Does Desire Justify Need?

[Dunemeister]

It is not besides the point, it is exactly on point. I am suggesting an ethical system that answers the question asked in the OP. Kant answers no. Desire is not a moral justification.

Oh, in that case I misunderstood where the conversation was going, and I am well and truly corrected.

You crafted your story in response to those (including myself) who argued that the harm of an action is a major factor in considering the morality of that action. But in Kant’s system harm (or the lack of harm) is irrelevant.

Quite right. Strange I should have mistaken an ally for an opponent.

I think most people follow some form of consequential ethics, but also include some aspects of deontological ethics. Strangely I find that many people think they are strictly consequentialists when they are not, or they think they are strictly deontologicalists when they are not. Most people follow as mix of both. When you raise an issue like cheating on a spouse most people will say it is wrong due to the harm it causes (consequentialism). But even if it does not cause harm they still think it is wrong due to some deontological aspects of their personal ethical system. Kant offers just such a deontological system of ethics, which would explain why people still feel it is wrong even if it does no harm.

Okay, I like your analysis of how people shift the ground of their argument. I've been away from the academy far too long it seems.

“Do onto others as you would have them do onto you” would also be an example of as deontological system of ethics. Which is how autodidact justified her feelings that cheating is wrong even if (big if) no harm is done.

Okay, you just earned yourself frubals. Excellent post, FP!

 

[Autodidact]

Why, if there's no harm done (or there's harm done that you can live with).

Causing suffering is only one element of ethics. It is an important source of ethics, but not the only one.

In my story, there is no such agreement about an "open" relationship. And if I can lie and cheat without getting caught, why shouldn't I just do it? Perhaps there's nothing "immoral" about it unless I get caught.

You can't lie without being a liar. You can't cheat without being a cheater AND KNOWING IT. You have to live with yourself the rest of your life, and the knowledge that you lied and cheated to the person you love most in the world. When you review how good a job you did at loving her and nurturing the most important relationship you have, you will always know, whether she does or not, that you lied and cheated. How does that make you feel?

Okay, what if I agree with you that it does the harm you suggest, reducing intimacy. What if I think that's a fair tradeoff for the pleasure of the illicit sex?

You would be factually mistaken. The wise people who tell us that lvoe is the most important thing turn out to be objectively correct. Unless you're a sociopath, you will be happier taking care of your most important relationship than your immediate lust. Study after study has shown us that the most important factor in human happiness is our intimate relationships. You can't cheat without cheating yourself out of that.

After all, what's supposed to matter are (a) my desire, and (b) harm as the reason why I shouldn't succumb to it. My desire is quite strong and the damage (as I see it) minimal. I can manage the duplicity because I'm a good liar and besides, the girl I'm having the affair with is HOT! Pretty darned worth it to me. So again, why shouldn't I?

I'd appreciate it if you don't try to tell me what I'm supposed to think, rather ask me what I actually think. What I actually think is that personal ethics are objective, not subjective, and that what you are espousing is not conducive to your personal happiness; I strongly advise against it.

 

[Autodidact]

Perhaps, but this is beside the point. The OP asks whether mere desire justifies acting on the desire. In my story, I am doing what most people consider wrong but there's no harm done. I'm unclear how punting to Kant solves anything.

I deny that there's no harm done. If nothing else, tremendous harm is done both to your integrity, and to your credibility. Because, again, research shows us that the best way to develop your credibility is by being trustworthy.

 

[Dunemeister]

Causing suffering is only one element of ethics. It is an important source of ethics, but not the only one.

True.

<snip> How does that make you feel?

It would make ME feel terrible. But my story involves a miscreant version of me, one perfectly capable of cheating for the pleasure of it and arranging things so that the harm is either minimal or non-existent. I don't see why this would be impossible. Difficult? Sure, but not impossible. The real world is full of stories of people cheating on their spouses where the violated spouse is utterly and blissfully unaware of it. We can further stipulate in my story that it was a one-night stand that was never repeated. So we don't have a case of continual wrongdoing but a one-off. I don't see how, if desire is morally relevant and harm has been reduced to zero the cheater shouldn't go ahead with his tryst.

You would be factually mistaken. The wise people who tell us that lvoe is the most important thing turn out to be objectively correct. Unless you're a sociopath, you will be happier taking care of your most important relationship than your immediate lust.

Well, maybe having this tryst improves my love relationship with my partner. This has been known to happen. If fulfilling a desire without harm makes an action permissable, then I suppose if a person's cheating improves his relationship with his wife, he is morally obligated to cheat, yes?

Life in the real world shows us that it is entirely possible to cheat on one's spouse without the spouse knowing. There are at least some people who do so and continue to lead a satisfying life with their spouse. So far, Auto, you've not given any reason to think this is not possible. And if it's possible for a person, there is therefore no reason for the person not to go ahead with his tryst. He can do it, get away with it, and spare his wife the knowledge and his marriage the discomfort. People do this ALL THE TIME. You might wish to say that all such people are self-deceived or whatever. Fine, let them be. If self-deception leads to happiness, then bully for self deception.

Study after study has shown us that the most important factor in human happiness is our intimate relationships. You can't cheat without cheating yourself out of that.

Why not, especially a one-off? It may take some time, but many normal people can get over their guilt of a one-off affair. It happens all the time. Besides, it's hard to imagine what harm the one-off would do in the case I've described. And since that's so, it's full steam ahead.

I'd appreciate it if you don't try to tell me what I'm supposed to think, rather ask me what I actually think. What I actually think is that personal ethics are objective, not subjective, and that what you are espousing is not conducive to your personal happiness; I strongly advise against it.

I wasn't trying to tell you what to believe. I only made reference to the terms of the OP. The question is whether the existence of a desire itself justifies fulfilling that desire. The answer has so far been yes, but with the caveat not to do harm. I have suggested that it's possible to fulfill an illicit desire without doing harm. If my story is possible, and so far no reason has been given to think it isn't, it follows that desire doesn't authorize fulfilling the desire, even when harm is not an issue.

 

[Sunstone]

If you have a natural desire for something, does that necessarily justify gratification of that desire?

Not necessarily. One should not gratify desires that cause undue harm to others. For instance, the desire to have sex with someone should not be expressed, let alone gratified, if doing so would cause undue harm.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I'm a sexually healthy straight man. I have a strong desire to sleep with my secretary and I can arrange it so that my wife will never know about the affair/tryst. On what grounds can we say that I ought not to sleep with my secretary?

Perhaps we might say that doing so will cause harm to my marriage. Let's assume that's so. My marriage will not be as happy as it was before, and perhaps my wife's happiness will not be as great as before. She doesn't know I'm cheating, but she still notices my distance, perhaps my absences. She's a wonderful lady and just assumes I'm always working late. She assumes I'm overworked and stressed (that's what I tell her anyway), and she begins to feel lonely. Let's also add that she's much more committed to the vows than I am and chooses to remain faithful.

So much for the wife's side. Let's also stipulate that the woman and I have blood tests proving that we're clean -- no STDs. I've had a vasectomy and she's had tubal ligation, so there's no chance of pregnancy. So there's no danger of disease (damage to me or the lover). Let's further stipulate that the woman has no other intimate relationships (no danger of jealousy from her end either).

If this is the scenario, why shouldn't I give in to my sexual desire for the other woman? I am harming my wife in a way, but is it really all that bad? So bad I should refrain (the pleasure will be immense, she's a freak between the sheets). If we stipulate that there is minimal or no harm, I assume most of you would say "Hey, go for it!" But that just seems wrong to me. Whether or not there is any harm done by my fling, I should refrain. My desire for the other woman does not, in itself, justify my fulfilling that desire.

This may come down to a battle of intutions, but for the record let me just say that harm is not a necessary or sufficient condition for morally prohibiting or permitting an action.

Not sufficient? Maybe. But necessary? Absolutely. The problem is you are overlooking one avenue of harm and that throws the whole "moral equation" out of whack so to speak. You are forgetting the harm done to the institution of marriage (pair bonding) and society at large. If everyone cheated on their spouses, then pair bonding could not exist. There would be no trust. Actions which are unreasonable when generalized to society at large are not necessary immoral, but it is a strong indicator that what you are doing is a behavior which should be minimized (killing person who is about to rob a bank isn't a behavior which should be used across all situations, but there are very easily conceived situations in which it would be appropriate). So you are "reneging" on a "social contract" (even if it is only implied) and this undermines (however small amount that it does each time you engage in your "anti-social" actions) the social glue that holds us together harmoniously. Thus your action could very easily be described as "unjust."

The other factor which is seemingly overlooked is one of time. Total benefit and total harm done have to be looked at in longitudinally. Is the amount of benefit garnered in your short time together out-weighing the life-time of diminished happiness your wife is having and the stress of not being found out by your peers (because you know that they will judge you in error if found out)? Perhaps it is. Perhaps you and your "wife" are not particularly well-suited for one and other. But this begs the question of why are you still married to your wife and why haven't you engaged in "formal" pair bonding with this secretary?


MTF

 

[Dunemeister]

Not sufficient? Maybe. But necessary? Absolutely. The problem is you are overlooking one avenue of harm and that throws the whole "moral equation" out of whack so to speak. You are forgetting the harm done to the institution of marriage (pair bonding) and society at large. If everyone cheated on their spouses, then pair bonding could not exist. There would be no trust.

Kant again, I see. Thankfully, not everyone cheats, which gives me my way out. My one, isolated cheat does infinitessimally small harm if any at all. No blood, no foul, as they say.

Actions which are unreasonable when generalized to society at large are not necessary immoral, but it is a strong indicator that what you are doing is a behavior which should be minimized (killing person who is about to rob a bank isn't a behavior which should be used across all situations, but there are very easily conceived situations in which it would be appropriate).

So you are "reneging" on a "social contract" (even if it is only implied) and this undermines (however small amount that it does each time you engage in your "anti-social" actions) the social glue that holds us together harmoniously. Thus your action could very easily be described as "unjust."

Okay, but you're losing the track of the argument I think. The OP asked if a person's desire automatically gives one the right to act on it. Others have said, yes but with the qualification that there must be no harm done. I have offered an example of someone following a desire the fulfillment of which most take to be immoral, namely the desire to have sex with someone not his spouse. In my example, I fulfill this desire without causing harm. Nobody is the wiser for my having done it, and we can add that it happens only once. Where's the harm? What I'm saying is that if there's no harm done, those who say that desire (without harm) authorizes an action must agree that my cheat is okay.

In other words, my counterexample refutes consequentialism, the view that what makes an action immoral or wrong is that it has bad consequences for the self or others. You seem to be saying that the harm in my action lays in something very tenuous (not to mention highly philosophically debatable), such as destroying the possibility of marriage in society at large. I'm just not so sure that that much is at stake in my little cheat.

The other factor which is seemingly overlooked is one of time. Total benefit and total harm done have to be looked at in longitudinally.

I prefer latitudinally, myself.

Is the amount of benefit garnered in your short time together out-weighing the life-time of diminished happiness your wife is having and the stress of not being found out by your peers (because you know that they will judge you in error if found out)?

Who says my one-off tryst will generate such a lifetime of diminished happiness for my wife? She doesn't know a thing, and perhaps we can add that my tryst makes me a much more devoted and attentive husband. Who says I'm stressed out by my lies? I have an easily remembered and plausible alibi. It's conceivable (and perfectly workable) to avoid those harmful outcomes you mention. And if I can, why not have the tryst?

Perhaps it is. Perhaps you and your "wife" are not particularly well-suited for one and other. But this begs the question of why are you still married to your wife and why haven't you engaged in "formal" pair bonding with this secretary?

Why imagine we're unsuited? We're perfectly suited, say. She's a great woman and a fantastic mother to our children. She's virtuous and sexy. It just so happens that I'm sexually attracted to my secretary. The question is whether I should act on that desire. The proposal, based on a consequentialist understanding of ethics, has been that a desire confers a right for its satisfaction so long as its satisfaction does not cause harm. I've created an example where no harm is done by satisfying a desire to have sex with a woman not my spouse. The unhappy consequences, on this example, are negligible. The challenge here is to say why, under these circumstances, my action is wrong on a consequentialist understanding of ethics. My example is pretty strong because we all have the intuition that my proposed action is in fact wrong, and there doesn't seem to be any connection with consequences. The wrongness is to be found elsewhere, probably in the neighbourhood of violation of duty. But then we're not talking about consequences anymore, but about duties. A different beast altogether.

 

[Storm]

Kant again, I see. Thankfully, not everyone cheats, which gives me my way out. My one, isolated cheat does infinitessimally small harm if any at all.

Not true, as others have demonstrated, and as you yourself pointed out in the post in question.

No blood, no foul, as they say.

Who says?

Did you miss post #28?

 

[Dunemeister]

Not at all. Harm is the easy part. Not harming people doesn't make you virtuous, though. Cheating on your wife, even if she never gets hurt, which is in itself highly dubious, is dishonorable. It's lying and oathbreaking, at minimum.

I agree with you. My example is designed to counter the view that my desire authorizes an action so long as no harm is done.

It is, though. If your actions harm others, that is "sufficient condition" for prohibiting such action.

What about those cases of doing harm for a greater good, such as feeding a person poison to cure cancer, even where the treatment leaves the person permanently debilitated?

 

[Storm]

I agree with you. My example is designed to counter the view that my desire authorizes an action so long as no harm is done.

It failed, though. The harm in your example is subtle but demonstrable, as the responses have shown.

What about those cases of doing harm for a greater good, such as feeding a person poison to cure cancer, even where the treatment leaves the person permanently debilitated?

That's why we have informed consent.

 

[Valjean]

No, of course not.

 

[Autodidact]

It would make ME feel terrible. But my story involves a miscreant version of me, one perfectly capable of cheating for the pleasure of it and arranging things so that the harm is either minimal or non-existent.

If you are talking about an amoral, sociopathic person, then there's not much point in discussing morality. These people lack the normal human capacity for empathy and exploit any system for their own immediate benefit. The best thing to do with them is to avoid them. Trying to impose any kind of moral system on them is ineffective, unless it is mandatory regardless of their wishes. For these people, I would say we should arrange things to protect others from them as much as possible.

I don't see why this would be impossible. Difficult? Sure, but not impossible. The real world is full of stories of people cheating on their spouses where the violated spouse is utterly and blissfully unaware of it.

And of people being caught. Chances are that you will be caught eventually, and you would have to worry about it all the time.

We can further stipulate in my story that it was a one-night stand that was never repeated. So we don't have a case of continual wrongdoing but a one-off. I don't see how, if desire is morally relevant and harm has been reduced to zero the cheater shouldn't go ahead with his tryst.

Wow, the facts keep changing here. I don't agree that desire is morally relevant, and you still have all the issues I named.

Well, maybe having this tryst improves my love relationship with my partner. This has been known to happen.

The facts are getting more and more bizarre and unlikely. I don't think lying, cheating and hiding can possibly improve your real relationship. The best relationships are based on honesty and caring.

If fulfilling a desire without harm makes an action permissable, then I suppose if a person's cheating improves his relationship with his wife, he is morally obligated to cheat, yes?

Maybe we should ask the wife if she feels it would improve the relationship. If so, then yes.

Life in the real world shows us that it is entirely possible to cheat on one's spouse without the spouse knowing.

And also to get caught.

There are at least some people who do so and continue to lead a satisfying life with their spouse.

We don't know that.

So far, Auto, you've not given any reason to think this is not possible. And if it's possible for a person, there is therefore no reason for the person not to go ahead with his tryst. He can do it, get away with it, and spare his wife the knowledge and his marriage the discomfort. People do this ALL THE TIME. You might wish to say that all such people are self-deceived or whatever. Fine, let them be. If self-deception leads to happiness, then bully for self deception.

I say go with the empirical data we have, which shows that what tends to lead to happiness is real, intimate, trust-based relationships, not cheating, lying and hiding.

Let's ask Governor Sanford whether he's happier with or without cheating. Let's ask his wife, too. Also Senator Ensign.

Why not, especially a one-off? It may take some time, but many normal people can get over their guilt of a one-off affair.

Why put yourself through the suffering?

It happens all the time. Besides, it's hard to imagine what harm the one-off would do in the case I've described. And since that's so, it's full steam ahead.

Let me get this. We have to assume that there's no risk anyone will find out, that you have no normal compunction or guilt, that you will not worry about getting caught, that you will not actually get caught, that you don't mind sacrificing the intimacy and trust of a real relationship, that one time sexual gratification is worth more to you than a lifetime of trust, and that reducing your intimacy and trust in this way will actually improve your relationship in some way, and that you are sure of all those extremely unlikely things. I submit that these facts are so unlikely, so remote, that we can treat the whole hypo as irrelevant.

In general, I am not interested in bizarre ethical hypos, with babies abandoned on streetcar lines and fat men waiting to be pushed in the way. What I'm interested in is helping people how best to live their actual lives. In the general course of things, breaking your word, lying to your mate, and destroying the most important trust and intimacy you have tends to be destructive, and I advise against it.

 

[Dunemeister]

It failed, though. The harm in your example is subtle but demonstrable, as the responses have shown.

I'm not sure they have. But even if they have, if the harm is so subtle (breaking a social contract, violating some counterfactually universalizable moral imperative, etc.), then why should it be of any interest?

That's why we have informed consent.

It's still doing harm which is, ex hypothesis, always bad.

 

[Storm]

I'm not sure they have. But even if they have, if the harm is so subtle (breaking a social contract, violating some counterfactually universalizable moral imperative, etc.), then why should it be of any interest?

Your entire argument is that there is no harm. If this is false, your argument is debunked.

It's still doing harm which is, ex hypothesis, always bad.

No, it isn't. You're looking for absolutes no one is arguing.

 

[Dunemeister]

Your entire argument is that there is no harm. If this is false, your argument is debunked.

Which is isn't, so it isn't. So far, I've heard nothing compelling that shows that a one-night tryst is in any way harmful. Causing complications doesn't count as harmful (at least in my books).

No, it isn't. You're looking for absolutes no one is arguing.

I'm not "looking for" anything. It's really quite simple. I'll rehearse it again in a slightly different form. Basically, I've offered a counterexample to consequentialism.

Principle: It is permissable to act on a desire iff fulfilling that desire doesn't harm anyone.

Counterexample: A one-night tryst that is so arranged that the secret is kept from interested parties. If the counterexample is coherent (and so far, no one has produced an argument showing it isn't), and if you still have the intuition that the act is still wrong, the proposed ethical principle doesn't hold. The proposed ethical norm says that what makes acting on a desire wrong is that so doing causes some sort of harm. This is basically consequentialistic thinking. All my argument shows is that consequentialism, the view that what makes an act wrong is the consequences of that act, is false.

Generally, those who find my counterexample objectionable have adopted two different strategies. The first is to insist that there really is harm in having the one-night stand. So the story goes, the relationship must suffer in some way.

I remain unconvinced that it is impossible for someone to cheat on his wife, lie about it, and find that the quality of the marriage -- for both partners -- is as good as it ever was (regardless how good it was in the beginning) or even better. There is anecdotal evidence to show this. In the face of this, some have tried to say that wisdom suggests this is not the optimal course, that one should expect disaster. I fully agree. Yet, there are those cases where the prevailing wisdom simply doesn't hold. It is generally wiser not to have the tryst, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible to so arrange the tryst that no damage is done, and it may happen that good comes of it. At this point, some have argued that people who claim to have had such affairs and gotten away with it, and furthermore have claimed that their marriage hasn't suffered, are deluded. Again, I see no reason to suppose this. The only thing motivating this charge is a rather unwarranted affection for a consequentialist view of ethics (precisely what's at issue).

The further objection is that you have to lie to get away with the tryst, and living with a lie complicates things for you psychologically and relationally, and it would be better if you didn't have to live with those complications. Fair enough, but those complications don't appear very serious to me. Or at least, it's imaginable that a non-sociopath could live with those complications. There's nothing incoherent in the suggestion. Therefore, since it's possible to have the tryst with no harm done, the consequentialist proposal, that it's permissable to act on a desire unless doing so harms someone, is false.

The second strategy is to say that the action is wrong on some other ground. And I have to say that I fully agree. But notice, then, that we've given up on consequentialism. Now we're taking some other basis for our ethics rather than the generalized consequentialistic Hippocratic ethic of "Do, but only if you do no harm." Some have appealed to Kantian deontology; others to perhaps sui generis moral principles. I'd appeal to something else besides. But whatever else one appeals to, we should realize that we've moved beyond the consequentialism implied in the OP.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Dunemeister:

Pure consequententialism is wrong. You must also consider the means to the end. That's why all the time people are saying "The ends do not justify the means." Well that's BS and we all know it. Surgeons do harm to people toward the end of helping them survive. If the ends couldn't justify the means then the surgeon would be guilty of immeasurable immorality on a daily basis.

You must also consider the least harmful/most beneficial means toward whatever end you are seeking. You have added a lot of qualifiers toward the end of making your means as minimally harmful as possible and deriving the maximum gain at the end. To wit I say that your actions would be morally permissible if they did indeed lead you to become a better husband.

The question we need to ask ourselves is: In any given instance of cheating how likely is it that the act is going help not hinder the marriage?

MTF

 

[Dunemeister]

And of people being caught. Chances are that you will be caught eventually, and you would have to worry about it all the time.

Why assume this?

Wow, the facts keep changing here. I don't agree that desire is morally relevant, and you still have all the issues I named.

But then we've moved away from the terms set out in the OP, namely a consequentialist understanding of ethics. What's wrong with the tryst is not that it causes harm. It doesn't. Rather, it's wrong on other grounds. Perhaps I'm flouting a sui generis duty. Perhaps I'm being disobedient to a divine command. Perhaps I am acting against a universalizable moral imperative. But in those cases, the harm isn't the issue, it's the fact that I've violated some moral precept. And once again, I concur.

The facts are getting more and more bizarre and unlikely. I don't think lying, cheating and hiding can possibly improve your real relationship. The best relationships are based on honesty and caring.

I was watching a documentary the other day where several people were interviewed who had cheated on their spouses using an adultery Web site AshleyMadison.com. (Here's an article about it. They paid some firm to arrange alibis and all the other rigamarole to make sure their spouses were entirely in the dark. And if what these people say is true, the scam worked. The wife (typically but not exclusively) is none the wiser, and some of them swear on a stack of bibles that their relationships have improved as a result. They have various stories to say why that might be, but most of them devolve to learning through the affair just how much they love their spouses. We might want to scoff at such stories, but there is no reason to disbelieve them.

It's important to also point out that just because these stories are true, we should not give up on the conventional wisdom. All the truth of these stories entails is that it is possible to have an affair with no harm done. And if THAT's possible, then our consequentialist principle should be rejected in favor of something else.

Maybe we should ask the wife if she feels it would improve the relationship. If so, then yes.

But that's changing all the terms of reference. The question is whether I should be able to act out a desire if I don't harm anyone. Cheating on my wife harms my wife if she finds out. If she doesn't find out, how is she harmed, especially if the relationship remains as good as it ever was (or, as has been claimed at times, improved)?

And also to get caught.

The question is whether it is wrong to do so if you can arrange it so she can't ever know about it. If one can, it's apparently permissable (based on the ethic of "You can do it but only if it doesn't cause any harm").

We don't know that.

Sure we do. See the article I linked to and the testimonials on the Web site.

I say go with the empirical data we have, which shows that what tends to lead to happiness is real, intimate, trust-based relationships, not cheating, lying and hiding.

Hey, we're talking about a one-off here not a lifestyle. That semi-facetious point aside, let me just say that this piece of homely, stock wisdom is entirely trustworthy. Nevertheless, it is possible (and that's all I need for my argument) to have a one-off tryst with no harm done. And if that's so, the consequentialist principle is refuted.

Let's ask Governor Sanford whether he's happier with or without cheating. Let's ask his wife, too. Also Senator Ensign.

No doubt, there are those who cheat and get caught. Is the problem the cheating or getting caught? If our principle is as the OP suggests, if we are permitted to act on our desires unless doing so causes harm, the question is how to mitigate or eliminate the harm. If one can do that, one can act on just about any desire one has.

Why put yourself through the suffering? Let me get this. We have to assume that there's no risk anyone will find out, that you have no normal compunction or guilt, that you will not worry about getting caught, that you will not actually get caught, that you don't mind sacrificing the intimacy and trust of a real relationship, that one time sexual gratification is worth more to you than a lifetime of trust, and that reducing your intimacy and trust in this way will actually improve your relationship in some way, and that you are sure of all those extremely unlikely things. I submit that these facts are so unlikely, so remote, that we can treat the whole hypo as irrelevant.

A few disclaimers. The only thing my story needs is the reduction of harm to zero or to such a small level that it's hardly worth considering. Doing this does not require the sort of psychology you attribute to my hypothetical character. No plan is perfect, so no, he can't be 100% sure he won't get caught, but the chances are, ex hypothesis, minimal, so he doesn't particularly worry. And of course the lifetime of trust is worth more than the one night stand. That explains the care with which he ensures his wife won't find out. If his wife doesn't find out, there's no loss of trust or intimacy. And of course, there's no need to assume that the intimacy of the relationship will improve. I only submit that it's possible, at least if we take the stories of some cheaters at face value (something we have no reason not to do). And all I've said is that if this is true, the consequentialist ethic gets turned on its head so that cheating may be obligatory. The fact you find this result counterintuitive (as I do) shows just that you don't seriously hold to a consequentialist theory of ethics.

In general, I am not interested in bizarre ethical hypos, with babies abandoned on streetcar lines and fat men waiting to be pushed in the way. What I'm interested in is helping people how best to live their actual lives. In the general course of things, breaking your word, lying to your mate, and destroying the most important trust and intimacy you have tends to be destructive, and I advise against it.

So do I.

 

[Heneni]

The desire does not justify the need nor does it justify the man. It does however give a very true indication of what kind of man he is.

If you want to know the character of a man, simply determine what he desires most.

We usually want to act out of desire not out of oughts and shoulds. If the boundaries are removed all men would gratify what they desire, and all man would become fully known. Hence man hides behind his unfullfilled desires, fearing that if they are known or acted upon he might become unacceptable or be reproached. It is therefore evident that a man cannot be judged solely on how he acts, or what he needs, but what he desires, whether those desires are made public or not. A man that acts appropriately in public but have desires inside that are not honourable would still be considered an honorable man by the public, but he would really be a man living in fear.

If a christian's chief desire is to know god, he would be justified by god but not likely justified by the world.
If a non-christian's chief desire is 'whatever' he could be or could not be justified by society, but never justified by god.

Heneni

 

[Inky]

If you have a natural desire for something, does that necessarily justify gratification of that desire?

In my opinion, gratifying a desire needs no justification, but it's possible to behave in an immoral way in the attempt to get gratification. In other words, it's okay to satisfy even the most taboo desires as long as it's done using moral actions and behaviors.

Since the cheating post has been getting so much response, I'll reply to that too: For most people, it seems to boil down to whether lying and deception are morally acceptable when they don't cause harm (and also whether lying inevitably causes harm). I disagree with the first part - I think deception, especially in the context of breaking a promise, is wrong in many cases even when the one being deceived isn't overtly harmed. It's a question of personal rights - part of my moral framework is that people have the right to form promises and contracts and have the other person keep their word. Whether deception will always cause harm in some form is up in the air for me.

 

[tomspug]

In my opinion, gratifying a desire needs no justification, but it's possible to behave in an immoral way in the attempt to get gratification. In other words, it's okay to satisfy even the most taboo desires as long as it's done using moral actions and behaviors.

So, ultimately, this is a question of what is and is not moral and how what do we examine to come to this conclusion. The prevailing reply seems to be that a person's "intention" decides whether or not a desire is fulfilled "morally".

But what does that even mean? Surely, any intention would be BIRTHED from the desire itself! So if there is nothing wrong with natural desires, then there must be a list of different responses one could have to any given desire. It is then implied that certain responses are more or less moral than others.

My question would be HOW one can conclude which choices are moral and which ones are not? For example, if you have a desire to have more money, is the desire innocent? Perhaps there is a more innocent desire beneath and the desire for more money is, in fact, an immoral response. Some would say that the desire for more money is not a question of morality at all, but how can you be sure? Robbing a bank may be considered an immoral act, while a child robbing food because he can't afford it may not.

But what if, in fact, all desires DO justify need (which is an opinion no one has yet to hold)? I won't say this is what I believe, but I feel the need to play devil's advocate. WHAT IF... all desires are in fact justified, but that it is the manner in which those desires are fulfilled that is either moral or not. So in the case of a child-molester, if all desires are justified, you might assume that there is nothing wrong with that. Ah, but what if there is a deeper desire behind a sexual attraction to children? What if an innocent and perfectly justified desire has, in fact, been mutated by circumstances into something that inevitably leads to immoral actions?

This would imply the existence of some desires that have NO proper and moral satisfaction.

If that's true, that would be a tragedy, considering that we assume that all desires, principally, ARE justified! Going further, could we speculate that ALL present forms of desire and intent are tragically demented by circumstances in the same way? Then you would have a soul full of innocent desires that are ultimately incapable of being fulfilled in a moral fashion, because the desires themselves have become unrecognizable...

Pretty depressing, if you ask me. Makes you feel helpless.