Guys,

I asked you to be gentle on me. I am not having a good day and I get this?:


Noodle,

I am not a MONSTER! I consider myself to be a fairly nice person actually. One of my reasons for not phoning the OW's husband was that I had watched my own kids sobbing themselves to sleep and didn't feel able to inflict that on other kids. OK, I know you will argue logically with this, but it was a feeling that came from my heart and not my head.

Sheessh! I came here looking for help and I get bashed for shirking my moral responsibility towards a man I never even met.? It may sound selfish but over the last couple of years I have been more concerned with keeping my sanity together than what I have apparently condemnded him to. I wasn't the one who put him in that position in the first place - that was the person he married!

OK, I'm going home now. I am suitably chatised and feel 100% worse than when I first posted.

Bela

I find some resolution to this dilemma if I substitute the word ethics for the word morals.

Morals and ethics overlap a great deal, but less than is commonly believed, and ethics is more relevant to this discussion.

Ethics: involving behavior and systems of principles governing individuals and groups.

Morals: involving right and wrong, good and evil, conscience.

Ethics is sometimes defined as morality's effect on conduct.

How would you want to be treated, regardless of the specific temporal situation? That is ethics.

Length of time since the issue arose is irrelevant to ethics, not necessarily to morals.

With prayers,

Aphelion, to me, they mean the exact same thing. Morals are the principles that dictate one's behavior. I don't see any difference between the word morals or ethics.

Hah, ML, you demonstrate my point that ethics and morals are often perceived wrongly. (Sorry, I did not mean to lay a trap, it just seems to have worked out that way.)

Ethics is not, at least it should not be, situational. Morals depend on your higher power.

An Islamic MC may well approve of a man having up to three (or is it four) wives and extra-marital sex with prostitutes.

A Roman Catholic MC will say a man is morally in error (committing a mortal sin) if he so much as masturbates.

Morals are relative among religious constructs.

Ethics are constant across enlightened humanity.

Anyway, enough said here. I don’t want to jack this thread.

Ed: Ethics demand the OP’s spouse be informed, no matter how much time has passed. Morals – depends on what God has said you must do. (For me, tell.)

It is easier to dismiss and dehumanize people that we don't know personally...this is a universal issue.

Which is why it comes down to a moral choice.

Frankly..you don't really care what OWH thinks about you...because given the facts I'm pretty sure he would NOT agree that you are basically a nice person...really you care about what YOU think about you..and if you are able to rationalize allowing yourself to gain at his expense...make decisions about his life based on false information..because it is more convenient and doesn't COST more than you are willing to anticipate paying then obviously that is what you are going to do.

Seek pleasure..avoid pain = Human nature revealed.

The idea that it is kinder to allow cancer to go untreated because the patient will suffer in the process of treatments is one I simply don't agree with..but when you are talking about your own life and your own choices what dispute can there be? That is a personal decision.

In this instance though...you are taking that choice away from someone ELSE and this is truly monsterous.

The cancer exists whether he knows about it or not..in choosing to deny him that information you are effectively [for your part] giving him a death sentance by denying him even the opportunity to TRY to protect himself.

You do not have that right...not for any reason...not if you feel bad watching children cry...not if it brings destruction into your marriage...this man is a victim of his wife and your husband..and now your victim as well because where the rubber meets the road he is expendable and counts less than you.

Ironic considering that you are on a marriage building forum as a direct RESULT of being able to take action with relevent information that you deny your male counterpart.

I don't suppose you would be willing to just forget everything that you have learned and go back to operating as you were in ignorance?

Willing to allow your H to take the same risks as he did then?

Nah...of course you aren't. Painfull as it was you did both process and use that information to your advantage...you would never be satisfied with any rationalization that someone offered you if the roles were reversed.

"I didn't want to hurt your feelings" falls a little short when my LIFE is on the line and I am unable to recognize that fact because someone is intentionally refusing to disclose that information.

Beautiful Water,

How do you wish you had been treated, informed, or otherwise made aware of what was going on behind your back that was seriously impacting you and your relationships, and had very dire potential consequences to your very person as well as your entire family?

That is what you should do for OP’s spouse.

That is the ethical path.

It is ethical for you because you are now connected, despite your preferences, to OP's spouse.

Total stranger you meet on the street? Depends on what information you have that would help him protect or otherwise better him/herself (such as the mugger lurking around the corner.) OP's spouse is now ethically connected to you through important information you have that can protect him and his family.

The impact upon OP’s spouse and family of finding out is not the messenger’s culpability. The reverse is true. Not informing raises culpability regarding subsequent consequences. The consequences to OP’s spouse and family are different perhaps between informing and not informing, but only in the latter case is a share in the responsibility ethically laid at the non-informant’s feet.

Out society places a stigma on so called tattle-tails. Incorrectly, IMO. But this isn’t even tattling. It is protecting.

So do the ethical thing and provide OP’s spouse with the useful information you possess. He may be able to improve his M with this information and then you can share in the opposite of culpability – that is joy.

With prayers,

And I say there is no difference. And since whatever we say is right or wrong, I guess I am RIGHT! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> Just because an Islamic MC says that polygamy is right, does not mean it is right. If everyone is "right" no matter what, then you wouldn't have grounds to refute me in the first place. And we would owe Hitler a huge apology! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Anyway, I think that difference between "ethics" and "morals" is an illusionary issue that only detracts from the real issue at hand.

ML,


I don't claim to know the truth, not in this statement, nor any others.


You can believe what you want....but that doesn't make your statement any "truer" or a more of fact than mine. You can put the word "are" in all caps too.....but it won't make it truer either.


Mel....greater minds than you or I, the greatest philosophers and prophets the world has every known....have discussed truth, reality and morality....unfortunately there is no ABSOLUTE agreement on any of it. It's absolute TO YOU....but you'll do no better convincing other people of that....than you will of convincing them that YOUR truth is the only truth. You and joe blow can look at the SAME event....and see entirely different moral truths and reality based on your world view. None of us are the objective judges of truth because we slaves to our own world view and perceptions....you as much as me.


You're right. Morality is not only a religious construct although that's a huge influence. People with no religious beliefs can have very strong ethical standards of right and wrong....but moral standards are not nearly as global and ethics!


So are you telling me that some clergymen advocate doing something (no exposure) that they believe is morally wrong??? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> No....they advocate what they believe to be morally right and in keeping with their religion...some don't believe in the morality of exposure. They advise no exposure because they truly believe it's for the GREATER good. If there was clear moral standard about exposure....why wouldn't ALL clergyman adhere to something that obvious?? Maybe it simply ISN'T that obvious or clear to everyone.


This is a falacious argument mel....we DO get to decide what's right and wrong...it's one of the most important things we will ever do in the whole of our lives. You get to decide it for you. I get to decide it for me. If you decide murder isn't wrong....and you kill somebody, society will lock you up. If you decide not to expose to the OPS....then you'll have to live with the guilt of living with that secret even if you think you're doing it for the greater good. What if someone truly believes that the right and moral thing to do is to protect their own marriage rather than expose to someone else? Or what if someone believes that they have a greater moral obligation to free that other marriage from outside interference rather than creating conflict there? You have a perception about what is right and wrong mel....so do I...not all issues are as clearcut as murder and robbery. I wouldn't put myself in the situation to have to make this choice to begin with....neither would you.


You're proving my argument for me.....can YOU see how moral views of right and wrong change from time to time, culture to culture, religion to religion? This is exactly what I'm talking about.


Yikes! Hot button for you? I advise people to remain authentic and ethical when making a decision about exposure when years have passed (as well as other issues in their lives). If THEY would want to know....even YEARS after the fact....then in order to live authentically....they should treat the OPS the same way they want to be treated. That's how you remain authentic to yourself.


First of all....I DIDN'T object, I only talked about what I feel....and secondly, you can tell me, or anybody else you want to, that you have the absolute answers to truth in the universe and the moral standards of right and wrong for everybody.....but I think that's sounds alot sillier than anything I had to say. Who died and made you YODA? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />


And I would also be remiss if I ignored the obvious omission and LACK of emphasis placed on this strategy by the Harleys. It continues to create controversy here....and I personally....wish the big guys would give us more clarity on the issue....don't you?

Aph....I agree about the differences between morals and ethics. Yep.

“If everyone is "right" no matter what, then you wouldn't have grounds to refute me in the first place.”

Now, that would be anarchy. There are (a few) ethical people who believe in anarchy.

But doing whatever you want is different from thinking whatever you want. That’s gets us back to morals.

Ethics has to do with systems/principles for interacting fairly with others and with the universe in general. There sometimes appear to be more than one such system around, but they overlap so much they are all mostly indistinguishable since Socrates.

Even Christ taught both ethics (the Golden Rule; render unto Caesar, etc.) and morals (obey the Commandments; I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, etc.)

Affairs are highly unethical. They violate promises, contracts, trust and cause great distress and actual harm.

Adultery is highly immoral. It breaks several commandments and consists of several capital sins.

Yet they are the same thing.


“And we would owe Hitler a huge apology!”

The Nazis did indeed try to set up their own ethical framework. Some few Nazis (of the better type, as much as that sounds odd) were consistent within the framework as far as it could take them. Many of these people left it as soon as they realized where it was taking them. The entire framework collapsed of its inconsistencies long before the end of WWII. This is a test of an ethic – does it hold together when faced with rational choices.

Regarding inconsistencies in a framework of any kind – look up Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem. It’s a proof that no rigid system of beliefs, or axioms, can be completely self-consistent, but it applies.


Shoot, and I said I would not jack this thread. Does this make me unethical or immoral in this instance? (Hint – it makes me inconsistent.)

With prayers,

Well, yes you did. You said "I don't believe that morality and truth are absolute and definitely not universal."

If the truth is not absolute, then your statement is not absolutely true, nor universal, which refutes your own claim. If you say this statement is not the truth, I would accept that claim. But if you are saying it is the truth, then Houston, we have a problem. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


But you would have no way of knowing because you have claimed you don't know the truth. See what I mean? You can't rationally claim there is no absolute truth without admitting that your claim is not true. Nor can you then turn around and claim to know that anyone elses statement is true or not. You have confessed your inability to discern truth. In other words, if you don't know the truth, you can't claim something else to be UNTRUE because you have no such standard of discernment, ADMITTEDLY.





First off, there does not need to be "agreement" amongst "great philosophers" or "prophets" to know that something is true. Truth is not determined by popular perception. Truth is always contingent upon reality and not what anyone thinks. That is because perception does not alter reality.

Let's think this through. Let's say that I "perceive" that you are a man. Does my perception make that a reality? Lets say that 200 people, a popular majority, agree with me that you are a man? Would that false belief change reality? Of course it wouldn't. That would be a silly notion. IT only means my perception is so FLAWED that it cannot perceive reality. It does not mean that my perception is TRUE.

You are a woman in REALITY regardless of what anything thinks or perceives, and all the opinions in the world will not change that reality. Now, a SEX CHANGE operation might effect that change, but that would be a change of REALITY effected by surgery. Perception, though, cannot change reality.
Is this the truth? If you are not an "objective judge of truth" then you can't rationally assert that this statement is the truth then, can you?

I have no idea what this means so I won't comment.

Of course its not that obvious to many. However, just because its not obvious to some does not mean it is not the moral thing to do. It has be defended on its own MERITS, not based on who recognizes it or not. Again, popular opinion is meaningless. If popular opinion justified anything, then we would owe a huge apology to Hitler and have to admit we have no cause to criticize pre-Civil war slavery in America.


But again, you have refuted your own argument because you have forfeited your right to challenge anyone's argument if you assert we all get to decide what is right and wrong. And I see that you are confusing belief in right and wrong with actual practice. For example, even a murderer KNOWS that murder is wrong even if decides to murder. So no, he does not get to decide if murder is right or wrong, because murder is WRONG whether he believes that or not.

If we all get to decide what is right and wrong [not whether or not we FOLLOW right and wrong] then you have no ground to criticise murder, adultery, child molestation. You therefore cannot criticize the notion then that there ARE universal standards of right and wrong, since, according to you, ALL STANDARDS are right.

You can't seriously then claim that ALL MORAL CLAIMS are justified EXCEPT the one that says there are UNIVERSAL STANDARDS. See? Again, that would be self refuting and as you have shut the door on yourself by making the claim that there are no moral absolutes.

In other words, there is no wrong, if we all get to decide on our own.
Nor could you object if I decided to murder you. And somehow I suspect that you would object. This is why I say that moral relativists don't really believe their own arguments. They would never allow their bank to use fuzzy moral practices when it came to managing their own money. They all want absolute standards of morality applied when dealing WITH THEM.



But you didn't make your case because slavery was ALWAYS WRONG regardless of popular perception. You can't rationally assert that slavery was RIGHT yesterday and is somehow wrong today. That would be silly. You haven't made a case, star, because you are still stuck on PERCEPTIONS, which do not serve to determine right and wrong.


Well, at least you admit that your position is not the truth and is just based on your feelings. I appreciate your honesty about that. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Aphelion, I agree with this very much, however, it cannot be asserted that adultery is immoral or unethical if there are no universal standards. If everyone gets to make up their own morals, then there is no right or wrong. Only what is "right for you and what is right for me." You say that this adultery does not work because it is a breach of a contract, but who or what says that breaching a contract is wrong? I say that breaching a contract is RIGHT TO DO and if there are no universal standards of right and wrong, then no one can object.

Secondly, there is no difference between the word ethics and morals, one is a synonym for the other. They mean exactly the same thing. They are code of standards designed to guide our conduct.

Main Entry: ethics
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: morality
Synonyms: belief, conduct, conscience, convention, conventionalities, criteria, decency, ethic, ethos, goodness, honesty, honor, ideal, imperative, integrity, moral code, morality, mores, natural law, nature, practice, principles, standard, standards, value

Yet they are the same thing.


http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=ethics&q=ethics

mel....I think all that hair, and the aqua net fumes, might have finally gone to your head. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

You're talking in circles and I have no intention of getting between you and your own sense of morality. If you say I'm a man....and lots of other people agree....that doesn't make me a man. However if I say that "spanking" is morally wrong....and folks agree with that....it doesn't prove I'm morally right or that folks who use corporal punishment are wrong. You can give me an opposing opinion, but you can't prove it's true. Why not?....because we're not talking about the over simplistic examples in the physical world like gender....we're talking about things that can't be measured or seen...they need to be "valued" authentically and spiritually....and each person must do those things. You can tell me what your "truth" is about "spanking" but that won't make it "reality"....and it probably won't change the reality or truth of someone who believes its ethically wrong to spank children.

star, is that the truth? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> [sorry, couldn't help mybadself! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />]

I am sorry I am confusing you, star, but I think you can see that spanking is not a "moral" and the discussion is about morals.

Anyway, it is my "truth" that this has been hashed to death and I better get this report in before 3:00 or my reality might not mesh with that of my boss! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

So, do I get to have the last word then (finally)?

Allow me to just repeat something from my first post in this thread that agrees with the definition you quote:

Ethics is sometimes defined as morality's effect on conduct.

With prayers,

Something that has always interested me with regard to moral relativism...

It is closely tied to the might makes right principle...which most moral relativists that I have known personally loathe.

If there is no absolute standard for right and wrong...then the strong will dominate the weak utterly and it will be right or at least not wrong..because as the strongest I have the POWER to enforce MY will and no rule of measure or social construct to tell me I shouldn't.

Rats. I knew it was too good to be true.

I guess noodle gets to have the last word after all.

Wait, now I have it.

We could arm wrestle.

You would win, hands down. My good hand is still bandaged.


A professor of ethics was trying to describe the shortcomings of relativism to a sophomore class. He was making no headway.

So he later gave everyone an F on the final exam.

To the cries of outrage he replied, “In my opinion, none of you meet my relative criteria for passing.”

It all depends on whose ox is being gored.

Back to you.

Well it doesn't work if we hit the ball in the same direction.

That just gives another example of my point.

He had the power to fail them... and did so.[It also made his point very clear I'm sure]

They can be mad all they want..but they can't change his will unless they engage in a power play and win..which would also not be wrong so he better start carrying a gun and ...is that the mission impossible theme music I hear..?

[wanders off]

There is "fact" and there is "truth"...

The two often have little to do with one another.

An object has a demonstrable mass of 15 kg. If my daughter were to try and lift it, she would say "It's heavy" - that is her truth, where I may lift the same object and say "It's not heavy at all."