Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: "It's only cheating if the other person finds out"

  1. #1
    not a bumblebee octo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    TIM
    IEI 4-6-9 apparently
    Posts
    2,744
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default "It's only cheating if the other person finds out."

    What types are likely to agree with this statement?
    Quote Originally Posted by Agee The Great View Post
    Nobody here...besides me, seems to know what SLE is except for maybe Maritsa.

  2. #2
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Not type related, more of social/cultural upbringing thing. Some people are very anti-romantic and realistic in a way that's kind of 'bleak.' People that come from a harsh, lower-middle class status and below seem to say things like that imo. I've always been well off enough where we didn't have to say jaded things like that. And I know that's a matter of perspective, but I do think that comment is just very jaded.

  3. #3
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  4. #4
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,633
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sounds kind of stupid and...repulsive.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  5. #5
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana View Post
    The type that's cheating and trying to justify it. I don't think very many people actually believe that - and I think some will say they do to try to escape feelings of guilt.
    yep

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  6. #6
    not a bumblebee octo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    TIM
    IEI 4-6-9 apparently
    Posts
    2,744
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves View Post
    Not type related, more of social/cultural upbringing thing. Some people are very anti-romantic and realistic in a way that's kind of 'bleak.' People that come from a harsh, lower-middle class status and below seem to say things like that imo. I've always been well off enough where we didn't have to say jaded things like that. And I know that's a matter of perspective, but I do think that comment is just very jaded.
    Well, obviously no healthy type would say that... but do you think all types are equally likely to become jaded to the point of truly believing that statement?
    Quote Originally Posted by Agee The Great View Post
    Nobody here...besides me, seems to know what SLE is except for maybe Maritsa.

  7. #7
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by octopuslove View Post
    Well, obviously no healthy type would say that... but do you think all types are equally likely to become jaded to the point of truly believing that statement?
    I don't think it's type related, but I knew an ESTj who would cheat on his wife, and the way he looked at it was that only way to do it is if you are the sort of person who can handle or won't feel guilty about it, because if you feel guilty about it, he reasoned that a person would end up telling their partner and that's when it becomes a problem.

    Seems to make sense I suppose, in a way, although not feeling guilty or remorse of some sort over it sort of suggests other problems to me, but he was pretty narcissistic by his own admission.

  8. #8
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana View Post
    The type that's cheating and trying to justify it. I don't think very many people actually believe that - and I think some will say they do to try to escape feelings of guilt.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  9. #9
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think any type would truly believe that, but it does sound like the sort of excuse/justification a guilty Te type would try to use. It's a very practical excuse.

    An F type would be more likely to say something like "It's not cheating if your spouse doesn't love you any more".

    And I suppose a Ti type would say "It's not cheating if the other person and I are not technically married." Or possibly "It's not cheating if it was only second base."
    Quaero Veritas.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    547
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If your spouse doesn't love you anymore (and this presumes you actually *know* that they don't, not completely sure how), why be with him/her?

  11. #11
    INTP Kritik's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    74
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xkj220 View Post
    If your spouse doesn't love you anymore (and this presumes you actually *know* that they don't, not completely sure how), why be with him/her?
    many reasons, few of the most common i believe are security/money/attachment

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    547
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    All of them pathetic, imho..

    Also, the only reason you are with someone is because they love you? But does the person thinking this ever love someone?? Are they with someone only because they know other person loves them? What kind of retardation is this?

    Moreover; why does the fact that the other person "doesn't love you" automatically make it right for you to cheat on the person? It's still wrong.

  13. #13
    INTP Kritik's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    74
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xkj220 View Post
    Moreover; why does the fact that the other person "doesn't love you" automatically make it right for you to cheat on the person? It's still wrong.
    It's only wrong because you think it's wrong. There are no universal morals. It's all relative and subjective.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    547
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritik View Post
    It's only wrong because you think it's wrong. There are no universal morals. It's all relative and subjective.
    Cheating is wrong because it involves a breach of trust. A breach of trust is objectively wrong no matter how you look at it. Justifiable or not according to the circumstances is another issue.

  15. #15
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritik View Post
    It's only wrong because you think it's wrong. There are no universal morals. It's all relative and subjective.
    I think it is perfectly just and moral to torture and kill people whose Internet pseudonyms start and end with "K". No-one can tell me I'm morally wrong, because morality is relative and subjective! Yay!

    If everyone makes up their own individual morality, then there is no such thing as morality, and nothing is immoral.
    Quaero Veritas.

  16. #16
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muffineer View Post
    To paraphrase, you're saying that the notion that objective morality does not exist is false because without it, people would be able to justify whatever behaviours they desired, which would include irrationally cruel actions. It seems kind of like an appeal to consequence to me. It would certainly be undesirable for there to be no guidelines for behaviour to exist within a community, but just because they should exist doesn't mean they are or can be objective.
    Thought experiment: we're stranded on a deserted island. You and your friends, who all believe that morality is relative and subjective, nevertheless decide to set up certain "guidelines for behaviour," one of which is "Don't murder people". I, on the other hand, don't agree with your guidelines for behaviour, since I believe that murder is just fine and dandy and morally admirable. In such a situation, do you have a right to enforce your "Don't murder people" rule on me, or, since morality is relative and subjective and I never signed on to your "guidelines for behaviour", am I free to murder people with impunity? Since they conflict, whose system of morality should be enforced upon me?
    Quaero Veritas.

  17. #17
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    Thought experiment: we're stranded on a deserted island. You and your friends, who all believe that morality is relative and subjective, nevertheless decide to set up certain "guidelines for behaviour," one of which is "Don't murder people". I, on the other hand, don't agree with your guidelines for behaviour, since I believe that murder is just fine and dandy and morally admirable. In such a situation, do you have a right to enforce your "Don't murder people" rule on me, or, since morality is relative and subjective and I never signed on to your "guidelines for behaviour", am I free to murder people with impunity? Since they conflict, whose system of morality should be enforced upon me?
    Those guys need to save their own lives. If you can't be lived with, out you go...



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  18. #18
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't really see cheating as "wrong" because I couldn't possibly say that to cover all the kinds of "cheating" everywhere in the world. I think it's a betrayal... but if it ends up not being that, then maybe cheating isn't the right word anymore (for instance if two people are married for economic reasons alone or something and they both sleep with whoever). Anyway I don't even see how saying that could justify it... it either means they have a screw loose or they view cheating as one of those "morality" issues and as far as they're concerned something isn't really "wrong" unless they get caught doing it. So I guess they're morally "creative" then.

    Although when the word "cheating" is used it usually means betrayal to me.

  19. #19
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muffineer View Post
    Believing that morality is subjective does not mean that you can't enforce a certain kind of morality on a group of people, actually.

    Before I start anything, I'd just like to define the way I use certain terms. Morality is essentially a code of conduct, a way in which people should or should not act in general, or in various circumstances. And something that is objective would be something that is independent of human thoughts or feelings.

    Objective morality, when normally used, denotes a set of rules that everyone should obey, regardless of social class or status. It is, in Stefan Molyneux's words, universally preferred behaviour. If it was wrong to kill, you'd be in the wrong for killing someone, no matter who you were. He also stated even if people did not comply with it, it was still considered objective, in the same way that mathematics is still a workable, objective system even if a person didn't follow the steps involved to get a correct answer.
    Excellent, we are in agreement on the definitions. I would clarify that "objective" means "something that's existence is not the result of human thoughts or feelings".

    Quote Originally Posted by Muffineer View Post
    The fact that people don't have to follow an 'objective' set of morals actually pointed out something to me. There isn't really a difference between 'objective' morals and 'subjective' morals in the sense that in order to work, it requires the cooperation of multiple parties. All parties involved would have to have the same set of preferred ends. They'd all want to live in a society where people did not kill each other, where people respected each others' property and the like. And if it's preferred, then it can't really be considered mind-independent.

    I did at one point of time base my views of objective morality around certain criteria. Let's just say one example of these that to be moral, an action must lead to the betterment of the society in some way. But I kind of realized that despite "the betterment of the society in some way" being a fairly objective criterion, it was still something that was humanly preferred. It could be considered objective in a colloquial sense in that it was unbiased and could be used in practically any situation. But it was really only the most objective subjective criterion. It was still only the most objective preference.
    I'm not sure I agree with the bolded part there, and the subsequent reasoning. Just because something is preferred by a human feeling, does not mean its existence is the result of human thought or feeling. I prefer beautiful sunsets, but that doesn't mean the sunset is the result of my emotional preference. It exists whether I prefer it or not. Likewise, people's subjective preference for actions which better society does not necessarily imply that "actions should lead to the betterment of society" is not also a part of an objective morality. If objective morality exists, it exists whether or not people prefer it.

    In fact, far from being evidence against objective morality, the universal human preference for certain moral principles could be construed as evidence for an instinctual human recognition of a universal, objective morality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muffineer View Post
    As to the question as to what I would do in the hypothetical situation - I don't really know. I would say that if the hypothetical you was not interested in the same ends as the rest of the group, then you shouldn't be part of the group. If a group where not killing and not being killed did not suit you, then go join a group where you were welcome. Kind of free-market-esque.
    That's the point though: on this hypothetical island, I'm not part of your group. I'm a rogue outsider who has never agreed to your consensual subjective morality contract.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muffineer View Post
    I wouldn't actually hesitate to subdue you if you tried to kill me or someone else, but I won't call what I did an action out of objective morality.
    Certainly if I tried to kill you, you would resist and try to subdue me, but that would be a reaction born of basic survival instinct. The question is, would you be morally justified in such an action? After all, consensual, subjective morality only applies to those who have consented to it, and I have not.

    The question is, what happens when two subjective systems of morality collide? Am I allowed to kill you simply because my system of morality says I am free to kill whomever I please without hindrance? Or are you allowed to resist me simply because your system of morality says that murder is wrong and should be resisted? Inevitably, there must be a higher morality to judge between the two. If you say you are morally justified in resisting me, then you are in effect claiming that your system of morality supersedes mine, and therefore there is a universal, objective morality that determines which supersedes which. If you say that you are not morally justified in resisting me, you are in effect claiming that my system of morality supersedes yours, and therefore there is a universal, objective morality that determines which supersedes which.

    Finally, an addendum to my arguments so far. You said, "Morality is essentially a code of conduct, a way in which people should or should not act in general, or in various circumstances." This is really the heart of the matter. The key is the word "should". It carries the sense of "obligation, oweing, debt". In a world with no objective morality, why "should" you do anything? Yes, you might make an agreement with your neighbours on what sorts of behaviour you would like to ban. But why should you obey that ban, especially if you think you can get away with breaking it? In a world without objective morality, subjective moral agreements have no moral force behind them.

    As soon as you accept the idea of "should", you accept the idea of objective morality.


    Quote Originally Posted by Muffineer View Post
    Okay, I took too long to write that and I think it turned out incoherent but I already invested too much into that. So blah.
    I thought your post seemed quite clear and understandable. I very much enjoy debates where everyone is rational and reasonable and there are no ad hominen attacks thrown around like so many people on the Interwebs do...
    Quaero Veritas.

  20. #20
    Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    110
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    As soon as you accept the idea of "should", you accept the idea of objective morality.
    I accept the idea with certain reservations. It makes sense in principle, but looking at reality we see subtle differences in moral perspectives. People form their idea of reality subjectively. So there is a gap between objective morality (which exists in principle) and subjective morality (which exists in reality). Both concepts have important merits.

  21. #21
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke View Post
    I accept the idea with certain reservations. It makes sense in principle, but looking at reality we see subtle differences in moral perspectives. People form their idea of reality subjectively. So there is a gap between objective morality (which exists in principle) and subjective morality (which exists in reality). Both concepts have important merits.
    I would say that, assuming the existence of an objective morality*, it is objective morality which exists in reality, and the various systems of subjective morality reflect that objective morality to a greater or lesser degree of accuracy.


    [* If you've ever uttered a sentence containing the phrase "assuming the existence of an objective morality"... you might be an LII. ]
    Quaero Veritas.

  22. #22
    ILE - ENTp 1981slater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Spain
    TIM
    ILE (ENTp)
    Posts
    4,866
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What types are likely to agree with this statement?

    ILE "Searcher"
    Socionics: ENTp
    DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
    Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
    MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
    Astrological sign: Aquarius

    To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •