According to an Ethicist.

I am not posting much on MB these days. I am reading even less. (Huh. What lysdexia?) There is a significant subset of the MB method I don�t agree with for one thing (it did not work for me at all); but mainly, there are way too many adulterers and so-called former adulterers here (odd, me saying that on a marriage help site) for my comfort level. They, nearly every one of them, tend to piss me off no end and it leaks into my posts. I admire those of you who can deal with them, but I am irritated knowing that even just one exists all the way over on the other side of the world.

That being said, I thought this article on situational ethics is pertinent re exposure - a MB step/method I heartily agree with (a significant subset of MB that did work as advertised). This article claims exposure to an arbitrary BS is ethically relative (it�s near the end of the article). I disagree. Every adultery should always be exposed and widely. For one thing, I indiscriminately despise nearly all present and former adulterers so much if exposure makes them suffer even a little bit (and hopefully a lot) I am all for it. But mostly because every spouse on the planet has both the inalienable right and the absolute duty to know everything that is going on in their marriage. Even if they don�t want to know. Especially if they don�t want to know.

Exposing adulterers, and former adulterers, is a moral as well as an ethical duty. Hate me all you want adulterers and former adulterers. I care not. I will not even allow any of you to work for me. And I don�t at all mind being called judgmental or self-righteous. Just hope we never cross paths irl.


Doing the Right Thing, Whatever That Is
By ALINA TUGEND

I RECENTLY found myself in a position where I had some moral qualms about a writing assignment. No, it wasn�t for this publication, and no, I wasn�t being asked to make up quotes or leave out pertinent facts. But I was being asked to phrase things in a way I didn�t feel totally comfortable with.

I spoke to the editor without much luck. I debated what to do. Should I withdraw the article, though it would cause considerable problems to the editor at this late date? Should I ask for my byline to be removed?

In the end, I decided to let the story run. But I vowed I would never write for the publication again.

The incident made me reflect on how things can seem so black and white when you�re outside a situation, and yet so difficult when you�re entangled in it. How do we find a framework for addressing ethical issues in our everyday lives?

First, it�s important to know what ethics are not, said Judy Nadler, a senior fellow in government ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University.

�They�re not, �Well everyone else is doing it, so it must be O.K.,� � she said. The Web site for her center lays out other things ethics are not: they aren�t the same as feelings, because many people feel good even though they are doing something wrong. And often our feelings will tell us it�s uncomfortable to do the right thing if it is hard.

They�re not just following the law. Laws can become ethically corrupt, and there are things strictly allowed by law that we would consider unethical, like some of the activity on Wall Street that led to the financial crisis, Ms. Nadler said. �I always say the law is the floor, not the ceiling.�

So how do we determine if we�re acting ethically?

�If, at the end of the day, can you say, �I got all the facts, not just the ones I agreed with�?� Ms. Nadler said. �Can you say you looked at all the options, not just the convenient ones? If I did all those things and answered them honestly, then I can say I did my very best.�

Most of us know the situation where we�re asked by a boss to do something that makes us uneasy. And these situations can rankle us for years.

My father still remembers an incident back in 1979 when he worked, as he did for most of his professional life, as a science writer and communications director at the University of California, Los Angeles.

A small research nuclear reactor on the campus became the focus of a group of student protesters, whom my father said he �instinctively sympathized with.� And he had some social connection with the parents of the leader of the group.

�On the other hand,� he said, �there were the professors and administration with whom I worked day by day and whom I generally respected, who assured me that the reactor was completely safe, had passed all inspections and was needed to train a generation of future nuclear engineers � then thought to be the world�s solution to the energy problem.�

My father, who didn�t have the technical background to know what was right, wrote the news release quoting a nuclear engineering professor stating that the reactor was safe.

He loved his job, was putting two children through college and had one in high school. Yet the episode still bothers him years later, and in retrospect, put in the same position today, he said he might have at least discussed his reservations with his boss and perhaps asked if someone else could be assigned to deal with the media on this issue.

My father�s instinct � that he should have talked about his ethical qualms � is a good one, said Susan Dwyer, an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Maryland.

�I think people have a great deal of difficulty being honest and straightforward,� Professor Dwyer said. �I�m an Australian and I find Americans are really coy about saying, �This is an uncomfortable situation and I don�t want to do it.� � That�s true in personal and well as professional relationships, she said.

You also have to be aware that if you work in a place where the culture implicitly or explicitly encourages unethical behavior, you�re going to face the same quandary over and over, said Thomas White, professor of business ethics at Loyola Marymount University.

�You have to ask yourself, even if I get through this situation, is it going to come up again? If the message is, �Make those numbers no matter what,� if you find yourself in a moral dilemma, you want to be ruthlessly realistic with yourself and start developing an exit strategy,� Professor White said. �You�re just kidding yourself if you think it won�t happen again.�

But Professor White also acknowledged a hard truth: It�s easier to have higher ethical standards in good economic times than bad.

His department�s Web site offered helpful ways to think through an ethical problem. Analyze the consequences: Who will be helped by what you do? Who will be hurt? What kind of benefits and harms are we talking about, and how does this look over the long run as well as the short term?

But don�t make the mistake of assuming that people who have strong principles and never compromise are necessarily �better.�

�We often admire this kind of backbone and we are apt to attribute courage to those who run considerable risks in sticking to their guns,� said Professor Dwyer, who teaches moral philosophy focusing on issues like abortion, pornography and assisted suicide. �But some people might stick to their guns � act on their principles, come what may � because they are cowardly. They simply don�t want to think through the complications of particular cases and reach for a rule or principle. This represents a refusal to honestly engage with the messiness of human life, while at the same time allowing the person to bask in self-righteousness.�

And of course, ethics change. Randy Cohen, who wrote The Ethicist column for The New York Times from 1999 to 2011, said that when he first started, he was asked by a woman going out on a blind date whether it was ethical to Google her date.
�How the world has changed,� he said. �Now, no one wouldn�t think of not Googling a blind date.�

The most common ethical question he was asked about over the years concerned a �duty to report.� That is, you find out a friend�s spouse is having an extramarital affair. A college roommate is cheating by downloading papers from the Internet.

Do you tell?

In terms of the friend, he said, it depends on whether you�re getting a strong message that the friend wants to know. If not, be silent, he said.

With the roommate question, Mr. Cohen, the author of �Be Good: How to Navigate the Ethics of Everything� (Chronicle Books, 2012), said he liked the rule some universities had come up with: You have a duty to act.

�You can talk to your roommate. You can go a professor or department chair and say there�s cheating going on without naming names. But you can�t do nothing,� he said.

So how do I feel now about my ethical quandary? The best I can do, I believe, is use what I�ve learned as a guideline for how I will address the next moral issue I will inevitably face.

As Mr. Cohen said: �We can�t ask people to be perfect. But we can ask them to strive to be good.�

A version of this article appeared in print on September 22, 2012, on page B5 of the New York Times edition with the headline: Doing the Right Thing, Whatever That Is.

I noticed that. You will be happy to know that things are much calmer and so much less divisive these days on this site. Or maybe you won't. Either way, up to you. I'm sorry it didn't work for you. Man, did it ever work for my marriage! We are SO rocking - I wake up every morning, excited for the new day with my husband, thanks to Marriage Builders! Your call. And you've made your call. Which makes me wonder why you're here now. If I were in your spot of being disgruntled with a site, I would move on without a backward glance. And yet...here you are. Huh. Maybe you miss us?

If dealing with these scarred and flawed adulterers are beyond your ken, it is probably wise that you move on to a more pristine relationship forum, dontcha think?

Don't get it.

A FORMER wayward would have exposed anyway. So why the advice telling former waywards to expose when, as an MBer, they would already have done so.

If there are current waywards who have not exposed yet, roll up your sleeves and 2x4 them like the rest of us.

Or don't bother. Your call.

Besides, there's lots of threads on exposure already. Its a long held MB tenet. Hardly a new idea.

And this doesn't seem to guide anyone as to a true, complete, MB exposure. This bit is just baffling.



Good grief. Speaking out about the invisible nameless man!

Of what earthly good is that!

As Kipling said: I KEEP six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who..

I do hope there are no investigative reporters reading this article and taking it seriously.

Or detectives. Or judges. Or people with any responsibilty to uncover and expose wrong doing.

Dang, that indie is sharp. Well said. However, you are posting against a poster who enjoys the art of the endless debate. Over and over and over and over....

Aphelion, whatever else your posts were, they could be counted on to be decisive and clear as to your feelings.

This article was nothing but "relativism" cloaked by supposed authority attribution.

Did you have a purpose in bringing this to us, other than as comic relief?

*like*

No, that's a choice you make. Nobody can make you angry.

maritalbliss �

�Your call. And you've made your call. Which makes me wonder why you're here now. If I were in your spot of being disgruntled with a site, I would move on without a backward glance. And yet...here you are. Huh. Maybe you miss us?�

For you it is a test.

Oh, and no. I don�t. You are always right here.


indiegirl (who has since edited her original post) -

� Besides, there's lots of threads on exposure already. Its a long held MB tenet. Hardly a new idea.�

You consider publicly agreeing with exposure bad form? Interesting. You did not actually read the article, did you.

Aphelion, are you impressed with the ideas in this article?

Excellent Mel. Right to the point. Perhaps you understand the reason I put this in Other Topics.


Yes and no.

The meat of this article is situational ethics � which will most likely be debated until the end of time and comes up on MB quite often. But, the article does draw some attention to the ethos of adultery.

�First, it�s important to know what ethics are not, said Judy Nadler, a senior fellow in government ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University.

�They�re not, �Well everyone else is doing it, so it must be O.K.,� � she said. The Web site for her center lays out other things ethics are not: they aren�t the same as feelings, because many people feel good even though they are doing something wrong. And often our feelings will tell us it�s uncomfortable to do the right thing if it is hard.�

Emphasis mine.

Sounds like adulterers to me. Feelings are more important than anything. Feelings might even be the greater good. To an adulterer, that is. Love can make adultery OK, sort of. Relatively speaking. And covering it up and otherwise lying about the extent of it is OK if exposure of the Whole Truth is hard.

So, at least some experts agree adultery is objectively unethical. But then the article watered it down with a wishy-washy attitude towards exposure. Irked me. I am all for wide exposure. A radical proponent of radical exposure, as it were. (It alone killed a 10 year-long highly entangled VLTA.)

Perhaps that right there is near the edge where ethics leaves off and morals take over.


PS: Mel, I�ve known for some time now I am not nearly as forgiving as you.

Did you? Witholding names and details is not exposure!!!

Its just a bunch of spineless wonders patting themselves on the back while sitting on the fence.

I agree with MB style exposure.
The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I think I will leave the rather more silly ideas from that article exactly where I found them.

Ok, I feel better now that you have said this. I was worried you were impressed with the wishy washy retarded moral relativism in the article and I thought I knew you better than that.


Did you know that Harley doesn't believe in forgiveness when it comes to adultery?

Check out these radio clips [this is a subject that he comments on quite often]

Part 1

Part 11

another one on forgiveness: here


So is Harley and so am I!

here

If my phone wasn't stolen, I found out I had saved an article specifically about counselors and adultery in a marriage.

On one hand, they were bound by law with patient confidentiality. On the other, there is the knowledge that a marriage cannot survive deception.


The close was simply that; that while one has to maintain patient confidentiality, one cannot expect results as long as a cheating spouse expects the cheating to remain secret.

That's not "impressive," but ethics are the reality of those who are expected to maintain the right of confidentiality to those they serve.

If we get a new cancer diagnosis, and a husband says he doesn't want his wife notified... his wife isn't notified. That's the reality of my profession and the professions around it. We can advocate, but to inject my ethics or morals into someone else's life and decisions will come with the penalty up to and including the loss of my professional license, as well as fees and possibly time served.



What was the line in the article? The ethics from where you are standing?

I have no idea what you're referring to. A test?

So I must assume that you've lurked here and have never left. Done. I have no idea what this means in relation to any post of mine to you. I can only assume to you just lumped your quote to include more than one poster. Hopefully you'll correct me or the other poster will recognize that you are posting to them and not me.

I edited my post to clarify the sources. Sorry. I thought it would be obvious to the specific posters.

No, no lurking. I have been out of the country. With occasional internet access, of course, but little time or inclination. And I am going to be away again for quite a while very soon. You will be able to go back to your previous existence.

Mel, I�m hurt you doubted me. To my core!

T�was exposure killed the adultery. It was a deeply entrenched VLTA with previous D-Days, too. I detonated a WWIII nuclear winter of exposure and it worked exactly as advertised.

It should be noted - adultery that takes place between work colleagues is like having an ace in the hole for the BS. All adulteries need to be massively exposed at the workplace. Most company executives fear lawsuits more than they fear eternal damnation.

An interesting aside about ethics - business ethics emphasizes the mere appearance of wrongdoing as much as the doing wrong. For example, every employee who simply feels they weren�t promoted because two other employees were rutting on business trips has a ready-made lawsuit. They don�t even need proof. The adultery is pretty good legal proof all by itself. Wife�s OM was allowed to retire early or get publicly fired.

Another useful target of exposure � any previous spouses of the OP. OM was terrified I would expose to his previous wife. So I said I wouldn�t. But later I changed my mind and exposed in graphic detail anyway, and I made sure his current wife knew I did. That, I suspect, was the final straw for his current wife. She D�d him and took their children shortly afterwards.

Did I mention I�m a fan of confronting the OP? In person. With backup. Was the first time in years I felt good about myself. Someday I�ll take the time to describe the sniveling moron�s reactions.

Why would he care if you exposed to the previous wife?

Not doubting, I'm just curious.

�Did you know that Harley doesn't believe in forgiveness when it comes to adultery?�

Well, OK. This one is going to be more difficult�

He recommends treating it sort of like a boil on the [censored] of one�s marriage. A carbuncle. Examine it. Treat it. Get rid of it. Avoid sitting naked on dirty seats in the future. Never bring it up again. Then, forget about it. After all, according to one of his own articles, adultery is just a � moment of weakness�. I�ll specifically reference the article if you want. It�s also referenced on Pep�s resentment thread. (BTW, I am unable to forget much of anything. Semi-eidetic memory.)

Now, to avoid another unnecessary argument, I am agreeable to sorting adultery by degree, or however Dr H recommends. For example, I stipulate a drunken ONS, maybe a very short interaction due to a determined seduction, a short EA, or by whatever suits one�s fancy are not in the same class as a 10 year-long VLTA or a serial cheater nor even adultery with just one false recovery.

Some adulterers do indeed trip and fall. There has been a small handful on MB over the years. If they are telling truth - which is highly debatable. If such a one immediately repents, confesses everything to their family and spends the rest of their life making just amends (what constitutes just amends is also debatable � finally starting to do what the adulterer was supposed to be doing all along is minimally weak, IMO) they possibly could be defined as having suffered an unfortunate moment�s weakness. Then MB seems to work well.

Very rare though, IMO. Does not fit any adulterers I know irl. Though, I thought at the time, 20 some years ago, it fit my wife�s first adultery. I believed her deep remorse and her sincere attempts at amends. I forgave and didn�t bring it up again. We actually implemented MB methods almost exactly as published even before they were published. Hey, this even fit the first D-Day of the later VLTA. Turns out the MB approach mostly just taught her how to get away with it.

If Dr. Harley recommends that, it's news to me.

Not sure. I do know the then current wife was the OW in his previous M.