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

KomradeBishop · 25-07-2015 08:43PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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?

You haven't established that informing someone of cheating, is 'imposing' a moral standard on anyone - it's presenting a neutral fact (regardless of whether the informed does or does hold a moral judgement) - so your argument makes no sense.

You're also trying to switch the goalposts, from having proof, to 'assuming' - that's not what I said.

JacquesSon · 25-07-2015 08:49PM

Having been on both sides of this fence I recommend people keep themselves out of what will be a messy situation.

See no evil...

zeffabelli · 25-07-2015 08:53PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You haven't established that informing someone of cheating, is 'imposing' a moral standard on anyone - it's presenting a neutral fact (regardless of whether the informed does or does hold a moral judgement) - so your argument makes no sense.

You're also trying to switch the goalposts, from having proof, to 'assuming' - that's not what I said.

If it were neutral you wouldn't be "informing."

The very act of reporting confesses mplicit moral assessment on it.

KomradeBishop · 25-07-2015 09:28PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

If it were neutral you wouldn't be "informing."

The very act of reporting confesses mplicit moral assessment on it.

What's being talked about is whether the act of informing is itself a moral judgement - if the person chose to inform based on their own moral judgement, that doesn't make the act of informing a moral judgement itself: You can just be presenting a neutral fact; the facts of another persons actions, are facts, they don't carry a moral judgment.

That isn't 'imposing moral standards' on the other person - which is the portrayal that I was replying to there - it's providing another person with a neutral fact, that they can choose how to judge or act upon, you aren't forcing your own moral judgement on them, i.e. not forcing them to adopt your own moral view.

The idea of 'imposing moral standards' on anyone else, by informing, is a bit of an odd clutching-at-straws idea anyway.

NachoBusiness · 25-07-2015 09:29PM

Similar situation happened last year.

One eyed Jack · 25-07-2015 09:31PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

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.

You could. I couldn't.

[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.

Again, it's only invalid by your standards. You put forward a position based upon nothing more than your own intuition and moral standards (suggesting that a person whom you inform of the cheating is hardly going to tell you to mind your own business), that's speculation on your part, and you're using that to shore up your moral argument.

Again, it's not about protecting the cheater - it's about I do not see it as my right, nor my duty, to be the moral arbiter of other people's relationships. That seems to be the entire bone of contention here really.

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:

I did, but you seem to have no intention of looking at context, so with that in mind and your moral duty argument in hand, you can pretty much dismiss whatever the hell you like as invalid, hand waving, side-stepping, etc.

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.

Here's one consequence you can wave aside, but you can't knock it down - you have irrevocably interfered with and changed the nature of a relationship that was not yours to invite yourself to interfere in. What other consequences you're ignoring would depend upon the individual circumstances in each case.

"You'll thank me for it some day" is an insufficient justification to go exercising your hunches, suspicions and doubts about the nature of other people's relationships that don't sit right with your moral standards.

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.

There goes that hand again, waving any other possible consequences aside that might cause you pause for thought before you ease your own burdened conscience. That's what morality is - your conscience is your guide, and your conscience tells you that because cheating is wrong under most circumstances, you see it as your moral duty to chase up leads, get proof, and inform people if you think their partners are cheating on them.

You dismiss the hurt and humiliation you may cause as 'temporary', you dismiss anything which might make you think perhaps it isn't your place, because you see it as your moral duty to inform in a way that isn't judgemental, it's just passing on what appears to you to be factual, based upon nothing more than your own judgement, formed of your own morality.

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.

Taking everything into account, it really does sound to me like you don't care who you hurt, you see it as your moral duty to interfere anyway and their pain is only temporary anyway. As long as your conscience is clear of course.

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.

I only use it to address each point so you wouldn't be able to accuse me of side-stepping or avoiding anything. You're not under any moral obligation to address each point of mine in return.

One eyed Jack · 25-07-2015 09:40PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

What's being talked about is whether the act of informing is itself a moral judgement - if the person chose to inform based on their own moral judgement, that doesn't make the act of informing a moral judgement itself: You can just be presenting a neutral fact; the facts of another persons actions, are facts, they don't carry a moral judgment.

That isn't 'imposing moral standards' on the other person - which is the portrayal that I was replying to there - it's providing another person with a neutral fact, that they can choose how to judge or act upon, you aren't forcing your own moral judgement on them, i.e. not forcing them to adopt your own moral view.

The idea of 'imposing moral standards' on anyone else, by informing, is a bit of an odd clutching-at-straws idea anyway.

If it is, as you claim, "only informing a person of a neutral fact", then why would you feel the need to inform them of this fact at all?

Do you honestly think they'll see your "informing" them as "I'm just saying like, your partner is cheating, but that's none of my business"... :pac:

NachoBusiness · 25-07-2015 09:50PM

The reason I personally would do it is simple: because I would what to be told if the shoe was on the other foot and someone seen it happening to me. Simple as that. Same reason I would tell someone if they dropped their wallet or their keys, or whatever. It's just the right thing to do. Like I say, if it was just a feeling, I'd say nothing, but if I suddenly became aware that someone was getting fcuked over in life, and I could just let that person know this information. I might add, 'Hey look, I could be totally wrong here but here's what I have just heard / seen, hope I'm wrong and all that" but of course I would tell them.

Jan Laco · 25-07-2015 09:53PM

in all honesty I wouldn't tell a stranger. It would feel no emotional connection to them. If it were my friend I would have no hesitation in telling them.

KomradeBishop · 25-07-2015 10:01PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You could. I couldn't.

No, it's not a matter of opinion: Objectively, you're passing on a fact - you don't have to be forcing your own morals onto anyone else.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Again, it's only invalid by your standards. You put forward a position based upon nothing more than your own intuition and moral standards (suggesting that a person whom you inform of the cheating is hardly going to tell you to mind your own business), that's speculation on your part, and you're using that to shore up your moral argument.

Again, it's not about protecting the cheater - it's about I do not see it as my right, nor my duty, to be the moral arbiter of other people's relationships. That seems to be the entire bone of contention here really.

Your whole 'moral arbiter' argument has been debunked, as you don't have to foist your morals on anyone else to inform of cheating (and please don't misrepresent this again, as having no personal moral judgement...).

You made the 'mind your own business' type argument, you need to establish that as valid, by showing that it is a prevalent view among those who have been cheated on.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I did, but you seem to have no intention of looking at context, so with that in mind and your moral duty argument in hand, you can pretty much dismiss whatever the hell you like as invalid, hand waving, side-stepping, etc.

Now you have gone from being mistaken, to directly lying - here is the chain of quotes:

One eyed Jack wrote:

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.

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 are directly lying now, as you know that that is not in reply to the 'moral duty' part, at the end of my post, long after the bit you replied to there.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Here's one consequence you can wave aside, but you can't knock it down - you have irrevocably interfered with and changed the nature of a relationship that was not yours to invite yourself to interfere in. What other consequences you're ignoring would depend upon the individual circumstances in each case.

"You'll thank me for it some day" is an insufficient justification to go exercising your hunches, suspicions and doubts about the nature of other people's relationships that don't sit right with your moral standards.

"You'll thank me for it some day" - don't put words in my mouth, thanks.

You haven't established that the person being cheated on, does not want people telling them they are being cheated on, so your argument is still invalid - no matter how many times you repeat it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There goes that hand again, waving any other possible consequences aside that might cause you pause for thought before you ease your own burdened conscience. That's what morality is - your conscience is your guide, and your conscience tells you that because cheating is wrong under most circumstances, you see it as your moral duty to chase up leads, get proof, and inform people if you think their partners are cheating on them.

You dismiss the hurt and humiliation you may cause as 'temporary', you dismiss anything which might make you think perhaps it isn't your place, because you see it as your moral duty to inform in a way that isn't judgemental, it's just passing on what appears to you to be factual, based upon nothing more than your own judgement, formed of your own morality.

Stop putting words in my mouth. You are directly lying about what I have said - I did not saying anything about hurt/humiliation (temporary or otherwise), I did not say anything about ignoring consequences, I did not say anything about chasing up leads or proof (only that proof is needed before informing).

Stop embellishing your posts with bullshít - principally, putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting me - that I have to waste large amounts of text debunking, which just averts discussing the actual topic...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Taking everything into account, it really does sound to me like you don't care who you hurt, you see it as your moral duty to interfere anyway and their pain is only temporary anyway. As long as your conscience is clear of course.

You're not a mind-reader, you don't know what I think - you can't attack the argument, so you're trying to attack the character of the person making the argument now, in an increasingly hysterical way...

I did not say anything about not caring if people are hurt, and you're begging the question by saying that I would be hurting them; if I inform on a person committing a crime (cheating is not illegal, but morally it is analogous), then I am not responsible for the damage that does to that persons family.

Since there were no actual new arguments in your post, only various misrepresentations/lies or repeated assertions of things I already debunked, I'm going to avoid replying to you further - but if you're misrepresenting my posts, putting words in my mouth again, or any other similar bullshít, that's kind of going to force me to reply, to debunk all that, so would appreciate you not doing that...

KomradeBishop · 25-07-2015 10:12PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If it is, as you claim, "only informing a person of a neutral fact", then why would you feel the need to inform them of this fact at all?

Do you honestly think they'll see your "informing" them as "I'm just saying like, your partner is cheating, but that's none of my business"... :pac:

You just pretty much ignored the post you were replying to, by repeating basically the same question my post was replying to - and which is answered by the same post you're quoting.

Fat Christy · 25-07-2015 10:20PM

For me, personally, I wouldn't. It's none of my business and I wouldn't want to get involved.

If it was a family member or close friend, maybe but I would still be very hesitant.

One eyed Jack · 25-07-2015 10:29PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No, it's not a matter of opinion: Objectively, you're passing on a fact - you don't have to be forcing your own morals onto anyone else.

How are you passing on a fact when you aren't actually aware of the nature of that person's relationship with their partner? You're making an assumption based upon your own morality which is informing your own decision whether or not to inform someone that you think their partner is cheating.

Whether you choose to see it that way or not is why our opinions differ on the matter. The objective stance would be to not interfere in someone else's relationship. The subjective stance, based upon your own moral standards, is what makes you feel justified in interfering in someone else's relationship.

The very least you could do is ask the person who you think is cheating what the story is.

Since there were no actual new arguments in your post, only various misrepresentations/lies or repeated assertions of things I already debunked, I'm going to avoid replying to you further - but if you're misrepresenting my posts, putting words in my mouth again, or any other similar bullshít, that's kind of going to force me to reply, to debunk all that, so would appreciate you not doing that...

Nothing is forcing you to reply, in the same way as nothing is forcing you to invite yourself to interfere in other people's relationships without their inviting you to do so. Unless a person specifically asked you to inform them if you think their partner is cheating on them, then you're simply interfering in someone else's relationship either to impose your own moral standards, or to ease your own conscience.

KomradeBishop · 25-07-2015 10:51PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How are you passing on a fact when you aren't actually aware of the nature of that person's relationship with their partner? You're making an assumption based upon your own morality which is informing your own decision whether or not to inform someone that you think their partner is cheating.

Whether you choose to see it that way or not is why our opinions differ on the matter. The objective stance would be to not interfere in someone else's relationship. The subjective stance, based upon your own moral standards, is what makes you feel justified in interfering in someone else's relationship.

The very least you could do is ask the person who you think is cheating what the story is.

You see a person kiss someone else, knowing they are in a relationship with someone - you pass on that fact (you can do this without even having judged that it is cheating, since e.g. maybe it's a polyamorous relationship), that fact is morally neutral and the partner being informed can decide whether it was cheating or not.

That's simply not a matter of opinion. The choice on whether to inform someone of such fact may often not be morally neutral, but the fact itself is morally neutral, and in providing someone with that fact you're not imposing any kind of moral judgement or system onto them - the person being informed gets to decide their own moral interpretation of it.

Whether or not informing is considered as undesired, is down to the person being informed, and it's not your or anyone elses place, to say that is an undesired interference - as you haven't established that.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nothing is forcing you to reply, in the same way as nothing is forcing you to invite yourself to interfere in other people's relationships without their inviting you to do so. Unless a person specifically asked you to inform them if you think their partner is cheating on them, then you're simply interfering in someone else's relationship either to impose your own moral standards, or to ease your own conscience.

You're just imposing your own moral standards on people who inform - you don't know if the partner being informed, would consider that to be unwelcome, so you're effectively generalizing about all cases of informing on a cheater, and are begging the question on whether the person being informed would consider that unwelcome.

What about all the people (i.e. most likely the vast majority, I'd say) who would want others to tell them, if they are being cheated on?

ihavenoname3 · 25-07-2015 11:07PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think in that particular situation, the "reportees" were only looking for notoriety for themselves. They don't seem at all to have actually considered her husband, but were rather taking some sort of spiteful glee in publically humiliating this woman, a complete stranger to them.

No, I wouldn't do it, not to a friend and certainly not to a complete stranger. I'd gain nothing from it only the knowledge that I were a childish, spiteful bastard. I don't have much regard for anyone who interferes in someone's life like that simply in order to humiliate them.

camera's in phones should be banned, its always the stupid people who have to film everything they see, why was that woman laughing when writing the message to the baseball guy? nothing funny about the situation, there should be privacy laws brought in regarding people filming others without the other person/s consent.

you have to worry for humanity the way things are going.

One eyed Jack · 25-07-2015 11:21PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You see a person kiss someone else, knowing they are in a relationship with someone - you pass on that fact (you can do this without even having judged that it is cheating, since e.g. maybe it's a polyamorous relationship), that fact is morally neutral and the partner being informed can decide whether it was cheating or not.

That's simply not a matter of opinion. The choice on whether to inform someone of such fact may often not be morally neutral, but the fact itself is morally neutral, and in providing someone with that fact you're not imposing any kind of moral judgement or system onto them - the person being informed gets to decide their own moral interpretation of it.

Whether or not informing is considered as undesired, is down to the person being informed, and it's not your or anyone elses place, to say that is an undesired interference - as you haven't established that.

As ridiculous a justification as it is disingenuous.

You're just imposing your own moral standards on people who inform - you don't know if the partner being informed, would consider that to be unwelcome, so you're effectively generalizing about all cases of informing on a cheater, and are begging the question on whether the person being informed would consider that unwelcome.

Experience informs my opinion. Your opinion is only informed so far by "cheating is wrong, m'kay!", as though anyone has argued otherwise.

What about all the people (i.e. most likely the vast majority, I'd say) who would want others to tell them, if they are being cheated on?

You pull me up on making generalisations about people, and then go about extrapolating some "vast majority" opinion based upon nothing more than because you think the vast majority of people would agree with your opinion?

Righto.

One standard for you, another for others, sure with that strategy you're never wrong, so more power to you I say. I'm not going to get that het up about it.

KomradeBishop · 25-07-2015 11:39PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As ridiculous a justification as it is disingenuous.

Experience informs my opinion. Your opinion is only informed so far by "cheating is wrong, m'kay!", as though anyone has argued otherwise.

Since you haven't got anything other than these trite responses, I'll take it as you having no real counterargument.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You pull me up on making generalisations about people, and then go about extrapolating some "vast majority" opinion based upon nothing more than because you think the vast majority of people would agree with your opinion?

Righto.

One standard for you, another for others, sure with that strategy you're never wrong, so more power to you I say. I'm not going to get that het up about it.

There are perfectly good grounds for assuming that most people who get cheated on, would want to be informed of it - if that were not the case, then for one, we'd likely see more people in the thread state that they'd rather not be informed, if they were being cheated on.

25-07-2015 11:45PM

I'd hate to think any friends of mine knew but wouldn't tell me

One eyed Jack · 26-07-2015 12:16AM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Since you haven't got anything other than these trite responses, I'll take it as you having no real counterargument.

Well seriously like, what did you expect for such a disingenuous effort? I have presented arguments, and you've simply waved them aside in some juvenile "I'm not judging anyone for kissing someone else, I'm only passing on neutral information to their partner"...

Of course you are :pac:

There are perfectly good grounds for assuming that most people who get cheated on, would want to be informed of it - if that were not the case, then for one, we'd likely see more people in the thread state that they'd rather not be informed, if they were being cheated on.

I agree, there ARE perfectly good grounds for assuming that anyone who gets cheated on would want to be informed of it, but the point you consistently seem to be missing, again and again, is that it's simply not your place to be that informant IMO. Certainly not when all you have are assumptions. But then you justify this by saying that you're not doing anything only "informing" someone.

Truthfully I'd honestly hate to have someone like that as a friend that saw it as their business to interfere in my relationship like that. As for whether we'd likely see more people admit that in some discussion on the internet, well, Boards and in particular AH is hardly representative of society as a whole, and so we shall never know just how many would or wouldn't like to be informed if their partner was cheating on them or not.

You're only basing your assumption on your own moral standards, whereas at least I'm open to the idea that more people than just myself would rather not know from a third party who felt it was their "moral duty to inform me in a non-judgemental way" :pac:

Samaris · 26-07-2015 01:22AM

Bearing in mind though, this has nothing to do with a friend knowing and deciding whether to tell you. The question is as regards a -stranger-, which is a very different dynamic.

zeffabelli · 26-07-2015 06:52AM

You then gave the whole what is cheating.

As in the OP is dirty text messaging cheating?

Then there are some old school Catholics who don't consider oral sex cheating because it's not intercourse.

So yeah not really that black and white.

KomradeBishop · 26-07-2015 09:56AM

zeffabelli wrote: »

You then gave the whole what is cheating.

As in the OP is dirty text messaging cheating?

Then there are some old school Catholics who don't consider oral sex cheating because it's not intercourse.

So yeah not really that black and white.

It is black and white though: Cheating is a betrayal of trust - it's that simple.

So if you inform on something that turns out to not be cheating, you're not doing any harm (outside of edge-cases), because the partner won't view it as a betrayal of trust; it's all about whether the partner being 'cheated' on, views it as a betrayal of trust.

So the whole 'it may not be cheating' argument doesn't do anything in favour of the argument, for not informing.

zeffabelli · 26-07-2015 10:08AM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It is black and white though: Cheating is a betrayal of trust - it's that simple.

So if you inform on something that turns out to not be cheating, you're not doing any harm (outside of edge-cases), because the partner won't view it as a betrayal of trust; it's all about whether the partner being 'cheated' on, views it as a betrayal of trust.

So the whole 'it may not be cheating' argument doesn't do anything in favour of the argument, for not informing.

Betrayals of trust are never simple. That's the problem with your good samaratin civic duty .... Neighbourhood moral watch idea.

For example, a person might be loyal or tell themselves that for moral adornment, but all they are doing is procrastinating change or not finishing a project.

Snowden betrayed his nation didn't he? Traitor to some, hero to others.

A person in a sexless marriage .... Risks losing their kids... Their home.... 20 years behaving and one screw up .... And a third party comes along and sabotages the primary parties chances for mutual construction of the meaning.... Third party walks away with ZERO of the consequences.

KomradeBishop · 26-07-2015 10:24AM

zeffabelli wrote: »

Betrayals of trust are never simple. That's the problem with your good samaratin civic duty .... Neighbourhood moral watch idea.

I don't see what point you're trying to make here - it's either a betrayal of trust or it's not, that's pretty black/white - if you're going beyond the 'definition of cheating not being black and white' argument, to the 'consequences of cheating not being black and white' argument, then that would be shifting the goalposts.

I don't see either, why you're disparaging the discussion as a 'neighbourhood moral watch' idea - I haven't suggested anything like that; it's just a discussion about informing on cheaters, and the morals of that.

zeffabelli · 26-07-2015 10:26AM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I don't see what point you're trying to make here - it's either a betrayal of trust or it's not, that's pretty black/white - if you're going beyond the 'definition of cheating not being black and white' argument, to the 'consequences of cheating not being black and white' argument, then that would be shifting the goalposts.

I don't see either, why you're disparaging the discussion as a 'neighbourhood moral watch' idea - I haven't suggested anything like that; it's just a discussion about informing on cheaters, and the morals of that.

See my edit.... I explained a little more.

KomradeBishop · 26-07-2015 10:39AM

zeffabelli wrote: »

See my edit.... I explained a little more.

Ok, but you've just shifted the goalposts away from 'definition of cheating not being black and white' to 'consequences of cheating not being black and white' in your edit - so we can agree that the definition of cheating is black/white at least?

I don't see how Snowdon could be interpreted morally, as betraying his nation - he informed the public on all of the wrong things his nation was doing, which should not have been kept secret; highly analogous morally, to the informers position when it comes to cheating.

In the scenario you put forward, the person cheating has had ample opportunity to inform their partner of the cheating, and ample opportunity to try and explain the 'context' of that cheating once they are informed upon - and for obvious reasons, a person in such a situation is highly unlikely to inform their partner of their cheating - they have no right to have the fact of their cheating, withheld from their partner, or to be put to their partner with a narrative/framing that is favourable to the cheater.

Also, as we discussed before, a person informing on a cheater and a person informing on a dad committing a crime (despite one being illegal and the other not, they are morally analogous), share the same level of responsibility morally, for the effects that informing has on a family - i.e. none.

zeffabelli · 26-07-2015 10:43AM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ok, but you've just shifted the goalposts away from 'definition of cheating not being black and white' to 'consequences of cheating not being black and white' in your edit.

I don't see how Snowdon could be interpreted morally, as betraying his nation - he informed the public on all of the wrong things his nation was doing, which should not have been kept secret; highly analogous morally, to the informers position when it comes to cheating.

In the scenario you put forward, the person cheating has had ample opportunity to inform their partner of the cheating, and ample opportunity to try and explain the 'context' of that cheating once they are informed upon - and for obvious reasons, a person in such a situation is highly unlikely to inform their partner of their cheating - they have no right to have the fact of their cheating, withheld from their partner, or to be put to their partner with a narrative/framing that is favourable to the cheater.

Also, as we discussed before, a person informing on a cheater and a person informing on a dad committing a crime (despite one being illegal and the other not, they are morally analogous), share the same level of responsibility morally, for the effects that informing has on a family - i.e. none.

According to you betrayal is a breach of trust. His country trusted him. He broke that trust.

Those who see him as a hero recognise the necessity of betrayal sometimes.

You only don't see him as a traitor yourself because you happen to agree with what he did.

I would see a third party interfering with reporting as crossing boundaries and ethical lines into other people's relationships and families.

KomradeBishop · 26-07-2015 10:43AM

Actually, to clarify the definition of cheating, to rule out other definitions of 'betrayal of trust': Cheating is betraying the trust of your partner.
So, that would be pretty black/white in almost all circumstances - and would not be analogous to e.g. Snowden's situation.

KomradeBishop · 26-07-2015 10:45AM

zeffabelli wrote: »

According to you betrayal is a breach of trust. His country trusted him. He broke that trust.

Those who see him as a hero recognise the necessity of betrayal sometimes.

You only don't see him as a traitor yourself because you happen to agree with what he did.

I would see a third party interfering with reporting as crossing boundaries and ethical lines into other people's relationships and families.

It's not for you to define that as crossing boundaries or ethical lines - it's up to the person being cheated on, to decide whether they welcome informing on cheating or not - and it is highly likely that the vast majority of people would prefer to be informed, as discussed earlier in the thread.

A lot of the rest dealt with in my quick post above.

Son Of A Vidic · 26-07-2015 10:47AM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

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

No I wouldn't and the key word is 'stranger', indicating you know absolutely nothing about them and thus don't have the bigger picture about their relationships. They could be 'swingers' for all I know. But apart from all that, I generally have absolutely no interest in and tend to stay clear of minding other peoples business.

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

Comments