Virtue Ethics and Adultery (Video Inside)

Agustino August 12, 2017 at 09:59 4350 views 3 comments

I want you to consider this video:

This video concludes that adulterer A is not virtuous while adulterer B is virtuous. I would like to suggest that adulterer B, by the statements of the producer of the video, is also actually not virtuous (though certainly more virtuous than adulterer A). We're told at 10:30 that if adulterer B commits adultery purely to satisfy his sexual desires, then it would be immoral, but if he does it to save his marriage then it would be moral.

Now my issue with this argument is that "satisfying his sexual desires" and "saving his marriage" are really identical now, aren't they? That is exactly what he means by saving his marriage, namely finding a way to satisfy his sexual desires, since his wife is no longer able to have sex due to a medical condition of hers. So if doing it purely to satisfy his sexual desires is wrong, then why wouldn't doing it to save his marriage also be wrong?

And also, why does he not consider alternatives such as masturbation instead of adultery to satisfy his sexual desires?

Comments (3)

mcdoodle August 12, 2017 at 11:32 #95510 0 likes

Reply to Agustino Are you interested in MacIntyre? I read 'After Virtue' earlier in the summer and jamalrob suggested it might be a good joint reading project.

My own view about the case is that 'honesty' is not a virtue, but that its virtuousness is for some reason a cornerstone of the MacIntyre project. So being honest about adultery for the sake of the marriage strikes me as one of those passing fads of pseudo-virtue, not the real thing. When I was young I remember enjoying the rich sensuality of John Updike's tales of American middle-class sexual adventures, and I have a feeling that's the social milieu out of which such a pseudo-virtue would arise.

Of course MacIntyre has more profound arguments, which begin from a belief that it's natural to tell the truth:

MacIntyre: To assert is always and inescapably to assert as true, and learning that truth is required from us in assertions is therefore inseparable from learning what it is to assert...

Note that the rule enjoining truth-telling in speech-acts of assertion is constitutive of language-use as such. It is a rule therefore upon which all interpreters of language-use by others cannot but rely.

He moves from this however to an account of others' views, from Mill and Kant, and of various discussions of lying, to arrive at truth-telling as a virtue. To me this is downright odd: it may be natural or it may be one of the hard-won virtues, but surely not both.

My feeling is that honesty with oneself is constitutive of how one thinks. To distrust one's own words to oneself is a sign of disorder. But (dis)honesty towards others is a learned practice, and in many cases lying is greatly to be recommended.

BC August 28, 2017 at 06:27 #100671 0 likes

I am a bit surprised that this thread didn't launch. Is it because... everything that could be said about adultery was most throughly said in previous Agustinian adultery threads? (This isn't a criticism; the previous adulterous threads were just very long.

Agustino August 28, 2017 at 16:39 #100718 0 likes

Quoting Bitter Crank

I am a bit surprised that this thread didn't launch.

I'm not that surprised to be honest, merely because we don't have a lot of people that are very familiar with virtue ethics (and the Aristotelian tradition) around it. To be honest, that's why I put (video inside) in the title >:) - to tempt more people to open it and reply (what, you thought I did that by accident?! >:O )

I meant to reply to mcdoodle above, I just never got around to it because there's too much to do lol.

Quoting Bitter Crank

Is it because... everything that could be said about adultery was most throughly said in previous Agustinian adultery threads?

Surprisingly, if you look on my profile, you'll find zero threads about adultery started by me :P - although we did hijack a few other threads (about other subjects) to discuss it.