21 replies to this topic

[*Anastasia]

In my last poll on morality, there was a question trying to gauge the acceptability of married people having affairs. There seemed to be some disagreement among respondents as to the particulars of what this meant. Is it any form of cheating? Is it an ongoing extramarital relationship? Is it merely an open relationship? Is it anything non-monogamous whatsoever?

 

I interpreted it to mean the first of these, but I can see how confusion may have arisen. I also didn't want to clarify, because I used the wording that existed in the original Gallup and Abacus polls, and figured that if people here were confused, people in the general population would be as well, so the results should mimic each other in terms of the results obtained.

 

However, it left me wondering about the specifics of what people found appropriate or inappropriate that led them to vote the way they did, so I decided to make another poll with more specific questions and more granular answers. Votes are still anonymous, lest anyone feel their opinion would reflect poorly on them, but I do encourage those who are open to it to discuss their votes and why they voted the way they did in the comments.

 

For my part, consent remains the key for me. What goes on in people's bedrooms is their own concern, as long as everyone involved—both directly and indirectly—agrees to the rules of play. If you're cheating on your spouse, whether it's a one-off incident or an ongoing relationship, that's a problem in my eyes. On the other hand, if your spouse agrees you can see other people, then that's your own damned business. The same goes for polygamy. I've been in polyamorous relationships before, and certainly never considered it immoral, nor do I consider that it's the job of the Crown or the State to view it as immoral, either: which is why government regulation of marriage, and defining it strictly in a monogamist mindset, upsets me greatly.

 

When he reformed the Criminal Code of Canada to loosen restrictions on homosexuality in 1967, then-Justice Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau famously said, 'There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.' It perhaps wasn't feasible at the time to completely adhere to that principle, but in my view, it's about time for it to be invoked again, and properly.

[Shokkou]

For me, the term "affair" implies a lack of informed consent on the part of one side of the matter which in my opinion makes it categorically wrong. If everyone involved is informed and consenting, I may still find the arrangement distasteful but the simple solution there is to just not ask me about it. Easy stuff.

[Redezra]

Aaaand I am polyamorous.

 

I think having a relationship without talking about it with your partners is usually a bad idea, although I could imagine a polycule that allows that. Although then everyone would know everyone was doing that... I'm not sure that would classify as "without consent".

[*Anastasia]

Aaaand I am polyamorous.

 

I think having a relationship without talking about it with your partners is usually a bad idea, although I could imagine a polycule that allows that. Although then everyone would know everyone was doing that... I'm not sure that would classify as "without consent".

 

Yeah, pretty much. Not knowing something happened is not necessarily the same thing as not consenting to it. If I say to my partner, 'You can have side relationships, but I don't want to hear about them,' there exists the implicit consent that such relationships exist without my knowledge.

[Thrash]

this was an easy one, same answer for all

[KiWi]

"A married person [...]"

• Always morally wrong.

"A married person [...]"

• Always morally wrong.

"An unmarried person in a committed relationship [...]"

• Always morally wrong.

"An unmarried person in a committed relationship [...]"

• Always morally wrong.

"An open marriage (ie, a marriage where the spouses agree that each may engage in extramarital sexual relationships)"

• "Usually morally wrong" even though I wanted to knee jerk to 'always' I could perhaps imagine a sceneario where this worked out (extremely rare to the case of being non-existant). But because it could perceipably exist, I couldn't say 'always'.

"An open relationship (as above) between unmarried partners"

• "Usually morally acceptable" this one gets the edge, if only because, of the unmarried part (which is really the most important part).

"Any form of polygamous marriage (ie, any consensual marriage involving three or more people)"

• "Always morally wrong". Again the 'married' part is the trigger word.

"Any form of polygamous relationship (as above) between unmarried partners"

• "Usually morally wrong". Even more rare than the open marriage bit, but since it could happen I couldn't say always.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Any phrase that begins with "always" generally meets with skepticism from me. I can come up with any number of scenarios in which it would not be morally wrong for someone in a relationship to have an affair.

[KiWi]

Any phrase that begins with "always" generally meets with skepticism from me. I can come up with any number of scenarios in which it would not be morally wrong for someone in a relationship to have an affair.

I am of the same mindset on "always" however we also have the ambigutiy of morals. Even if it's wrong in one regard, it can still be the right thing to do (e.g. Bombing Japan. WAM! I went there).

I think I made my point. Now if we agree, or how you weigh all the aspects that go into it, that's a different conversation. However given the words 'committed' or 'married' I was able to (almost by definition in my book) say it was always wrong.

If your wife is dying, and you have an affair with her nurse, you are morally wrong because you're cheating on your wife.... who is dying. Are you 'wrong'? Who can say. People have needs. Emotionally and physically, and just in so many ways.

[slimshadyinc]

Morals. Morality to me is what is right. If you are committed to one person, married or not. Any relation outside that commitment is immoral. But if your relations are consensually uncommitted, then there its completely moral to have as many relations as you want. Seems like the majority agree with me on that.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I see morality as situational. Blanket moral codes that do not take situational variations into account are nothing more than dogma, and dogma is by its very nature immoral. It takes the decision-making out of our hands and gives it to an arbitrary set of rules that may or may not apply. It makes us all slaves to someone else's rules, not independent, sentient, decision-making beings with choices. Do the best you can given the situation, it's all any of us can do.

 

In terms of affairs, I can think of any number of situations in which someone might be trapped in a loveless, abusive, or otherwise toxic relationship in which having an affair would be perfectly justified. All it takes is a little imagination.

[He who posts]

I'm a atheist apparently so I'm banned from having morals and a general sense of right and wrong.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I'm a atheist apparently so I'm banned from having morals and a general sense of right and wrong.

 

If your morals are only based on a fear of punishment in some afterlife they're really not morals at all, just CYA. One could make a strong argument that only atheists can have true morality.

[Thrash]

It's not a matter of what you fear the repercussions will be, it's a matter of how your decisions are affecting your significant other. I voted always morally wrong on all on these, as I look at other's people feelings before my own. Morals play a greater part on others then yourself.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

It's not a matter of what you fear the repercussions will be, it's a matter of how your decisions are affecting your significant other. I voted always morally wrong on all on these, as I look at other's people feelings before my own. Morals play a greater part on others then yourself.

 

What if you're in a toxic relationship and your significant other is abusive, either emotionally or physically (or both)? What if you're trapped and can't get out? What if your significant other has affairs all the time? What if they make a habit of hurting you? Like I said above, all it takes is a little imagination to think of a situation in which an affair would be perfectly justified.

[Thrash]

I don't live under the if you do it, I'm going to do it too and that makes it okay. So, no, I disagree with this. If your significant other is having an affair (immoral), you don't retaliate by having an affair (immoral), you just end the relationship. Period. 

 

If you are getting beaten by someone, having an affair is not going to heal that.. that needs to reported. If there are apprehensions about reporting it, then you need to end the relationship. Period.

 

Tell me how you can be trapped in a a relationship and not get out? Besides financially-wise. And at that point, I'd rather end the relationship and live on the street if that's what it came down to.

[*Anastasia]

I don't live under the if you do it, I'm going to do it too and that makes it okay. So, no, I disagree with this. If your significant other is having an affair (immoral), you don't retaliate by having an affair (immoral), you just end the relationship. Period. 

 

If you are getting beaten by someone, having an affair is not going to heal that.. that needs to reported. If there are apprehensions about reporting it, then you need to end the relationship. Period.

 

Tell me how you can be trapped in a a relationship and not get out? Besides financially-wise. And at that point, I'd rather end the relationship and live on the street if that's what it came down to.

 

There are lots of reasons one might feel trapped in a relationship. Financial, yes, and sure maybe you'd rather live on the streets—but what if you have kids? What, then? Are you going to leave the kids with your abusive partner? Are you going to make the kids homeless as well? Or what if your partner is so abusive you fear for your life if you attempted to leave? What if you feared for your kids' lives? Maybe you'd take that risk to get out of it, but that's a hard call to just assume others will make, or, as you would seem to be doing, making that call out to be the only acceptable one.

 

I fully agree that tit-for-tat affairs don't make them morally acceptable, assuming one feels they can leave the relationship. But if one feels they can't leave the relationship, if one feels trapped in such a relationship? Yeah, I'd tend to side with Jorost, then. Certainly, having an affair isn't going to help in such a situation, but that doesn't necessarily make it immoral on its face. Just because it's a bad idea doesn't mean it's necessarily morally unjustifiable. The situations Jorost brought up are ones I hadn't considered when I voted always immoral, and having considered them now, I would amend my vote.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

There are any number of reasons why people get trapped in toxic relationships. It's not always as easy as saying "just get out."

 

My point is that there are no absolutes. You can't simply say X or Y is ALWAYS immoral, because it's not hard to come up with exceptions. All it takes is one example to negate the "always."

[BlackOut227]

What about vegetable affairs?

[KiWi]

I don't live under the if you do it, I'm going to do it too and that makes it okay. So, no, I disagree with this. If your significant other is having an affair (immoral), you don't retaliate by having an affair (immoral), you just end the relationship. Period. 
 
If you are getting beaten by someone, having an affair is not going to heal that.. that needs to reported. If there are apprehensions about reporting it, then you need to end the relationship. Period.
 
Tell me how you can be trapped in a a relationship and not get out? Besides financially-wise. And at that point, I'd rather end the relationship and live on the street if that's what it came down to.

 
There are lots of reasons one might feel trapped in a relationship. Financial, yes, and sure maybe you'd rather live on the streets—but what if you have kids? What, then? Are you going to leave the kids with your abusive partner? Are you going to make the kids homeless as well? Or what if your partner is so abusive you fear for your life if you attempted to leave? What if you feared for your kids' lives? Maybe you'd take that risk to get out of it, but that's a hard call to just assume others will make, or, as you would seem to be doing, making that call out to be the only acceptable one.
 
I fully agree that tit-for-tat affairs don't make them morally acceptable, assuming one feels they can leave the relationship. But if one feels they can't leave the relationship, if one feels trapped in such a relationship? Yeah, I'd tend to side with Jorost, then. Certainly, having an affair isn't going to help in such a situation, but that doesn't necessarily make it immoral on its face. Just because it's a bad idea doesn't mean it's necessarily morally unjustifiable. The situations Jorost brought up are ones I hadn't considered when I voted always immoral, and having considered them now, I would amend my vote.
 

 
 

There are any number of reasons why people get trapped in toxic relationships. It's not always as easy as saying "just get out."
 
My point is that there are no absolutes. You can't simply say X or Y is ALWAYS immoral, because it's not hard to come up with exceptions. All it takes is one example to negate the "always."

While I see the logic you two are using, and can agree, I don't know if I can fully accept it.

Simply, you can do something immoral, but be morally right. (now we're splitting hairs).

I can steal bread, to feed a starving child. Stealing is wrong. Helping a child isn't. Now if it was right of me to do that (or use my own money. Or report it. Or to do any of a million other things) I don't know. But, nothing is so simple.

It's why, I hinged my votes on if "married" or "commit ed" were used. Those words mean something. If there's an exception, then it's not committed. Or, something else has happened. Or more so, if you give a promise, and break it, you're committing another moral wrong, even if it might be morally correct (or morally okay?) to do what you're doing. It's like, one way or another you're breaking some rule.

No matter what you do. You're doing something wrong. You just have to choose the sin you're most comfortable with. To paraphrase someone.

[*Anastasia]

While I see the logic you two are using, and can agree, I don't know if I can fully accept it.

Simply, you can do something immoral, but be morally right. (now we're splitting hairs).

I can steal bread, to feed a starving child. Stealing is wrong. Helping a child isn't. Now if it was right of me to do that (or use my own money. Or report it. Or to do any of a million other things) I don't know. But, nothing is so simple.

It's why, I hinged my votes on if "married" or "commit ed" were used. Those words mean something. If there's an exception, then it's not committed. Or, something else has happened. Or more so, if you give a promise, and break it, you're committing another moral wrong, even if it might be morally correct (or morally okay?) to do what you're doing. It's like, one way or another you're breaking some rule.

No matter what you do. You're doing something wrong. You just have to choose the sin you're most comfortable with. To paraphrase someone.

 

I had given some more thought to the 'committed' option when I was considering how I'd amend my vote, thinking that I might leave that as 'always wrong' simply because if you're being abused by your partner, I'd not consider that a 'committed relationship' anymore. Problem is, that leaves the 'married' option as the one that would have to be amended to 'usually wrong,' since there's no specification of commitment in how I wrote the poll. You could argue that marriage itself is that commitment, and that in an abusive marriage, the marriage itself is voided by the abuse, but then you've got even more problems, since a legal marriage would probably still exist, even if the spiritual or emotional marriage didn't. One more thing to pile on my miles-high stack of reasons I support marriage privatization, I guess.

 

FWIW, I absolutely feel it's moral to steal bread to feed a starving child, or to feed yourself if you're starving, or what not—but that's hugely tangential to the topic of the thread, and if we're going to get into a general discussion of morality, a new thread should probably be created.