if one only avoids infidelity just because "IT HURTS" ... it's a shallow reason, in my opinion.

That is also the opinion of one of the greatest moralists and philosophers of all time...Kant, and his categorical imperative which is based soley on 'duty'.

"Kant believed that if an action is not done with the motive of duty, then it is without moral value. He thought that every action should have pure intention behind it; otherwise it was meaningless."* <other source>

If the only reason to NOT do something is because of the later consequences...it has no moral value.

One should't commit adultry because it is WRONG...pure and simple. There should be nothing to come after that...no "it hurts families", "i might get caught" "my wife would kill me".

When you base action on the consequences you could actually be saying that you WOULD do it if those things were removed from the listed outcomes.

If there was no chance that it would hurt the family...you would. If there was no chance of getting caught...you would. If there was no chance of your wife killing you...you would.

It leads to that conclusion...imho.

committed

*edited to not not take credit for someone else's words

Last edited by committedandlovi; 01/31/08 01:10 PM.