Senate Cheating on a significant other or spouse

Okay... here's how I see it. Having a heart-to-heart with your so or spouse about your polyamorous orientation is one thing... 'coming out' and saying that you wish for the relationship to go in the direction of polyamory and asking for input, etc. It can go either way....

A) so/spouse is accepting of your orientation and understands that you love him/her, and want to have relations, serious or not, with another (or others). You set boundaries, terms are made very clear, and you're both on the same page about how the relationships progresses. In this scenario, it is acceptable (to your partner) to proceed. A relationship orientation is established, and proceeding is not cheating.

B) so/spouse is not accepting, and feels that your orientation is not something he/she can live with. In this scenario, a decision is made.... either end the relationship, due to orientations clashing, or proceed anyway. In this scenario, proceeding is cheating.

 

Can I just yank the handbrake up here and ask "cheating on your significant other or spouse"... isn't a spouse also a significant other?

 

Not after a decade or two.

/canned laughter

 

OK but in part B, it's still wrong. If your actions will cause harm to another, then you should probably reconsider doing them. In the words of noted bisexual socialist commentator Jesus H Christ "Guys, don't be ****s to one another".

 

Ha, I'm really good at hiding my lack of empathy to people I meet because...jesus christ, the looks you get when something sad or terrible happens to someone and you're sitting there with a face like "What do you guys want me to do?" Its one of those things that I don't think people who see it think "This guy has no understanding of empathy." they just are confused at why I'm not responding how they think I should respond. So I just try to imitate or give people the reactions they expect. Babies and toddlers are always a troublesome bunch with me because I can't exactly tell what they want from me.

 

I think this is the main problem right here. Because in actuality, you don't have a moral philosophy or framework at all. What you have is a "do and don't" list that you are blindly following.

And as a Christian I can say with conviction that, while that might be what your church says, it most certainly isn't what Christ said or did according to the gospels that you claim to believe in. In fact, most of the stories of Christ in the gospels revolve around him basically telling religious people of his day who operated on a "do and don't" list that they were missing the mark entirely. That in fact all of the actually valid "laws" were based on the premise of loving God (more nebulous and not really applicable to interpersonal things and this convo) and loving others as yourself.

So when you say you have no other reason for believing cheating is wrong besides "the Bible tells me so"... Wow, to me that was shocking. You are missing that the Bible tells you exactly what I and many others have expressed in this thread -- that it's wrong because it hurts others. And if you understood this concept you would perhaps be better able both to attempt to live in a loving Christlike manner and to find common ground with others regardless of if they even believe Christ existed. Many of these people have a more Christlike understanding of how to treat others than you do. And I don't say that to insult you but rather to answer your question about how you should understand "secular" morality.

 

There's also probably a joke in there about Bentham's odd backflips to make a wife's infidelity towards her husband "worse."

Interestingly while googling said odd backflips I found a neat little article on the subject of the Big Three ethical theories from Psychology Today. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/maybe-its-just-me/201003/adultery-is-it-ever-justified It's a crash course in the subject and it's topical. Truly we have verified the Leibnizian worldview.

 

So what, are you just massively repressed with your feelings?

 

Darth Guy yah they're different in that "apd" is an actual term in use by contemporary clinicians and sociopath and psychopath aren't. the differences are pretty nuanced -- and sociopathy and psychopathy are both so mainstreamed and muddled as to be interchangeable -- and all are used to indicate a reduced capacity for empathy and emotion. but yes, the correct terminology would be that "1 in 100 people show sufficient characteristics to be diagnosed with APD" or "1 in 25 Fortune 500 CEOs show sufficient characteristics to be diagnosed with APD" but i didnt feel like being that wordy and, honestly, i prefer "sociopath" anyways, because it cuts to the heart of the issue without hiding it in an overlong acronym -- people who are lacking in the essential qualities for participation in human society

blubeast1237 i tend to think of life on earth in terms of the social ramifications, so i really cant think of a better definition of "bad person" than someone incapable of experiencing empathy. it doesnt make it "your fault", but it does make you something of an abomination. forgive me for my lack of a less hyperbolic word here, but there's nothing more terrifying than sociopathy, as far as im concerned.

i think the inability to empathize is a damn good start down the criterea path, though not conclusive in and of itself. that said, im given to understand that another facet of APD is the inability to recognize that you have APD, (or the denial that its a disability rather than a strength, and consequent refusal of treatment), which is why its vanishingly rare to hear about people getting treated for APD voluntarily. the label's only practical use, at present, is as a means of determining whether someone is capable of rehabilitation, for public safety purposes. so im not going to suggest you get "tested" or anything, because if you're not a sociopath it would be pointless, and if you are, you wouldn't voluntarily do anything about it

i hope you've suddenly morphed into a really good troll, but if you really lack empathy, are practiced at hiding it, and reject that a lack of empathy is a bad, even horrifying thing... then in all honesty, that scares me, on a visceral level

 

For my first ducal decree, I shall make myself Head Admin!








... Wait, ****.

 

No takesies backsies

 

Gottfried is in a corner of my mind where Immanuel Kant is and it isn't a good corner.

Ramza That article was great and very easy to read. One thing though: Its too limiting with the philosophy it uses, but its only a blog post, not a book, so I can't be too upset. Great read though.

Rogue_Ten I assure you, I'm not trolling. I have no reason to, I'm just... I guess being open because my lack of empathy is just one thing about me, same way as if I have APD its just one part of me, at least how I see it. I have healthy relationships after some trial and error so I could learn what was appropriate and inappropriate to do, I exercise regularly, I have a job, and I hunt. Just because I lack empathy doesn't mean I'm out to destroy the world or use my evil power for bad: Its, to me, more of a nuisance because it has caused me some strife when it comes to making acquaintances. I can cheat and wont feel bad about it, but once I learned that it can cause people to leave you, I resolved that I shouldn't do it and haven't in a long time. You're assuming that because I lack empathy I go forth to ravish the world, lol, and dude its not like that at all. Its literally just another thing about me. The only reason I hide it is because well... look at you, my friend. You're calling me a bad person and saying you're scared (which likely comes from you misunderstanding) and all these other things. Now imagine if people who I actually talk to face to face thought the same thing. I would never make friends or colleagues and definitely not a significant other. So I hide it or don't openly mention it and as I said before people don't directly connect the dots unless I tell them outright or they know me very well.

As far Ender Sai 's question, I'm not repressing my feelings. When something happens that would normally evoke a reaction (I.e your friend crying because her father died) I kind of observe to see what she's wanting from me: does she need a shoulder to cry on? does she want to be alone? does she want a sense of normalcy? The problem with lacking empathy is that I have to actually try to figure it out while others, who have empathy, kind of, at least from what I see, just know how to comfort people. That's one of my biggest things with babies. My girlfriend is extremely good with kids, when they cry or are upset she immediately knows what to do to comfort them or help them, but for me, since I have no way to understand them, I just kind of sit there like

 

If your friend is crying, because her father died, you ask what she needs from you, and you ask with sincerity. It is not her duty to tell you how to be a friend to her when she is grieving. Waiting for her to tell you what to do is ****ed up.

 

^^ The above are the types of situations a lack of empathy can make really uncomfortable. I had to watch her cry before I concluded that she did want me there and that the typical thing to do was hug her. These things don't come naturally for me, so when you say "act like a friend" I don't have a map of how to do that besides what I've seen other people do.

 

Whatever man, that sounds like an awesome corner. Imagine the math discussions. To say nothing of getting to watch Kant go all fanboy.

 

Have you ever considered talking to a professional about this? Forgive, me if you already mentioned this. I'm not reading this thread thoroughly.

 

No. Don't have the time or the money. Plus, I don't think I can grow empathy.

 

Yeah harpua, get with the program ...he's too busy cheating or trying to figure out if his girlfriend needs a tissue or not while he plays League of Legends.

 

You can grow social skills, though. Like communication, which would probably be useful in a situation where you didn't know what to do and someone was grieving right in front of you. You might be able to use this new skill to ask if there is anything you could be doing, instead of sitting there like a stump, wondering how you're supposed to feel.

How you feel is irrelevant. Cheating isn't wrong because you feel bad afterwards. Why would the cheater feel bad? He's not the ones being betrayed. If you do not understand that, then you are bad at being a person and probably more inclined to do other untrustworthy things. Just because this is just one part of you, as you say, doesn't mean you're not a bad person. But, I don't know you, so obviously don't base your self-worth on what I think.

 

Well basically I've always understood that things are wrong because God says they are wrong and things are right because God says they are right. Rather than believe God wants us to do things that are right and not do things that are wrong because those things are inherently right or wrong. Just to clarify what I meant there some.

As to your other points you are most certainly correct and I will think on what you have said. I do prefer 'do and do not' lists for most things like morality and human interaction as most human behavior makes no sense to me

 

You're fighting a religious bogeyman who doesn't exist. I never said that gibbons mate for life, and I definitely didn't use that to support a belief that human beings should mate for life.

 

oh then you should thank me for clarifying, since, as i noted, "monogamy", absent a qualifier, in popular and religious parlance usually refers to the "til death do us part" ideal. cheers!

 

You assume his interest is in a robust debate, Maik.

 

I haven't read this thread thoroughly either so I don't know if you've answered this one already, but are you ambivalent or indifferent to treason towards you then?