From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 19:04:36 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <1992Apr13.011937.2055@mks.com> fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter) writes:
>barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter) writes:
>>>Heh. Try this for a heuristic then - don't fuck around with a married
>>>person with kids, when the other partner doesn't know and OK it.
>>
>>	As a rule of thumb I've never disagreed with this, Fred.
>
>Then why are you arguing with me ?

	Maybe we could both ask that question. I'm arguing with you
because you present your rule like the 10th Commandment (which I believe it
is, if I'm counting correctly :-), rather than as a rule of thumb.

>>>>	Pure Hollywood, Fred: the guilty always get punished, the truth
>>>>always comes out, every dog has his day, et silly cetera.
>>>
>>>How do you get "guilty always get punished, [...]" out of that ? If
>>>anything, it's the innocent parties that get punished.
>>
>>	You claim there's harm even if the affair's never discovered.
>
>To quote you, answer the question. How did you get your "guilty ..."
>from what I said ?

	I didn't; I wasn't making so narrow an analogy. It isn't the
specific idea that the guilty always get punished that I was comparing
your position to, but to the more general notion, popular in fiction, that
life reflects morality. The specific quality I see in your position which
makes me think it is not real-world, is the implication that moral
equations always balance: that bad acts always lead to bad results, and
that when bad things happen to good people, there's always a suitable
place to lay blame.

	It would probably be nice if things always worked that way, but
they don't. People want every story to have a straightforward moral, but
they don't. Affairs don't always harm marriages; people that have affairs
aren't necessarily shallow or cynical or "assholes". If you'd like another
useful rule of thumb, it's that the morality of real affairs is always
more confusing and ambiguous than the morality of hypothetical
ones.

>yes, there is 'harm' even if the affair is never discovered because
>time that could have been spent with the kids/spouse were spent elsewhere.

	Yeah, sure, and now that we don't need more and more atomic bombs
the government will spend that money helping the poor and housing the
homeless :-). You're still trying for a hardwired, cause-and-effect,
affair --> harm rule, but it isn't automatic.

>>	Well, maybe that's why you're so uncertain of the principle.
>
>I'm not uncertain of the principle. People who behave in certain ways
>are assholes. IMNSHO. I've never said anything else.

	It's taking a while to translate "certain ways". I still don't
know if an informal vow of fidelity, made between unmarried lovers,
carries the same weight in your system as formal, married vows. Or here's
another problematic possibility: imagine you and your ex-wife, a woman who
has remarried, start feeling romantic again. Maybe she left you for him in
the first place, and you weren't real pleased about it. What's your moral
responsibility in this case? Or how about separated spouses? Is this ever
OK? If so, how separated do they have to be? Is a divorce in process? Does
it matter?

	And so forth. What I'm trying to find in your position is a moral
spectrum, instead of the Old Testament, sheep-and-goats morality. I think
I've made some progress: you've conceded 3rd parties in affairs can be
divided into two groups - big assholes, and small assholes; hey, it's
a start :-).

>>you speak of gratuitous sex, and it appears there may be an exception
>>for affairs sparked by true love.
>
>What exception ? I never said anything about any exceptions ?

	I'm asking because this was unclear. When you condemn affairs as
"gratuitous sex" it implies that an affair which is not "gratuitous sex"
may not be so bad. Perhaps there's room for another "small asshole"
compromise? :-)

>>The idea that someone might argue my position on purely impersonal and
>>unselfish grounds would bother you, wouldn't it?
>
>It's not that the idea bothers me (it doesn't), it's that I don't believe you
>when you say you are arguing for your position on 'purely impersonal and
>unselfish' grounds.

	I never said such a thing; I've said nothing about my motives in
this discussion, one way or the other. You're the one it seems to matter
to. You worry me, guy :-). Lots of people insist on casting someone in the
villain's role in an actual affair, but insisting on doing the same thing
in a mere discussion of affairs strikes me as a bit, um, obsessive.

>The occasional curse, my condenscending attitude, and my moral superiority 
>are just a part of my personality that surface when I run into people that
>are expressing views that I *know* are wrong.

	This is why I argue with you; you've answered your own question.

>1) it is better that the cheated-on partner know about the affair. It allows
>   him/her to know that there is a really big (or not big, if affairs don't
>   bother them much) problem with their marriage that needs to be worked on
>   if the marriage is to last.
>
>   However, if I am not a friend of the uninformed spouse, I'm not usually
>   going to go through the hassle and risk of informing him/her.

	How convenient. And of course your decision to not inform on your
friend has nothing to do with the fact that playing the informer would
make you an asshole? You really, seriously claim it would be the right
thing to do, only you don't have the stomach for it?

	Well, I guess that makes us even: I don't believe you.

>2) my room-mate informed the cheated-on partners, not because she was
>   trying to help them, but because she was trying to hurt them, and, as
>   a result, hurt the cheating spouse.

	Interesting. So, in your morality, it's better to do the wrong
thing (not tell on the cheater) for the right reasons, than to do the
right thing (tell) for the wrong reasons? If motives are that important to
you, why aren't you more concerned about the motives of the people having
the affair? Don't their motives matter in fixing blame?

-  nothing fails like success  -          Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE:                          barry@netcom.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles