From: walter (Walter Lego)
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Followup-To: soc.singles
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: Twisted Pair Inc.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 23:08:16 GMT

In article <x_qjzkq.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.005929.11543@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> rnjx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
>>Is it ever morally and/or ethically O.K. to actively
>>try to woo one member of an existing relationship from that relationship so
>>that you may start one with her/him?  Under what circumstances?  How about
>>pursuing someone who's engaged?  Where do you all draw the line?  If it isn't
>>O.K., would you still do it anyway?
>
>	Ever hear the saying, "all's fair in love and war"? That's the
>traditional wisdom on this question.

Ever wonder why that saying is only used by people that have already *won* by 
unfair means?

>	That standard, however, has changed; seems natural in a world
>where "all" is no longer fair in war, either (nukes being self-defeating).

It happens when a group cannot consistently win using any means to accept that 
as a tradition. When most people start losing one way or the other, people want 
only "fair" things.

>	Why the change? I believe it's a side effect of the changes in our
>culture's sexual morality. Back when movies like those I describe were
>made, the official assumption was always that a couple who weren't
>married, weren't having sex. Today the default assumption is that such a
>couple does have sex, and that's the difference. Doesn't even matter that
>both the old and new assumptions are merely that, assumptions, and often
>untrue; they are still the basis for the guidelines. And since nowadays
>sex is assumed, the morality of chasing someone else's sweetie has become
>questionable.

The morality, perhaps. But the practicality? Has human nature changed 
sufficiently to change that.

>	My personal rule is that I won't "come on" to any woman who I know
>has a "boyfriend" (however defined) unless she comes on to me first. If
>she does come on to me, though, that normally solves my moral
>uncertainties, and just leaves the practical questions (e.g., just how big
>_is_ her current sweetie? :-). In such a case the only women I'd still
>leave alone for moral reasons are those whose sweetie is a friend of mine.
>I also leave married women alone, but that's for practical, not moral
>reasons - secret affairs are a drag.

Very pragmatic. What most people are missing by bringing in this morality
stuff.

>
>	As for what _you_ should do, all I can suggest is going back to
>first principles: consider the foundations of your own morality, and see
>if you can deduce their application in such a situation. There really
>isn't an established standard to rely on any more.
>

Morals are established because they were found to be pragmatic at some point.
When things change, the old mores may no longer be applicable. But the
solution is not do something simply to rebel against the old mores ignoring
pragmatism or replacing it with the glorified excuse of individualism.
Individualism, in most cases, is an excuse for not being world-wise.

						Walter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: I am posting under a pseudonym for personal reasons. There is 
enough info in the headers to determine my posting site and possibly even 
determine my login name which is all the information you get from other
postings except that in this case you KNOW for sure that the name in the
headers is a pseudonym. If you don't like the idea put me in your kill file.