Why exactly should infidelity be considered wrong?

[Me Myself]

Te very wordo says it.

If its not a breach of loyalty, its not "infidelity" so in other words, if both agreed they are okay with having a sexually inclusive relationship, there cannot be any infidelities, because there is no loyalty problem in that regard.

Its just not infidelity if its agreed upon.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

1) how so?
2) why would it confuse the kids?
3) why should you or your partner be seen as any less reliable simply because you or your partner had sex with another person?

1) Relationships are HARD. I would imagine a relationship involving more parties becomes HARDER, as there is more complexity, more scope for misunderstanding, more scope for not mentally/physically being available to a particular member of that relationship. That's not a moral call, if that's what you're asking, but I still believe that to be true.

2) I am having a hard enough time explaining to my kids that out of the people they call aunt and uncle, some are mine or my wife's sisters/brothers, and some are actually just old friends. As with the answer above, more complex relationships are more difficult to understand and explain. It's not a massively important point, though.

3) It's not because we've had sex with another person. It's because we have lied to each other. If two parties agree to an open relationship, more power to them. I don't have examples in my personal life of that being a fulfilling, long-term life strategy. Morally I have no issue with it, as long as the two parties are both of the same opinion, and both aware of what is happening. If both parties ARE aware, then I suspect it fall more into what I said with point 1.

 

[Me Myself]

1) Relationships are HARD. I would imagine a relationship involving more parties becomes HARDER, as there is more complexity, more scope for misunderstanding, more scope for not mentally/physically being available to a particular member of that relationship. That's not a moral call, if that's what you're asking, but I still believe that to be true.

2) I am having a hard enough time explaining to my kids that out of the people they call aunt and uncle, some are mine or my wife's sisters/brothers, and some are actually just old friends. As with the answer above, more complex relationships are more difficult to understand and explain. It's not a massively important point, though.

3) It's not because we've had sex with another person. It's because we have lied to each other. If two parties agree to an open relationship, more power to them. I don't have examples in my personal life of that being a fulfilling, long-term life strategy. Morally I have no issue with it, as long as the two parties are both of the same opinion, and both aware of what is happening. If both parties ARE aware, then I suspect it fall more into what I said with point 1.

I still have a lot of problems with family trees :cover:

Agreed on all accounts there.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

One of the cornerstones of marriage (and indeed many relationships) is NOT monogamy, instead it is a sort of contract (a blend of formal and informal contracts for marriage) that one will refrain from unagreed daliances with others. By getting married this usually means monogamy in western society; but depending on the marriage, the parties might well consider their marriage to include for example allowing sufficient sexual freedom for a bisexual to cater to their needs with the other gender (other than their partner) yet requiring certain safeguards such as use of protection etc; other types of marriage contract might well be created - however that would depend on those involved.

I believe as long as everyone involved gives their informed consent then it is all fine; but that in itself raises a problem when people are cheating on their partner in that their partner is then NOT informed, they are not for example giving their informed consent to sex with a person who by virtue of having more than one sexual partner might has a higher chance of contracting some sort of disease - putting their partner's health in jeaporday, then there is the prospect of any children conceived through infidelity and the gross breach of informed consent that arises after pretending that the child is the partner's who then raises the child without being informed.

If you have entered into a marriage contract whereby the prevailing understanding of sexual freedoms is that they are curtailed to some extent in order to ensure for example, health of both parties, legitimacy of children, inheritance issues etc; then breaking such a contract is I believe unethical and your partner has every right to recognize that the terms of the contract have been bridged or that the 'spirit' of the contract have been abused and thus feel wronged.

 

[Penumbra]

People have a tendency to just accept that infidelity is wrong but I thought it would be interesting to explore why it should be considered wrong. Now many of you are likely thinking that obviously it's wrong because it hurts your spouse/partner, it hurts their trust in you. But that just leaves the question of why does it hurt their feelings and trust? It's your body, you have every right to decide who you do and don't have sex with(assuming of course the other party is consenting) so why should a spouse or partner feel betrayed if you have sex with another person? And what gives your spouse or partner the right to demand that you have sex only with them and no one else? After all, it's your body.

Now you may bring up the idea of the risk of disease or pregnancy but with proper protection and blood tests the risks of that can be greatly minimized or even eliminated. So what other reasons could there be assuming those precautions are taken? Can it truly be said that infidelity is objectively morally wrong? And if so why?

A couple of notes: I use the term infidelity cause I can't think of a better word. Fornication doesn't quite fit cause you can do that without having multiple sexual partners. Also I put this in general debates because I want to debate this from a non-religious perspective. Obviously when religion gets involved you can come up with all kinds of reasons but I want to focus on this issue without religion.

I'm honestly confused as what part about this is unclear.

If two people agree to be sexually exclusive with each other, and one of them betrays that agreement by having sex with another person without their partner's consent, then obviously the moral problem is that one of the partners is lying to the other, and doing things they agreed not to do. A serious relationship or a marriage is about emotional connection in addition to sexual connection. It's not a recipe for a healthy partnership, where one person lies to their partner, betrays promises, doesn't respect their wishes, etc. If a partner is lying to me about stuff like that, we're done.

If, on the other hand, a couple agrees to have an open relationship, then there's nothing morally wrong with each partner having sex with other people. There's no lying or betrayal there; just doing what they said they'd do. It may or may not be an optimal situation, but it's honest. If a person doesn't ever want to be in a monogamous relationship, she should also look for partners that are okay with open relationships (non-monogamous).

A partner has every right to request whatever they want, just like their partner has every right to refuse. If my partner requests I don't play loud music at 2am in our apartment, he has every right to do it. If my partner requests I don't have sex with other people while in a sexual relationship with him (and in terms of evolution, that's likely an instinctual desire for many people), he has every right to do it. And I have every right to agree to those requests or state that they are unreasonable, and in addition I have the right to make my own requests. If we can't agree on the most important requests for us, the partnership won't work.

Yes presuming there is an agreement to monogamy made by explicitly by both parties such promises should be kept. But what if no agreement in that regard is specifically stated? Does the other member of the party have any real moral right to get upset if their partner has sex with another person?

In many if not most cultures, to seriously date or marry a person strongly implies sexual exclusivity unless stated otherwise.

Here's a quote by Richard Feynman which applies here 100%:

“By honest I don’t mean that you only tell what’s true. But you make clear the entire situation. You make clear all the information that is required for somebody else who is intelligent to make up their mind.”

In other words, being dishonest doesn't just mean telling lies. It also includes omitting facts that are probably considered important to know by the other person. If a person is in a culture where partnership strongly implies monogamy, and she has sex with another person while in a committed relationship for a reason like "because we didn't specifically state that we wouldn't do that!", then she's playing dishonest games. If a person in a relationship is going to do something like have sex with someone outside of the relationship, she better be crystal clear that it's acceptable to her partner, otherwise she's not really respecting her partner.

To me that seems like "Good Communication 101".

 

[Sunstone]

IMO, it's only wrong if the one partner is being dishonest about it.

We're in substantial agreement here. Although I'd also mention that sometimes wrongs turn into rights in the course of things. Reality is messy that way.

 

[dawny0826]

But that just leaves the question of why does it hurt their feelings and trust?

Most of us are complex creatures with emotions. When we pair bond and believe that we've developed trust, the betrayal of trust hurts.

It's not really an issue for those who are selfish. We should be able to be who we want to be, but you don't have to be a selfish *** in the process.

It's your body, you have every right to decide who you do and don't have sex with(assuming of course the other party is consenting) so why should a spouse or partner feel betrayed if you have sex with another person?

Yes, you do. But, if you value the feelings of other human beings, you don't make assumptions that they understand your intentions. You express your intentions during the relationships. If you're engaged in an exclusive relationship, having sex with someone else is a betrayal.

Communication is important.

And what gives your spouse or partner the right to demand that you have sex only with them and no one else? After all, it's your body.?

No joke. But, mature people aren't afraid to talk about their feelings and desires and enter into relationships without pretenses. You can have dominion over your own body and not be a douche bag in the process.

Now you may bring up the idea of the risk of disease or pregnancy but with proper protection and blood tests the risks of that can be greatly minimized or even eliminated. So what other reasons could there be assuming those precautions are taken? Can it truly be said that infidelity is objectively morally wrong? And if so why?

A couple of notes: I use the term infidelity cause I can't think of a better word. Fornication doesn't quite fit cause you can do that without having multiple sexual partners. Also I put this in general debates because I want to debate this from a non-religious perspective. Obviously when religion gets involved you can come up with all kinds of reasons but I want to focus on this issue without religion.

People should be able to do what they want to do. But, mature people talk about their intentions openly and honestly to avoid confusion and hurt feelings.

It's not rocket science. It may not always be easy in certain circumstances, but, it's the best way to go about it. Live free. Communicate. Use contraception.

 

[Penumbra]

Although I'd also mention that sometimes wrongs turn into rights in the course of things. Reality is messy that way.

Intention is relevant here.

If I murder someone out of rage or greed or lust or whatever, then I've committed a harmful act due to a vice. If it turns out I killed someone who one day would have been a serial killer, but I had no knowledge of that part, then even though the outcome was indeed possibly a "net good", it doesn't absolve my character in this instance at all. I'd still be a murderer out of vice.

Similarly, if I cheat on someone because I'm lustful, or undisciplined, or disrespectful, and somehow it turns out to be the best for everyone, it doesn't absolve my character flaws of impulsive lust, or lack of discipline, or lack of trustworthiness, or disrespect. I'd still be a cheater out of vice.

If in some possible situation I knew someone would kill other people and killed that person, or if I intentionally cheated on someone because I honestly believed it would be best for them, then those facts would speak differently about my character, at least. In practice, such situations would be extraordinarily rare.

IMO, wrongs committed out of vice can potentially lead to good situations, but they don't turn into "rights". Unexpected twists don't change the initial intentions and character of the person who committed the act. Of course, depending on the severity of the event, forgiveness is an option, and a person's character can change, but it doesn't "turn right" the "wrong" itself.

 

[Me Myself]

Intention is relevant here.

If I murder someone out of rage or greed or lust or whatever, then I've committed a harmful act due to a vice. If it turns out I killed someone who one day would have been a serial killer, but I had no knowledge of that part, then even though the outcome was indeed possibly a "net good", it doesn't absolve my character in this instance at all. I'd still be a murderer out of vice.

Similarly, if I cheat on someone because I'm lustful, or undisciplined, or disrespectful, and somehow it turns out to be the best for everyone, it doesn't absolve my character flaws of impulsive lust, or lack of discipline, or lack of trustworthiness, or disrespect. I'd still be a cheater out of vice.

If in some possible situation I knew someone would kill other people and killed that person, or if I intentionally cheated on someone because I honestly believed it would be best for them, then those facts would speak differently about my character, at least. In practice, such situations would be extraordinarily rare.

IMO, wrongs committed out of vice can potentially lead to good situations, but they don't turn into "rights". Unexpected twists don't change the initial intentions and character of the person who committed the act. Of course, depending on the severity of the event, forgiveness is an option, and a person's character can change, but it doesn't "turn right" the "wrong" itself.

Agreed.

Then again, I d be surprised sunstune were trying to say the initial act was okay. I think he was just putting an idea out in a susinct manner.

 

[Sunstone]

Intention is relevant here.

Agreed that intention is relevant, but to morals. But much of life lies beyond morality. And outcomes are important to us -- maybe even more important, at times, than morals.

 

[Sunstone]

Agreed.

Then again, I d be surprised sunstune were trying to say the initial act was okay. I think he was just putting an idea out in a susinct manner.

I am merely trying to suggest, albeit in a round about way, that basing morality strictly on the consequences of an act is problematic, since we almost never foresee all the consequences of any given action, nor even at times, foresee the consequences that might, in the end, work out to be most important to us. Thus, arguing against infidelity on the basis of its consequences might raise certain problems, depending on how you go about it.

 

[Me Myself]

Ah, true.

Indeed, intentions come first when it comes to morals.

 

[Father Heathen]

If in a monogamous relationship, infidelity is dishonest and deceitful, and violates trust and commitment. Unless of course there is some sort of mutual understanding ("open"/poly), but then it's not infidelity.

 

[repiv]

People have a tendency to just accept that infidelity is wrong but I thought it would be interesting to explore why it should be considered wrong. Now many of you are likely thinking that obviously it's wrong because it hurts your spouse/partner, it hurts their trust in you. But that just leaves the question of why does it hurt their feelings and trust? It's your body, you have every right to decide who you do and don't have sex with(assuming of course the other party is consenting) so why should a spouse or partner feel betrayed if you have sex with another person? And what gives your spouse or partner the right to demand that you have sex only with them and no one else? After all, it's your body.

Now you may bring up the idea of the risk of disease or pregnancy but with proper protection and blood tests the risks of that can be greatly minimized or even eliminated. So what other reasons could there be assuming those precautions are taken? Can it truly be said that infidelity is objectively morally wrong? And if so why?

A couple of notes: I use the term infidelity cause I can't think of a better word. Fornication doesn't quite fit cause you can do that without having multiple sexual partners. Also I put this in general debates because I want to debate this from a non-religious perspective. Obviously when religion gets involved you can come up with all kinds of reasons but I want to focus on this issue without religion.

Straight to the point here ...

It is fundamental betrayal of the heart and trust of not only your spouse but yourself.

You use the word 'infidelity' and I agree it is the best term to us for your question. Infidelity mean NOT fidelity, or Not Faithful. Let me put another way, Not having faith in one's self or others.

Let me get right to the consequences of infidelity.
1. If you can not be faithful to the pledges and vows you make yourself, how can others truly respect you and offer you their trust and faith.

2. This is poison to a relationship with a spouse and children. It takes parents to raise healthy children and the foundation of the parents being able to do that is the trust, respect, and faith they have in each other. If the parents have that, then the children can have that for their parents and each other. infidelity destroys those very things of trust, respect, and faith in all the relationships in the family.

3. The betrayal of love like this damages the hearts of all involved and can case hate and resentment to fester and grow in the hearts of those affected. It is a hateful and spiteful heart that leads many to do terrible things to others. As such it is damaging not only to the family involved but the society at large as well.

I hope this helps and that you where honest with yourself when asking the question and truly seeking insight and understanding.

 

[Alceste]

I am merely trying to suggest, albeit in a round about way, that basing morality strictly on the consequences of an act is problematic, since we almost never foresee all the consequences of any given action, nor even at times, foresee the consequences that might, in the end, work out to be most important to us. Thus, arguing against infidelity on the basis of its consequences might raise certain problems, depending on how you go about it.

I base all my ethical positions on the potential for any given action causing harm. Life doesn't have to be all that messy if you know what you want from a relationship and what you are capable of giving, and communicate that clearly to anyone who forms a major emotional attachment to you.

My partner and I discuss this subject a lot. He's inclined to polyamory and I'm inclined to monogamy. Neither of us want to hurt the other, but we perceive the subject of sexual exclusivity through different filters. From my perspective (as a very lazy person), sexual relationships are usually a huge hassle that carry major associated risks, end romantic friendships, and generally aren't worth the payoff. From his perspective, he doesn't want me to feel like I have to inhibit any of my natural inclinations for his sake because he wants me to be thoroughly happy and fulfilled.

Likewise, I don't want him to feel like he has to inhibit his natural inclinations either, but it's really hard for me to see the point of banging other people. I honestly don't have that inclination. I'm attracted to other people, and I love flirting, romance, kissing, etc. but casual sex has been a huge let-down for me more often than not. I prefer the simple pre-sex romantic energy of potent attraction to the post-sex awkwardness, emotional complexity and general silliness of follow-through.

So we've arrived at an agreement that anything that doesn't risk sexually transmitted disease or pregnancy (at all) is OK. That's where it stands right now, which is not to say that it's completely inflexible. We can deal with anything that comes up on a case by case basis. It may be that one of us really, really wants to bang somebody else one day. I'm open to that if we can talk about it and I can meet the woman (or he can meet the guy). That would keep my imagination from running away with me and reduce the possibility of hurt feelings, as well as making sure the potential bang-ee is fully apprised of the situation and the parties involved.

OTOH, if he ever lies to me about this sort of thing, he's out the door. Life is to short to hang around with liars.

 

[BSM1]

but why should such vows be taken in the first place?

S

ure if you make a promise you should endeavor to keep it but that's a different matter. If no such vow is explicitly taken then what's the problem? And why should the saying of such a vow be the default or be considered a requirement for a relationship.

That's my point. Vows should not be taken lightly. If you think there's a possibility that you will break a vow, don't take it. I understand things change, but a vow should be sacred.

 

[Sunstone]

I base all my ethical positions on the potential for any given action causing harm. Life doesn't have to be all that messy if you know what you want from a relationship and what you are capable of giving, and communicate that clearly to anyone who forms a major emotional attachment to you.

I think you're missing my point.

 

[Treks]

I totally read the topic heading as 'infertility' and I'm like WTF kind of question is that?? Like they even have a choice! D'uh...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am merely trying to suggest, albeit in a round about way, that basing morality strictly on the consequences of an act is problematic, since we almost never foresee all the consequences of any given action, nor even at times, foresee the consequences that might, in the end, work out to be most important to us. Thus, arguing against infidelity on the basis of its consequences might raise certain problems, depending on how you go about it.

Completely agree, assuming I have a handle on it.
I think you're suggesting that (as an example);

If I somehow KNEW I could cheat and never get caught, that the person I cheated in would not suffer issues, that there would be no pregnancy, no disease, and for all intents and purposes it is a one off incident with ZERO measureable consequence, it does not necessarily follow that the action is moral.


For me, I would believe it's immoral to cheat on my wife, REGARDLESS of the consequences. I can probably have a crack at explaining that further, but that's my take on what you said.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

People have a tendency to just accept that infidelity is wrong but I thought it would be interesting to explore why it should be considered wrong. Now many of you are likely thinking that obviously it's wrong because it hurts your spouse/partner, it hurts their trust in you. But that just leaves the question of why does it hurt their feelings and trust? It's your body, you have every right to decide who you do and don't have sex with(assuming of course the other party is consenting) so why should a spouse or partner feel betrayed if you have sex with another person? And what gives your spouse or partner the right to demand that you have sex only with them and no one else? After all, it's your body.

Now you may bring up the idea of the risk of disease or pregnancy but with proper protection and blood tests the risks of that can be greatly minimized or even eliminated. So what other reasons could there be assuming those precautions are taken? Can it truly be said that infidelity is objectively morally wrong? And if so why?

A couple of notes: I use the term infidelity cause I can't think of a better word. Fornication doesn't quite fit cause you can do that without having multiple sexual partners. Also I put this in general debates because I want to debate this from a non-religious perspective. Obviously when religion gets involved you can come up with all kinds of reasons but I want to focus on this issue without religion.

The musings offered here are brought up as conversation starters for the problems of what is known as "serial monogamy," btw.

Relationships are only tricky when we have expectations from and with our partner(s) that are 100% absolute unchanging and forever. They are also tricky when the expectation that falls under the definition of "faithfulness" evolves over time, which they do. Whether it's the part of ours and our partners lives that overlap in terms of how we share our money, time, and real estate. What do we devote as what was once ours and ours alone to our partner?

I have a theory that cultural expectations in relationships have evolved from territorial claims in past generations and centuries. What is supposed to be ours, what I own per what my partner and I share together. This is my wife, my house, my castle. These are my children from my bloodline. Of course, how we phrase our involvement into our romantic and sexual relationships stem from this same mindset...which is why monogamous couples and polyamorous couples vary so wildly as to what is the definition of fidelity and what isn't. IOW, the variations for what constitutes fidelity are much bigger than what many people realize until you are with somebody for a considerable length of time.

What I mean here is monogamous couples might also not only feel a sense of entitlement and exclusivity to their partners bodies, but their money, their time, sexual attraction, and emotional attachment. It's why there is such a thing as "emotional affairs", according to many monogamous couples. And why if someone wishes to watch porn, the other partner might take that as an affront to the exclusivity mentioned before, and therefore call it it's own brand of "infidelity." Polyamorous couples have their wide variations as well, what is exclusively theirs, what is open access with others outside the relationship, what is shared in the primary relationship, what is shared in the triad, etc.

How to approach it, then? Communication, obviously. Effective communication, introspection into what one feels okay with entitlements with the partners and what their partners are entitled to with them, and the understanding that expectations evolve over time as both partners age, change, grow, and adapt through life's curveballs.