adultery but wouldn't have the same degree of guilt because you aren't the adulterer in the situation.
And considering multiple people have pointed out why it's a perfectly reasonable analogy, I'll use it as often as a please. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not apt.
It's right in the post.. they made the promise, they are responsible to that promise. You are not morally responsible for other people's decisions, only your own.. and you are not deciding to break a promise when you sleep with someone who has a significant other.
Again, separate yourself from your thoughts of what CAUSES the event of cheating to occur... I am not talking about the neuroscience behind who may have influenced a decision, I'm talking morally responsible.
I actually agree with you that you should take responsibility for your own feelings as well. I think the world would be a better place if everyone gave a fuck about everyone else too though. That's basically what it comes down to, having some amount of care and empathy for people you don't even know.
justjustin
Member
I'm seeing a trend of responses appealing to "clean hands" mentality if you're encroaching on a relationship, so I'll respond in general:
The outside person who helps the cheater has as much agency as the people already in the relationship. I pursued someone who was already in a relationship and my actions directly influenced this person and the outcome of the relationship. Do not imply these people are powerless, passive entities. They're capable of as much moral responsibility as anyone else, so work from that premise, at least.
If you really think people are free to do as they please, then there's no reason to place most of the blame on the cheater by default. And you're not as open-minded as you think when you relegate an individual as less autonomous to suit your bias.
The outside person who helps the cheater has as much agency as the people already in the relationship. I pursued someone who was already in a relationship and my actions directly influenced this person and the outcome of the relationship. Do not imply these people are powerless, passive entities. They're capable of as much moral responsibility as anyone else, so work from that premise, at least.
If you really think people are free to do as they please, then there's no reason to place most of the blame on the cheater by default. And you're not as open-minded as you think when you relegate an individual as less autonomous to suit your bias.
I understand, and I'm trying to understand the basis of your morality. I'm asking you to explain your justifications for your morality.
You need to provide an underpinning for these concepts and you haven't done so. It is not "right in the post," as you suggested.
Your logic seems circular. What are you responsible for? According to you, you are responsible for your own decisions. Okay, then, what are "your own decisions?"
I generally do.. in fact.. nearly constantly.
If you put your blinker on and you need in a lane, I'll let you in.. I am incredibly polite, respectful of people.. if someone is standing around confused near a line I don't jump in front of them.. I get in the line and then ask them if they want to be in front of me.. I return loose shopping carts to their bin so people avoid dents in their cars.. I tip 20-30%.. I am generous with my friends and family.. give to charity.. believe in progressive taxation despite having a high income... I babysit, help people move, do favors without expecting them in return....
I just don't think my moral role on this earth has anything to do with other people's relationships. I also don't try and change my significant others relationships with other people.. if their is a flirty friend in their life and they seem to enjoy flirting back.. I don't ask for that to change.
At one point in my life I would have.. but I realized how non constructive that generally is. I either choose to be with someone who likes being flirted with by that guy, or I choose to not be with them..
I welcome any and all influences on my relationships.
I didn't really say that. Where did I say my point was you are responsible for your own actions?
You are responsible for the promises you keep.. the vows you make. Other people are not morally responsible for your promises and vows.. that is what is wrong with cheating.. not having sex, but breaking a vow not to.
Why have all of your responses to me pretended I'm not saying this repeatedly?
If you don't address the promise/vow aspect.. please stop responding.
Reizo Ryuu
Member
Actually yes they are, did you not read what I posted about being an accomplice? it literally means you have the same degree of guilt, you are confusing accessory with accomplice.
The point here is you using this analogy to justify your use of "commiting adultery" vs being an "adulterer", you previously said the getaway driver is commiting robbery(adultery), but might not even be charged as being one (adulterer), but this is 100% wrong cause the getaway driver will be charged as such, because they are committing the crime.
There is no difference between commiting adultery and being an adulterer, and you just confirmed it by saying "he's just a bank robber with a lesser role"; he's still a bank robber, no matter what his role, that committed bank robbery, and (literally) holds the same degree of guilt. The third party can't commit adultery because they can't be an adulterer. If you want to use Conspiracy as your reasoning that they can (you shouldn't, it's really dumb, a third party can't conspire unless it's involuntary), then now you are basically saying the third party holds the same degree of guilt as the person that wants to cheat.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
My point with what you bolded didn't mean that they would get the same charge as the other bank robbers and have the same level of guilt, it meant that people wouldn't see the getaway driver as morally doing nothing wrong just because they didn't have the biggest role, which is what you're implying your actions are. They'd still see him as a bad person who tried to help people steal money, just as people see people helping other people cheat still looks like you helping to do something you know is bad. The getaway driver still knowingly helped in committing something immoral, so it doesn't really matter if he didn't have the biggest role in it, that doesn't mean people think what he did was OK, which is what you're implying what you're doing is. They might understand why what he did wasn't AS BAD, but you're implying NO guilt in your situation.
You're implying that there is nothing wrong with what you're doing. People probably don't see you as a bad of a person as the person who is actually cheating, but even letting yourself get involved in a situation that could obviously and unnecessarily hurt someone solely for your own gain is generally going to get looked down upon in society. It just shows a disregard for your fellow man.
That's what the getaway man represents. He's certainly not even close to being the most guilty person in the situation, and people usually agree that they don't deserve the same ire as people who actually did the dirty work, but he still isn't viewed as a decent person. That's the way people see people who help other people cheat. Sure, you're not the most guilty in the situation, but you're getting involved in a situation that could really hurt other people for nothing more then your own personal gain.
You stated that you are responsible for your own actions in several places. Most immediately, right here:
you said:
You explicitly state here that you are responsible for your own decisions.
I don't think you understand this conversation very well. Again, you said the person "responsible" is entirely the person who is cheating. I asked how you decide who is responsible -- what method do you use to decide? Your response was that people are responsible for their own decisions. I am asking what qualifies as "their own decisions." In other words, I'm asking for the underpinnings of your assumptions.
Reizo Ryuu
Member
All of this sounds like you are trying to justify calling it immoral because of implied malice.
I do not assume the third party is malicious by default, in reality I can only really consider my partner's agency, which in the case of cheating is selfish and possibly malicious. I can't say anything about the third party cause I don't know them.
The decision I'm discussing is to break a vow or promise. Said it repeatedly.. like... it's the end of the fragmented sentence you quoted..
.asked you to address it.,,
Enough. Have a nice day Opiate.
You too! Unfortunately, I don't think you quite grasp this conversation: please feel free to PM me if you would like to respond to the question I asked in turn. Thanks!
Zen_Arcade
Banned
It doesn't matter if it's malicious or not. Apathy of other peoples feelings isn't exactly seen as a desirable trait either. I don't think anyone is saying that anyone would put you at the same fault as the person cheating, but it's still seen as bad behavior because you're knowingly hurting someone for nothing more then your own desire. I mean, it's seen as selfish and selfishness generally falls on the negative spectrum of societies morality.
Reizo Ryuu
Member
The third party isn't (by default) knowingly hurting someone for nothing more then their own desire, to assume this must be the case is myopic. This isn't even about having sex, it's about trust, and the only ones who can betray the trust of a relationship, is anyone that's directly part of that relationship. The third party doesn't wrong the person who's promise was broken, however their partner going out at night looking for a hook up did because only their volition matters, because they are a human being that (assumingly) knows what they want.
Which in this case is not their partner. I can't call mr x third party immoral, simply cause they aren't part of the promise I made with my partner.
BravesCountry
Banned
If a girl wants to cheat with you and you don't let her, the boyfriend should still want out of the relationship. Whether or not she is successful in cheating doesn't change that she wants to, and isn't someone a person should necessarily be with. (this is assuming she would've gone through with it)
So I get that it is amoral to participate because that could totally crush the guy, but then is it amoral not to tell him as well?
Maybe you could tell him, but if he is a stranger, that is crossing some sort of divide.
Maybe you SHOULD tell him even if he is a stranger.
So I get that it is amoral to participate because that could totally crush the guy, but then is it amoral not to tell him as well?
Maybe you could tell him, but if he is a stranger, that is crossing some sort of divide.
Maybe you SHOULD tell him even if he is a stranger.
Baldwin_the_First
Member
The fact that he knows that person is in a relationship while acting on that impulse is taking part on whatever happens in that relationship and the mindset of that person that is being cheated on. That person also has responsability in the mess he and that other person commited. Saying he isn't hurting anyone's feeling or destroying anyone's confidence is just ridiculous.
But I bet the slimy lil shits that do act on impulses, even whem knowing about the relationship, would love to think what you're saying is right.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
Most people assume by default that sleeping with someone's SO is going to hurt the partner. I don't know why that wouldn't be your default assumption.
It doesn't matter if you broke some promise, general conduct between people in society is to not knowingly do something that might hurt other people for your own benefit. And you can say that you don't know that it's going to hurt the partner, but it's generally assumed that if someone is in a relationship they're there because they have some sort of emotional investment. If the person knew the SO was OK with it, you wouldn't have to hide it from them. It could be out in the open and no one would have to lie about anything. But it's not, because the action is obviously going to hurt them. I don't know how you could say you have no idea if what you're doing is going to hurt someone when you're obviously hiding your actions specifically so the SO doesn't find out.
- Status