Would you tell a stranger their partner was cheating on them?

KomradeBishop · 25-07-2015 04:49PM

Ya, or even someone elses child.

One eyed Jack · 25-07-2015 04:55PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Okey - but in that situation, how long did the person stay with the cheater since you found out, before they themselves found out they were being cheated on?

As you pointed out below, it varies, just as much as the whole motivations for cheating vary and the dynamics within the relationship itself vary. That's why I'll never rush to judge people in that situation, I simply don't see it as my place to do so.

You could easily save them a lot of wasted time staying with someone who is betraying them, by letting them know - and if they break it off earlier, then you save him the humiliation, of more people finding out he's being cheated on, before he eventually finds out (assuming he ever does - some people could end up wasting decades staying with a partner who betrayes them, if nobody took the decision to let them know).

And there's the crux of the matter and why it can only be down to each individual to answer for themselves - who gives anyone "the right", to interfere in someone else's relationship?

Two wrongs have never made a right in my book, and so that "decision to let someone know", are you doing it out of genuine concern for someone, or are you doing it because their actions don't sit right on your moral compass, and you'll not be having that?

zeffabelli · 25-07-2015 05:04PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Out of curiosity, is that just with people you don't know personally, or would you also feel that friend's and work colleagues having affairs would also be none of your business?

None of it would be my business because no one can understand what exists between two others.

I would not throw a stone into an unknown pond with no idea of the consequences of what would happen without holding myself a little responsible for those consequences.

NachoBusiness · 25-07-2015 05:08PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

I would not throw a stone into an unknown pond with no idea of the consequences of what would happen...

Ah, I like the way you kept up the waterways theme and extrapolated on my 'oar in waters' unknown analogy. Respect.

zeffabelli · 25-07-2015 05:11PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Okey - but in that situation, how long did the person stay with the cheater since you found out, before they themselves found out they were being cheated on?

You could easily save them a lot of wasted time staying with someone who is betraying them, by letting them know - and if they break it off earlier, then you save him the humiliation, of more people finding out he's being cheated on, before he eventually finds out (assuming he ever does - some people could end up wasting decades staying with a partner who betrayes them, if nobody took the decision to let them know).

You could also earn them a black eye or a custody battle. Point is you don't know.

freshpopcorn · 25-07-2015 05:12PM

Probably not, people are in many different types of relationships now a days and in my opinion you might end up doing more harm than good for the couple/yourself. You never know how somebody is going to react. They might also be children involved and I don't think it would be fare on them for their parents issues to to be shared over the Internet.
If I were to do it. I'd do It privately. In my honest opinion anybody who'd do this over the net only wants a bit of social media fame.

KomradeBishop · 25-07-2015 05:18PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As you pointed out below, it varies, just as much as the whole motivations for cheating vary and the dynamics within the relationship itself vary. That's why I'll never rush to judge people in that situation, I simply don't see it as my place to do so.

Why did you dodge the question though? I was talking about the specific situation you described; how long did the person stay with the cheater, while being cheated on?

To be honest, stuff like the 'motivations for cheating vary' and about 'dynamics within the relationship' - all of that is just hand-wavy nonsense - cheating is just plain wrong, outside of some really improbable edge-cases...

Cheating is simply a betrayal of trust, and that is pretty much (outside of extremely rare edge cases) always definitely wrong.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And there's the crux of the matter and why it can only be down to each individual to answer for themselves - who gives anyone "the right", to interfere in someone else's relationship?

Two wrongs have never made a right in my book, and so that "decision to let someone know", are you doing it out of genuine concern for someone, or are you doing it because their actions don't sit right on your moral compass, and you'll not be having that?

The 'none of your business' and 'interfering in someone else's relationship' stuff are morally invalid arguments - they only serve to protect cheaters, and hide the truth from people being cheated on.

Do you think people who have been cheated on, think the person informing them of the cheating should "mind their own business", and should not have informed them?

Don't think so - as I said, those arguments only serve to protect cheaters - and there is nothing morally wrong with informing on a cheater (it's not a case of 'two wrongs making a right' - that again, is a morally invalid argument, that serves to only protect cheaters).

This below takes things a bit further than most people would agree with, but is my view of it:
The morally dubious action, really is to be protecting the cheater, by remaining silent - that's what people are tacitly doing, when they stay silent - but that is understandable morally, if it could cause blow-back for you.

So, unless a person is at risk themselves in doing so, there is really a moral duty to inform on cheaters - the same way as if you witnessed a robbery, there's a moral duty to report that; cheating is not a crime, but in both cases something morally wrong is being committed, which harms someone.

KomradeBishop · 25-07-2015 05:24PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

You could also earn them a black eye or a custody battle. Point is you don't know.

A custody battle would be the fault/responsibility of the cheater - but a person in an abusive relationship (the black eye), would be a legitimate case for not informing.

I think in this thread and another recent thread, the case of abusive/coercive relationships, is the only edge-case I've seen, where cheating can be justified - and I think these cases are not very likely/probable among overall cheating (not just abusive relationships, but such relationships + cheating).

I think in society, there are a hell of a lot of faulty arguments perpetuated, to protect cheaters - it seems relatively common for people to believe them.

zeffabelli · 25-07-2015 05:27PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

A custody battle would be the fault/responsibility of the cheater - but a person in an abusive relationship (the black eye), would be a legitimate case for not informing.

I think in this thread and another recent thread, the case of abusive/coercive relationships, is the only edge-case I've seen, where cheating can be justified - and I think these cases are not very likely/probable.

I think in society, there are a hell of a lot of faulty arguments perpetuated, to protect cheaters - it seems relatively common for people to believe them.

I would also see it as tattling, and it's not my story to tell.

If you tell you are a little responsible for the fallout, including kids who now have split homes and a lifetime of suitcases in the hallway.

Because you take that persons story, their narrative out of their control, and the morality of that is also questionable.

NachoBusiness · 25-07-2015 05:41PM

Playboy wrote: »

Its none of your business. No one is breaking the law so stay the hell out of it. I don't understand why people feel the need to involve themselves in the private affairs of people they have no connection to. If it was friend or a relative then maybe but grassing up a stranger? That's out of order imo. You have no idea what kind of relationship they have, what the rules are, has one person cheated before, is one person an abuse victim... there could be a million different reasons but the most important reason is its none of your business and no one is asking for your involvement or opinion.

So you cite three reasons not to do it..

1) The other person has cheated before.

Well, then my letting that person know will show them that their partner has a) now got even and b) is a hypocrite if they have whinged about them cheating.

Either way, I am just being a good Samaritan.

2) The person is a victim of abuse.

Victim of abuse and their solution is to cheat?

Nah, not buying that one.

3) They could have an open relationship.

Fine, well then they can laugh about some stranger informing on one of them to the other so.

KomradeBishop · 25-07-2015 05:42PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

I would also see it as tattling, and it's not my story to tell.

If you tell you are a little responsible for the fallout, including kids who now have split homes and a lifetime of suitcases in the hallway.

Because you take that persons story, their narrative out of their control, and the morality of that is also questionable.

Well, socially excluding people for 'tattling', is the standard social tactic used to protect bullies, liars, criminals, cheaters, fraudsters, among other things, and to destroy the career/reputations of whistleblowers, and to justify bullying/abuse/threats against people who do 'tattle'/blow-the-whistle.

That's an argument based on having a sense of 'honour' (not to rat-out/tattle on people), but it's actually almost exclusively used for dishonourable reasons (for protecting committing any of the above wrongs, among more); negatively judging someone for such reasons, is inherently morally wrong.

If we know that somebody has broken the law, has committed a robbery or committed fraud, it's pretty much our moral duty to report that - cheating is not breaking the law, but the same principles around 'tattling' apply (so people may not view notifying of cheating as a moral duty, as I do, but it at least means that it's not inherently a moral wrong to notify of it).

I disagree about having responsibility for the fallout: The cheater is 100% in the wrong, and it is they who are solely responsible for the fallout - it's like saying reporting a dad for committing a robbery, and that breaking up a family, leads to you being responsible for the fallout there, for reporting that.

Again, one thing is illegal and another is not, but the same moral principles apply.

If your last sentence means, you frame the cheating in a way that is different to how the cheater would frame it, when explaining it to the partner, then that's not really a valid criticism: Cheating is simply a betrayal of trust, and that's a very binary right/wrong thing - so you have no responsibility to report that on terms favourable to the cheater.

zeffabelli · 25-07-2015 05:51PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Well, socially excluding people for 'tattling', is the standard social tactic used to protect bullies, liars, criminals, cheaters, fraudsters, among other things, and to destroy the career/reputations of whistleblowers, and to justify bullying/abuse/threats against people who do 'tattle'/blow-the-whistle.

That's an argument based on having a sense of 'honour' (not to rat-out/tattle on people), but it's actually almost exclusively used for dishonourable reasons (for protecting committing any of the above wrongs, among more); negatively judging someone for such reasons, is inherently morally wrong.

If we know that somebody has broken the law, has committed a robbery or committed fraud, it's pretty much our moral duty to report that - cheating is not breaking the law, but the same principles around 'tattling' apply (so people may not view notifying of cheating as a moral duty, as I do, but it at least means that it's not inherently a moral wrong to notify of it).

I disagree about having responsibility for the fallout: The cheater is 100% in the wrong, and it is they who are solely responsible for the fallout - it's like saying reporting a dad for committing a robbery, and that breaking up a family, leads to you being responsible for the fallout there, for reporting that.

Again, one thing is illegal and another is not, but the same moral principles apply.

If your last sentence means, you frame the cheating in a way that is different to how the cheater would frame it, when explaining it to the partner, then that's not really a valid criticism: Cheating is simply a betrayal of trust, and that's a very binary right/wrong thing - so you have no responsibility to report that on terms favourable to the cheater.

See I don't see it like committing a robbery or all these other crimes you list.

I see it far less certain than that, and betrayals like that are rarely binary.

You really don't know the meaning systems in other people's relationships and families, or their histories and when you insert decontextualised data and take the narrative power away from the member of that family, you automatically become an instrument in whatever happens and I'd view that as naive irresponsibility, not doing them all a favour based on your own moral codes.

Samaris · 25-07-2015 05:55PM

I don't think there's a moral responsibility to get involved like that, not with strangers.

They knew nothing about them. I wonder how they'd have felt if they saw a headline the next day "Man kills wife after girls out her affair to him and on Twitter".

I'm not victim blaming here at all, by the way! Absolutely don't condone cheating. But if you're with a friend, you can do it gently, talk to them away from the partner, and, if you fear he or she might go ape****, be around to ensure the physical safety of the other person (obviously it all very much depends on circumstances).

Look, it's nowhere near ideal, but affairs do happen that blow over swiftly and no-one's left the worst for it. I may not personally approve, but that's life. Otherwise, generally friends, family or the partner will start noticing and it will be found out.

One doesn't have to stick the oar in (as mentioned above, cough) and clumsily stir around until **** happens. And one really, really does not have to wave it all over Twitter afterwards.

The video on the twitter page shows the backs of the two people, making them potentially identifiable and the girl is laughing and giggling as she writes it. They're a spiteful pair. Seem pretty happy at all the attention they're getting too.

25-07-2015 06:00PM

People who stick their nose in run the risk of setting off a chain of consequences that go far beyond what they may have expected or hoped for. Those who do it to big themselves up on social media deserve contempt.

Joe prim · 25-07-2015 06:00PM

I do it all the time, to random strangers.No reason, I just like getting punched in the face.

KomradeBishop · 25-07-2015 06:06PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

See I don't see it like committing a robbery or all these other crimes you list.

I see it far less certain than that, and betrayals like that are rarely binary.

You really don't know the meaning systems in other people's relationships and families, or their histories and when you insert decontextualised data and take the narrative power away from the member of that family, you automatically become an instrument in whatever happens and I'd view that as naive irresponsibility, not doing them all a favour based on your own moral codes.

Comparing it to robbery/crimes is only an analogy, that helps to put my point across better; why is someone responsible for the fallout to a family of reporting cheating, vs the fallout to a family of reporting a crime?

Outside of cheating in an abusive relationship, when is cheating i.e. a betrayal of trust, ever not completely wrong? I think that betrayals like that, outside of improbable/rare edge-cases, pretty much are a binary right/wrong thing.

The last paragraph seems to be delving a bit too much in philosophical concepts: Unless the couple are in a polyamorous relationship, their personal meaning system isn't likely to make much of a difference, compared to you informing vs the cheated-on partner finding out themselves.
The cheating partner also has ample opportunity to try and explain the context of their cheating to their partner, if they think that their partner would be ok with it - if they hadn't, chances are they know their partner wouldn't be ok with it.

If their partner is having sex with someone else, that's just a fact that they learn when you inform them - and no context is likely to make it appear any better to them - and they can hear out the context after being informed of that fact as well (which, given that the cheating partner hasn't already tried to explain the context, would be highly suggestive that the other partner would not be ok with it).

One eyed Jack · 25-07-2015 06:09PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Why did you dodge the question though? I was talking about the specific situation you described; how long did the person stay with the cheater, while being cheated on?

I didn't avoid the question? I said previously that I'd often been in that situation where I knew someone was cheating on their partner, and the circumstances and dynamics each time have varied. Some people chose to stay with their partners after they became aware of the fact their partner was cheating on them, and some people tried to work it out, and couldn't make their relationship work, and some people simply cut all ties with the other person, then some tried to get back with the person who had cheated on them, and some people tried to get revenge on the person who had cheated on them. There simply is no one clear cut answer to your question.

To be honest, stuff like the 'motivations for cheating vary' and about 'dynamics within the relationship' - all of that is just hand-wavy nonsense - cheating is just plain wrong, outside of some really improbable edge-cases...

Cool, we all have our different standards and perspectives. I'd never encourage someone to cheat on their partner, but I can certainly understand why some people do cheat on their partners.

[Cheating is simply a betrayal of trust, and that is pretty much (outside of extremely rare edge cases) always definitely wrong.

Yeah, I'm not actually defending cheating itself here, of course cheating is wrong, and I would say in all circumstances it's wrong, and it's a bad idea anyway, but that still doesn't give me a right to be the moral arbiter of another adults' behaviour. 100 times out of 100 they knew what they were doing was wrong.

The 'none of your business' and 'interfering in someone else's relationship' stuff are morally invalid arguments - they only serve to protect cheaters, and hide the truth from people being cheated on.

It's not about "protecting cheaters", if someone is cheating, do you think telling them what they're doing is 'morally wrong' is going to have them stop? It's your argument about morality is invalid, and it's inconsequential when someone is actually that far gone that they will outright reject any notions of examining the morality in their behaviour.

You have to look at the whole picture, and unless you can see the whole picture, then IMO you're best not to impose your morality upon other people.

[Do you think people who have been cheated on, think the person informing them of the cheating should "mind their own business", and should not have informed them?

Don't think so - as I said, those arguments only serve to protect cheaters - and there is nothing morally wrong with informing on a cheater (it's not a case of 'two wrongs making a right' - that again, is a morally invalid argument, that serves to only protect cheaters).

See, there's an example of the problem right there - you ask me a question, and then you answer it for me, from your perspective.

I can at least tell you from my own experience (not my own personal experience, I wouldn't put that on a public forum, geez

), but if there's one thing more humiliating than someone making a fool of you, it's someone else knowing about it, and that's why people tend to shoot the messenger. They're angry, upset and humiliated, they aren't going to give you Hollywood style hugs for "lookin' out for a brutha" or any the rest of that shyte! :pac:

This below takes things a bit further than most people would agree with, but is my view of it:

The morally dubious action, really is to be protecting the cheater, by remaining silent - that's what people are tacitly doing, when they stay silent - but that is understandable morally, if it could cause blow-back for you.

So, unless a person is at risk themselves in doing so, there is really a moral duty to inform on cheaters - the same way as if you witnessed a robbery, there's a moral duty to report that; cheating is not a crime, but in both cases something morally wrong is being committed, which harms someone.

That's less hand wavy and more craw-thumpy than I'd be comfortable with tbh, and as arguments go, you're still arguing about what is or isn't morally valid, so we're arguing from two completely different standpoints here -

You're arguing morality, which has no basis in reality, and I'm arguing reality, which is no reflection of morality as each individual sets their own moral standards when it comes to what they deem acceptable or unacceptable behaviour and just how much sh1t they're willing to put up with, or not, as the case may be.

It may be that they prefer their partner to be discreet about their liaisons, rather than have their private lives plastered all over social media by a pair of Inspector Clueless'.

osarusan · 25-07-2015 06:11PM

If I decided I would tell them, I'd do it privtely.

I wouldn't be putting it up on the internet for the world to see. That reeks of 'look at us and what we did, aren't we great.'

Lucyfur · 25-07-2015 06:26PM

It's NachoBusiness

KomradeBishop · 25-07-2015 06:27PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn't avoid the question? I said previously that I'd often been in that situation where I knew someone was cheating on their partner, and the circumstances and dynamics each time have varied. Some people chose to stay with their partners after they became aware of the fact their partner was cheating on them, and some people tried to work it out, and couldn't make their relationship work, and some people simply cut all ties with the other person, then some tried to get back with the person who had cheated on them, and some people tried to get revenge on the person who had cheated on them. There simply is no one clear cut answer to your question.

Ok, it wasn't one situation, but how long did these people stay with the cheater, before finding out? Are any of them still with a cheater? (and if so, after how long?)

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not actually defending cheating itself here, of course cheating is wrong, and I would say in all circumstances it's wrong, and it's a bad idea anyway, but that still doesn't give me a right to be the moral arbiter of another adults' behaviour. 100 times out of 100 they knew what they were doing was wrong.

It's not about "protecting cheaters", if someone is cheating, do you think telling them what they're doing is 'morally wrong' is going to have them stop? It's your argument about morality is invalid, and it's inconsequential when someone is actually that far gone that they will outright reject any notions of examining the morality in their behaviour.

You have to look at the whole picture, and unless you can see the whole picture, then IMO you're best not to impose your morality upon other people.

You don't even need to be a moral arbiter of their behaviour, you can simply inform their partner of the cheating with no moral judgement - the partner being informed is hardly going to tell you to 'mind your own business' either.

In the above, you put forward the idea of talking to the person who is cheating first to try and get them to stop - you picked that scenario to shift the goalposts and create a strawman, because it was beneficial to your argument, to try and ridicule the idea of doing that (which nobody suggested doing...), when this is about informing the partner of the cheater.

The 'whole picture' stuff, is just another variation of the handwavy 'complexity' based arguments.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

See, there's an example of the problem right there - you ask me a question, and then you answer it for me, from your perspective.

I can at least tell you from my own experience (not my own personal experience, I wouldn't put that on a public forum, geez ), but if there's one thing more humiliating than someone making a fool of you, it's someone else knowing about it, and that's why people tend to shoot the messenger. They're angry, upset and humiliated, they aren't going to give you Hollywood style hugs for "lookin' out for a brutha" or any the rest of that shyte! :pac:

That's less hand wavy and more craw-thumpy than I'd be comfortable with tbh, and as arguments go, you're still arguing about what is or isn't morally valid, so we're arguing from two completely different standpoints here -

You're arguing morality, which has no basis in reality, and I'm arguing reality, which is no reflection of morality as each individual sets their own moral standards when it comes to what they deem acceptable or unacceptable behaviour and just how much sh1t they're willing to put up with, or not, as the case may be.

It may be that they prefer their partner to be discreet about their liaisons, rather than have their private lives plastered all over social media by a pair of Inspector Clueless'

While I did give my own answer to the question, your answer is a dodge: Of course short-term pain/discomfort can cause people to react negatively (in 'shoot the messenger' fashion), but that doesn't mean they would prefer you hadn't informed them.

To the latter: Moral frameworks are subjective, but despite that, they are not just a matter of opinion - they have to be consistent; you can't arbitrarily decide to pick a different set of morals in the case of cheating, because that would be inconsistent and hypocritcal.

Also, your entire argument about morals is wrong: If the partner has no moral problem with what the 'cheating' partner is doing, then there's no harm to come from informing them...

In your last sentence, again you are fully aware that you are shifting the goalposts to suit your argument again: You know I'm not advocating using social media to inform everyone of cheating.

zeffabelli · 25-07-2015 07:09PM

I'd demand proof otherwise consider it malicious gossip.

In other words why take their word for it?

Then I'd be pissed off for interfering in my family and tell the gossiper to jump in a river.

puppieperson · 25-07-2015 07:23PM

No way you will get no thanks for it and if you know the couple when they sort it out you get black listed. Keep out of relationship biz, all relationships are different and work in their own quirky ways.

Aineoil · 25-07-2015 07:33PM

For scenarios like the one the op posted about .... I have a borrowed motto -

Not my circus, not my monkeys.

One eyed Jack · 25-07-2015 07:37PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ok, it wasn't one situation, but how long did these people stay with the cheater, before finding out? Are any of them still with a cheater? (and if so, after how long?)

How long did they stay with the cheater before finding out? Sure if they didn't know in the first place, they were hardly "staying with them"?

I don't honestly know how many are or aren't still with their partners as I'm going back over 20 odd years of knowing people who have cheated on their partners. I've lost contact with many of them, but those few that I do still know, well, some couples have separated and gone on to enter new relationships, some couples are still together and I'm not aware of either party cheating, and some people, well, there's just no hope for some people :pac:

You don't even need to be a moral arbiter of their behaviour, you can simply inform their partner of the cheating with no moral judgement - the partner being informed is hardly going to tell you to 'mind your own business' either.

"Inform with no moral judgement" my ass, so far in this thread you've tried to pass off your morality as incumbent upon other people to behave the same way you do. All you're missing is a pulpit.

You say they're hardly going to tell you to mind your own business and I have to wonder how many times have you told someone in your non-judgemental way that their partner was cheating on them?

[In the above, you put forward the idea of talking to the person who is cheating first to try and get them to stop - you picked that scenario to shift the goalposts and create a strawman, because it was beneficial to your argument, to try and ridicule the idea of doing that (which nobody suggested doing...), when this is about informing the partner of the cheater.

I put that forward actually as a counter to your morality argument where you would seek to impose your opinion as everyone else's "moral duty". Informing the partner of the cheater simply does nothing only eases your own conscience IMO - You've had your fun and that's all that matters.

The 'whole picture' stuff, is just another variation of the handwavy 'complexity' based arguments.

Yeah, who needs the whole picture when other people behave in a way that jars with our moral standards? We need to put a stop to that immediately so everything is right in our little world again.

In case you can't tell, I was also ridiculing your idea of ignoring everything else except your own moral standards and using that as your justification for the non-judgemental way you would be about to inform someone that their partner is cheating on them. Is it yielding that power that somehow blinds you to the consequences of your own actions?[

While I did give my own answer to the question, your answer is a dodge: Of course short-term pain/discomfort can cause people to react negatively (in 'shoot the messenger' fashion), but that doesn't mean they would prefer you hadn't informed them.

It's impossible to say really, some people would take news like that worse than others - some people never get over it, some people move on very quickly. Some people have indeed told me that they wish the person who told them hadn't told them, but they couldn't say that to them because they would have been shooting the messenger, but they wished that person would have minded their own business.

(Disclosure: Many of my friends are women, and the person who told them that their partner was cheating on them usually had spiteful motivations in mind, certainly weren't doing it out of some "moral duty" or anything else).

To the latter: Moral frameworks are subjective, but despite that, they are not just a matter of opinion - they have to be consistent; you can't arbitrarily decide to pick a different set of morals in the case of cheating, because that would be inconsistent and hypocritcal.

If you know that morals are subjective, then you also know that ethics are objective, and that's why adultery, while it may be morally abhorrent, it's not illegal. It's the ethical framework of the law that matters if you want to exclude what's simply a matter of opinion based upon your own moral framework. Individuals are far more inconsistent at any rate than the law will ever be.

Also, your entire argument about morals is wrong: If the partner has no moral problem with what the 'cheating' partner is doing, then there's no harm to come from informing them...

That's not your decision to make though? They may as I said turn a blind eye to their partner's behaviour as long as they are discreet, but if that's the case, then you coming along and informing them in your non-judgemental way that their partners been stepping out, makes them realise that their partner hasn't been discreet, and if you know, then who else knows, and if more people know, how many more people will feel it is their moral duty to inform the person in a non-judgemental way that their partners been stepping out?

Wouldn't it be great to live in a neighbourhood of such caring neighbours?

In your last sentence, again you are fully aware that you are shifting the goalposts to suit your argument again: You know I'm not advocating using social media to inform everyone of cheating.

Nah, I know you're not, that was more a commentary on the kind of people that feel it is their moral duty to inform people in a non-judgemental way that their partner is cheating on them.

KomradeBishop · 25-07-2015 07:38PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

I'd demand proof otherwise consider it malicious gossip.

In other words why take their word for it?

Then I'd be pissed off for interfering in my family and tell the gossiper to jump in a river.

Ya, agreed there in any case, it would be foolish to inform someone about cheating without either proof or a lead (i.e. like the name on the phone, in the OP).

25-07-2015 07:48PM

Aineoil wrote: »

Not my circus, not my monkeys.

I like that.

I don't think it's always applicable, but I like it.

I'm not sure what I'd do if I saw a similar situation to the one in the OP. I'm certain I'd be much, much more discreet about telling, if I did tell.

I would probably be too reserved to tap someone on the shoulder and tell all, but I would probably do something like pass him a note on the way out with some of the details so he can do his own investigations.

Actually, I don't know if I'd get involved at all, I'd have to be in the situation.

zeffabelli · 25-07-2015 07:51PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How long did they stay with the cheater before finding out? Sure if they didn't know in the first place, they were hardly "staying with them"?

I don't honestly know how many are or aren't still with their partners as I'm going back over 20 odd years of knowing people who have cheated on their partners. I've lost contact with many of them, but those few that I do still know, well, some couples have separated and gone on to enter new relationships, some couples are still together and I'm not aware of either party cheating, and some people, well, there's just no hope for some people :pac:

"Inform with no moral judgement" my ass, so far in this thread you've tried to pass off your morality as incumbent upon other people to behave the same way you do. All you're missing is a pulpit.

You say they're hardly going to tell you to mind your own business and I have to wonder how many times have you told someone in your non-judgemental way that their partner was cheating on them?

I put that forward actually as a counter to your morality argument where you would seek to impose your opinion as everyone else's "moral duty". Informing the partner of the cheater simply does nothing only eases your own conscience IMO - You've had your fun and that's all that matters.

Yeah, who needs the whole picture when other people behave in a way that jars with our moral standards? We need to put a stop to that immediately so everything is right in our little world again.

In case you can't tell, I was also ridiculing your idea of ignoring everything else except your own moral standards and using that as your justification for the non-judgemental way you would be about to inform someone that their partner is cheating on them. Is it yielding that power that somehow blinds you to the consequences of your own actions?[

It's impossible to say really, some people would take news like that worse than others - some people never get over it, some people move on very quickly. Some people have indeed told me that they wish the person who told them hadn't told them, but they couldn't say that to them because they would have been shooting the messenger, but they wished that person would have minded their own business.

(Disclosure: Many of my friends are women, and the person who told them that their partner was cheating on them usually had spiteful motivations in mind, certainly weren't doing it out of some "moral duty" or anything else).

If you know that morals are subjective, then you also know that ethics are objective, and that's why adultery, while it may be morally abhorrent, it's not illegal. It's the ethical framework of the law that matters if you want to exclude what's simply a matter of opinion based upon your own moral framework. Individuals are far more inconsistent at any rate than the law will ever be.

That's not your decision to make though? They may as I said turn a blind eye to their partner's behaviour as long as they are discreet, but if that's the case, then you coming along and informing them in your non-judgemental way that their partners been stepping out, makes them realise that their partner hasn't been discreet, and if you know, then who else knows, and if more people know, how many more people will feel it is their moral duty to inform the person in a non-judgemental way that their partners been stepping out?

Wouldn't it be great to live in a neighbourhood of such caring neighbours?

Nah, I know you're not, that was more a commentary on the kind of people that feel it is their moral duty to inform people in a non-judgemental way that their partner is cheating on them.

I've seen this moral duty in action in a number of different contexts and 100% of the time it's the educator finding consolation in the idea of their being another victim of a similar betrayal, whatever that transgression might be while giving themselves a pat on the back and polishing their halos.

Aineoil · 25-07-2015 07:52PM

It could have been someone sending a message to someone on "Second Life".

One eyed Jack · 25-07-2015 07:53PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ya, agreed there in any case, it would be foolish to inform someone about cheating without either proof or a lead (i.e. like the name on the phone, in the OP).

And that's exactly the sort of Inspector Clueless attitude I was talking about earlier where you feel your behaviour is morally justified because you think you have proof, or you think you have a lead.

That apparently gives you enough justification to impose your moral standards upon someone else's relationship without first even attempting to get your own facts straight and talking to the person whom you assume is cheating first?

KomradeBishop · 25-07-2015 08:41PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

"Inform with no moral judgement" my ass, so far in this thread you've tried to pass off your morality as incumbent upon other people to behave the same way you do. All you're missing is a pulpit.

You say they're hardly going to tell you to mind your own business and I have to wonder how many times have you told someone in your non-judgemental way that their partner was cheating on them?

You're trying to sidestep the point. You can inform on someones behaviour, without the act of informing having the be a moral judgement - you can consider it passing on a neutral fact.

Your rhetorical question there is again trying to sidestep from my point: A person you inform of the cheating, is hardly going to tell you to 'mind your own business' (though there are sometimes example of this, as dealt with below), so using the 'mind your own business' argument against informing of cheating is invalid, and serves only to protect the cheater.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I put that forward actually as a counter to your morality argument where you would seek to impose your opinion as everyone else's "moral duty". Informing the partner of the cheater simply does nothing only eases your own conscience IMO - You've had your fun and that's all that matters.

You did not put that forward to counter my 'moral duty' argument. This is the chain of quotes, and it has nothing to do with that:

KomradeBishop wrote:

One eyed Jack wrote:

KomradeBishop wrote:

The 'none of your business' and 'interfering in someone else's relationship' stuff are morally invalid arguments - they only serve to protect cheaters, and hide the truth from people being cheated on.

It's not about "protecting cheaters", if someone is cheating, do you think telling them what they're doing is 'morally wrong' is going to have them stop? It's your argument about morality is invalid, and it's inconsequential when someone is actually that far gone that they will outright reject any notions of examining the morality in their behaviour.

In the above, you put forward the idea of talking to the person who is cheating first to try and get them to stop - you picked that scenario to shift the goalposts and create a strawman, because it was beneficial to your argument, to try and ridicule the idea of doing that (which nobody suggested doing...), when this is about informing the partner of the cheater.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah, who needs the whole picture when other people behave in a way that jars with our moral standards? We need to put a stop to that immediately so everything is right in our little world again.

In case you can't tell, I was also ridiculing your idea of ignoring everything else except your own moral standards and using that as your justification for the non-judgemental way you would be about to inform someone that their partner is cheating on them. Is it yielding that power that somehow blinds you to the consequences of your own actions?

You're only asking questions for rhetorical effect here - if there is something wrong with my moral standards - consequences that they ignore - then get on with presenting scenarios where they cause harm, so there is something to actually debate over; I've knocked down all such examples given so far.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's impossible to say really, some people would take news like that worse than others - some people never get over it, some people move on very quickly. Some people have indeed told me that they wish the person who told them hadn't told them, but they couldn't say that to them because they would have been shooting the messenger, but they wished that person would have minded their own business.

(Disclosure: Many of my friends are women, and the person who told them that their partner was cheating on them usually had spiteful motivations in mind, certainly weren't doing it out of some "moral duty" or anything else).

Ok, some people who are informed would view it with the 'mind your own business' mentality - improbable that it's enough to make that the rule rather than the exception though.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's not your decision to make though? They may as I said turn a blind eye to their partner's behaviour as long as they are discreet, but if that's the case, then you coming along and informing them in your non-judgemental way that their partners been stepping out, makes them realise that their partner hasn't been discreet, and if you know, then who else knows, and if more people know, how many more people will feel it is their moral duty to inform the person in a non-judgemental way that their partners been stepping out?

Wouldn't it be great to live in a neighbourhood of such caring neighbours?

That's the partners fault for not being discreet. If their partner was being indiscreet, when the agreement is there be discretion, then you'd expect the other partner would want to know about it.

Please use less multiquoting, it's less messy to be quoting a few compacted blocks, and it's hard to compact quotes in multi-quoted replies.

Would you tell a stranger their partner was cheating on them?

Comments