Moral Responsibility to Inform
I have recently been placed in two situations that have caused me to question to what extent I should feel responsible for information that could or does affect the lives friends, family, and acquaintances.
To be more specific, I have involuntarily become aware of spouses who have cheated on their partners--both are completely separate cases. I have been wrestling with what to do with this information for a while now. I know in my own case that if I were to be on the sorry end of an unfaithful relationship I would want to know the truth, should a friend or acquaintance find out. On the other hand, lives and relationships are at stake, and informing would likely cause much strife and heartache. I know that I would not be the primary cause of this chain of events, but I would become a necessary link in it.
While mulling this over, I've wondered what different ethical systems would have to say about this. Clearly there are situations where failing to inform the appropriate parties could be viewed as immoral, such as failing to report a terrorist plot, the hiding place of a murderer, etc. The potential harm of not informing far outweighs the potential harm of informing in situations like those. However, it is not so clear when it comes to lower-stakes situations.
Have any of you been in similar circumstances? What do different ethical theories say on the matter?
To be more specific, I have involuntarily become aware of spouses who have cheated on their partners--both are completely separate cases. I have been wrestling with what to do with this information for a while now. I know in my own case that if I were to be on the sorry end of an unfaithful relationship I would want to know the truth, should a friend or acquaintance find out. On the other hand, lives and relationships are at stake, and informing would likely cause much strife and heartache. I know that I would not be the primary cause of this chain of events, but I would become a necessary link in it.
While mulling this over, I've wondered what different ethical systems would have to say about this. Clearly there are situations where failing to inform the appropriate parties could be viewed as immoral, such as failing to report a terrorist plot, the hiding place of a murderer, etc. The potential harm of not informing far outweighs the potential harm of informing in situations like those. However, it is not so clear when it comes to lower-stakes situations.
Have any of you been in similar circumstances? What do different ethical theories say on the matter?
Comments (55)
So, the question becomes: in what situations is it (im)moral to share or withhold information?
Given that similarities obtain between the value systems and moral codes of the World's major book religions and systems of moral philosophy, on an inter-personal level:
1) Sharing information regarding another's marital infidelity would generally be considered meddlesome and/or cruel (immoral).
2) Withholding information for profit or advantage would generally be considered fraudulent (immoral).
On an intra-group level:
1) Withholding information regarding criminal activity would generally be considered illegal and/or collusive (immoral).
2) Sharing others' personal information without their permission would generally be considered exploitative (immoral).
On an inter-group level:
1) Sharing national secrets with another nation would generally be considered treasonous (immoral).
2) Withholding information in violation of an international regime would generally be considered treacherous (immoral).
Clearly, whether or not sharing information is moral or immoral depends on the social situation under consideration.
I agree with Galuchat, but will offer a something different, perhaps more colloquial, argument.
What I have found so far with schools of moral philosophy so far is that they don't often seem to provide specific guidance for real-world situations such as yours.
However, perhaps we can take this in steps:
1. Is there a legal responsibility to inform? [this does exist in some cases where you may inadvertently learn something].
-In the situations you describe, the answer is 'no' (in most or all jurisdictions)
2. If you do not inform imminently, is anyone going to die?
-No
[you can ask similar questions to this for really bad outcomes other than death, but I think for most of those the answer would still be no]
3. Is it clear that if you do inform you will create a net good (this is a utilitarian sort point, and can be stated more formally than by using 'net good', but here I am abbreviating a bit)?-
-I think it's unclear. I don't believe the reason you cite " I would want to know the truth" is by itself sufficient, because your wanting something doesn't give it moral authority. On the other hand, you may be justifying this from a 'do on to others, as you would want done onto you' perspective. Even there, you may want to ask yourself, would you really want to know under all circumstances?
You may be getting the sense that I am guiding you a certain way; I am not. If your gut (yeah, I said 'gut') tells you to reveal, maybe its the right thing. But as you say, there are likely to be consequences you may not want.
It is self-serving, to be sure, and one could argue that it is a breach of a contract and therefore unethical (think of William Ross' Seven Duties). Or, if you prefer, Onora O'Niell would ask the cheater if he/she thinks his/her spouse would agree in principle, and consent, to his/her acts outside of their marriage. Most of us would see simplicity in the matter with those 'tools'.
Morality is a sub-set of the greater field of ethics. If it's unethical, it's also immoral.....somewhere. Again, in some circles the denizens would argue that cheating is acceptable with some justification, even with or without the spouse's consent.
Let's muddy the waters. What if the injured party is your sister? Or, what if the cheater is your very best friend....or brother? Would you let your father know that your mother was cheating on him? Why not?
Can you expand on this? Why is it viewed as cruel to bring someone up to speed on the reality of the situation they are in? Should I be more interested in protecting the cheater?
Quoting Saeed Ahmed
No, of course my wanting to be informed doesn't give it universal moral authority, but if I subscribe to a particular ethical system I should attempt to act in a way consistent with it. As for the last part, I'm sure there is some set of circumstances that are so undesirable that knowing would be the worse of the two, but I think in general finding out the truth is best.
Quoting gloaming
I'm definitely not suggesting infidelity be criminalized. My questioning isn't borne of a prudish view of sexuality. If people want to have open relationships then more power to them.
Quoting gloaming
This is what I was hoping the discussion would lead to. Interestingly, my gut reaction is that the closer in relation or proximity to the offense I am, the greater my responsibility to "meddle".
Quoting chatterbears
In one case the question is closed to me because I was told in confidence by someone else who also unwittingly found out. The pool of people who know the truth in that instance is so small that even anonymously informing would likely make it back and damage multiple relationships. In the other, I haven't been in contact with the offender for over a decade. I just happened to be acquainted with a coworker of theirs and it was relayed to me as a funny/absurd story because of how egregious their offenses were. Another layer to that cake is that the offender was formerly a pastor.
Quoting unenlightened
You imagine this, why? I have considered informing the cheater as a way of informing the cheated, giving them a time frame to own up to it before their spouse is given an anonymous tip. In both cases, I know with a high degree of certainty that they do not have an open relationship. There has already been fallout due to their infidelity and the lies they have told to cover up their actions indicate that this is not an open secret. Based on the "bump me off" and "butt out" parts of your response, I take it you are strongly in the 'don't inform' camp. Why is that?
No, I'm in the inform camp. But I'm only there to the extent that you care about their relationship, and in that case your duty is to both parties, and it is a duty of care rather than a duty to do justice to the wronged party as you see it. You never have a duty to be the moral police of another's relationship.
It may be that falling out is what is required, or it may be that infidelity is keeping the relationship going. Inform, therefore, but take the responsibility for your virtue, and pay the price for it, which may be high.
Yup...
If you feel obligated to tell one cheated on, I would think you ought tell the cheater that...
Guaranteed they would want to be the one to let em know, if they did not already know. And your moral obligation is met.
Quoting tim wood
I agree.
You can not predict what the consequences of your tale bearing will be. There is a quite good chance that you will make the situation worse by informing so-and-so that the partner is having an affair.
You might be assuming that the relationship is perfect, except for the dirty cheating spouse's slimy affair. Maybe the relationship is dead, and the spouse has found companionship, consolation, and pleasure with someone who was livelier. Is tale-bearing going to make the unresponsive partner suddenly lively and fascinating? Probably not.
You don't know... maybe murder or a serious beating, or two murders will be the result. Who are you to have zero tolerance?
But I do not care about their relationship one way or the other. Their relationship being mended or discarded is entirely up to them. I'm only interested in informing the victim of what the facts on the ground are. It is up to them what to do next. Also, in one case I am not allowed to say anything because I said I would not. In the other, I would only ever inform anonymously, otherwise the chain of information would become very clear, and I do not want to damage more relationships than is necessary.
Quoting tim wood
Call it what you like. I do know what happened in both cases. In the first case I am loosely friends with both parties involved. One of the cheaters owned up to it with his wife, but they abruptly cut off contact with the other couple(they were friends). The cheated person in the other relationship lost his friends and doesn't know why.
In the second, a friend of mine was privy to a state investigation that lead to the resignation of the cheater, who worked for the state. So yes, I do in fact know the details.
Quoting tim wood
Ah yes, I'm just trying my hand at home-wrecking. You got me.
Quoting tim wood
I can't say I speak for Mr Chatterbears, but I believe he means that I ought to inform the wronged. Of course you can't get an ought from an is, but you can get it from a few more is's. I ought to inform the wronged if it is the case that I adhere to a particular moral code and it is the case that this moral code requires I inform the wronged in this situation and that I want to act consistently with that moral code.
I think you already know that's what he means when he says "should", but I guess we'll have to play these linguistic games first.
Quoting Bitter Crank
You're absolutely right. I cannot predict the consequences which is why I am apprehensive. I know that things would likely get worse, at least in the short term. But in the long term? Opposed to what you posited about my assumptions about their relationship, I think it is very likely that their relationship is troubled already. That's part of the equation for me: the cheated is not living in a fool's paradise. Even if they were living in a beautiful lie, it would be a questionable decision to let them stay. As it is now, the cheated person is more likely to be in an unhappy marriage and the worst of it is just beneath the surface.
Perhaps you're right about the cheated partner being dull or unresponsive, but this is not a tale of new love. The cheater was picking up prostitutes and playing out rape fantasies. Maybe he's changed his ways since then, but something tells me that isn't the case.
Quoting gloaming
This is more of the spirit I had hoped this discussion would be in. Where does one draw the line and why? What ethical frameworks could be used to view this in different ways? What does proximity have to do with it?
Truth for truth's sake? But no, because you want to be anonymous, and hide your own part. In my book, I call that hypocrisy.
How we might react offers you a healthy dose of reality, but it doesn't provide an ethical solution. If I were in your shoes and the person were my brother (who I have a strong allegiance to) whose wife were cheating, I'd be on the phone immediately to him. If he were the cheater, yeah, well, she'll find out if she finds out. If it were a distant friend, I might butt out. With others, I might call the cheater and offer them a chance to fess up. It really would matter what my relationship was to the respective parties, how significant the loss of the relationship might be to me personally or professionally and such. Of course, all these considerations are political, not ethical. I'd be just trying to sort out how to best deal with a cheater so that I don't end up in the middle of a shit storm.
And keep in mind that these loyalty issues go beyond just infidelity issues. Do you tell your friend's boss that your friend is stealing from the business bank account? You probably do if the boss is a better friend. Again, not an ethical response, but a realistic thought.
I'm prepared to offer though a stronger ethical stance, and one that I can't say I'd necessarily adhere to, which is in doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, you tell the person. Consequences be damned. You ought to tell the person he/she's being cheated on.
Not truth for truth's sake, but truth for the person being cheated on's sake. Hypocrisy would arise only if the messenger were a cheater himself and yet he felt the need to out all other cheaters. Anonymity permits the person to be informed without causing personal damage to the messenger. Considering the messenger did nothing wrong here, why should he be forced to make his statements publicly and be subject to criticism?
Generally speaking, I see anonymity as a useful way of expressing candid and unpopular thoughts without the consequence of damage to reputation. It actually increases honest, open discussion. Such is the basis of TPF.
Then clarify what you are asking next time. You can look up the word "should" if you want to, as there are clear dictionary definitions.
When I say should, and as the dictionary states, he is obligated to share that information. I'll give you two different ways of saying it, since you're confused.
1. He should tell the people who have been wronged.
2. He is obligated to tell the people who have been wronged.
There is a difference between a moral obligation and a moral virtue. In this situation, he has a moral obligation to reveal this information with the people who have been wronged.
Yes, and that is morally suspect, because it relies on a judgement of the morality of the parties. Who knows, perhaps the cheater is trying to escape an abusive and controlling relationship? One cannot assume the equality of other things.
I suppose, but that seems a rationalization more than anything else. If I overhear your plot to murder your neighbor, should I keep that tidbit to myself because I don't know if you're trying to free yourself from the abuse he's been exacting on you and your family for decades? Sure, the seemingly immoral act of cheating or murder may be oddly justified in certain situations, but like everything, you've got to make the best decision you can based upon the information that you have. To do otherwise would free yourself from ever having to make a decision, justified on the basis of hyper-prudence.
The question of whether you've made a correct decision is answered by looking at what information you had before you, not upon what you'd do if omniscient. So, if I should see my brother's wife in a passionate embrace with another in a far away restaurant, I could conceal that information under the make believe notion that I'm protecting her from having to return to the evil hands of my brother, or I could just admit that I'm taking the easy road of hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil because life is easier that way.
My anonymity is not for my sake but for the sake of those in the chain of information that do not want to be involved. It would become clear immediately if I came in my own name. I would have zero problem with
Quoting tim wood
How much knowledge is sufficient? How would I know if I had sufficient knowledge? I don't intend on taking a skeptic's stance on the matter. I don't think I need to know the ins and outs of their relationship. I know of a serious event, or series of events, that I think the other party should become aware.
Quoting tim wood
I might have used the wrong term when I typed 'moral code'. Let me rephrase it by saying if I intend to act ethically, and I am convinced a particular ethical framework is the best way to do so, and this particular ethical framework indicates that I should act in a manner where I inform the cheated, then in this instance I ought to inform the cheated.
If you think this is somehow childish, I'd like to know how. Part of growing up is learning to navigate complex problems, sometimes ethical problems. We are all walking around with an innate set of ethical views, but sometimes our intuitions about a specific problem will be ambiguous. In these cases It's probably best to see what the different ethical views on the matter are and why. This is not me trying to justify a forgone conclusion, but rather I'm trying to look at the problem from diverse perspectives.
Quoting tim wood
The underlying reasons are 1) I feel a fairly strong sense that someone ought to inform the cheated 2) I am somebody 3) I feel strongly that I would like to be told if I were cheated on 4) I think the truth is almost always preferable to a lie, even when in the short term the lie looks more appealing. I suppose a fifth reason could be my feeling of astonishment that nobody else in this chain of information seems to feel this way.
Quoting tim wood
I think the categorical imperative lands on the inform side. Would I rather live in a kingdom of truth or lies? Should justice be thwarted or encouraged? I don't subscribe to Deontology, but I think the answer is clear enough. The categorical imperative still relies on someone's intuition about the world they'd like to live in, so it could just be my initial intuition.
I tend to defer to consequentialism. In this case, it's not perfectly clear which decision would have a better outcome, but once again my intuition makes me think that the harm to their relationship in the short term would be the broken egg that makes a future omelette.
Even from a strictly utilitarian view I think I should inform. At present, I am suffering with the knowledge, the cheated will not like the knowledge itself but will be happy to know it, and the cheater currently must take great pains to keep the initial lie by fabricating many more.
Quoting unenlightened
From the outside, they had a good marriage. He was formerly a youth pastor so their relationship was a bit more public than most. She could have turned into a controlling monster in the intervening years, but she was always a soft-spoken and a genuinely nice person. I see your point though. Maybe she too is picking up prostitutes so who am I to out one and not the other? I think most of life entails us making decisions with incomplete information. In this case I have few data points, but one of them looms large.
1) "Let them"? Who gives authority over people outside the relationship to "Let" anybody live the way they are living?
2) "Unhappy marriages"? Many marriages are unhappy. "Marriage" has been defined as an inherently unhappy state. Life involves a lot of unhappy arrangements (like work, for instance) that one just has to put up with. Propagating the species in a reasonably effective manner works better with two people (even if they are unhappy within the normal distribution of unhappiness).
3) "Beautiful lie"? If it is working, don't take it apart to fix it.
4) "Cheated"? Well... "Birds do it; bees do it; they say in Boston even beans do it." The institution of marriage still carries with it very outdated (paleolithic) meanings. "Ownership" still lurks in the background scenery. That's why we say "cheat". "You Bitch! You cheated me out of my sole ownership of your vagina!" (Or whatever organ is involved).
Some people are so possessive they don't want their spouse to have close friends: It transgresses on their painfully narrow definition of relationship -- solely owned proprietorship.
Look: Some are going to search for people outside of their primary relationship to have affairs with. If the marriage is reasonably happy, what difference does it make? If it is unhappy (without the affair) what difference does it make?
Suppose that I know that the person having the affair (that you also know, but not very well) is an extremely vindictive person who isn't above having some bones broken if she is crossed. How would you feel about me telling this Mafia daughter that you are planning to tell her husband that she is having an affair? You might have something quite unpleasant done to you. Sure, I would bear some guilt for you her having your thumbs cut off (sans anesthesia), but my guilt would be easier to live with than you having your thumbs sliced off and then living without those ever-so-useful opposable digits.
Of course... far fetched scenario pulled out of an old movie.
In reality, people "snitch". ("Snitch" goes along with "cheat".) Marriages blow up periodically whether there is any cheating and snitching or not. People go into marriages (relationships in general) with all sorts of unreasonable expectations of ever-lasting happiness and bliss, and roses, picket fences, great sex, cute accomplished, obedient, respectful children, and so on and so forth. These daydream-marriages generally end up getting run over by the garbage trucks of reality.
Setting aside what kind of world we would like to live in, we do -- in fact -- live in a world where right and wrong are often ambiguous, and the appropriate response from others (like you) is -- in fact -- even more ambiguous.
All this ambiguity is troubling; I have been hung on the horns of ambiguous moral decisions numerous times. When I was young, black and white were much closer to a checkerboard pattern. As I have aged, the black and white tiles have become fuzzier and fuzzier (especially in interpersonal categories like this). Sometimes I can't even tell whether there is a pattern.
Now this will come down to how you define morality, and how you come to moral decisions. For me, it is quite simple.
Morality is how we differentiate immoral actions from moral actions. We place actions in categories, such as Morally Unacceptable vs Morally Acceptable. An immoral action is an action that causes unnecessary physical or mental harm. It is an action that results in a victim being involved. Within moral actions, there are moral obligations and moral virtues. How I define moral obligation vs moral virtue is quite simple. A moral obligation is an action that requires less effort and puts you at little to no risk. A moral virtue is an action the requires a lot more effort and possible puts you at a much higher risk.
Here are two examples.
Moral Virtue: Saving a person/animal from a burning building. Although this fire could have started by accident, you care enough about the life in danger to put your own life at risk to save another. You are not obligated to do so, as you didn't cause the fire and trying to save something from the fire is a big risk to yourself. If you started the fire and caused others to be in danger because of your actions, it would then become a moral obligation to save them. Since your action to start that fire caused unnecessary harm.
Moral Obligation: Finding out your friend has a partner who is cheating on them. Although you have not committed the cheating yourself, you are enabling this behavior by not addressing it and having the person take responsibility for their actions. You are also allowing the cheater to continue their behavior while being dishonest and hurting his spouse for a longer period of time. This also comes at very little risk to you. And it also doesn't require much effort at all. If you're scared about the cheater going insane and trying to kill you for releasing this information, you can tell that person (the victim) anonymously (if you fear for your safety).
There are two questions here as you're presenting it. The first is whether they ought be told. The second is whether the messenger ought reveal his identity when he tells.
You answer both in the affirmative, but they are two different questions. The first is in the affirmative I suppose because you think a person is entitled to the truth and a good is accomplished when the truth is revealed to him.
I don't agree that the second question demands an affirmative response because I don't see why a messenger accomplishing the good inherent in question #1 must do so through self-sacrifice. What loss is there to the world should I send an anonymous note to a friend that his wife is cheating on him instead of delivering the message in person? I can say that I would be appreciative of an anonymous note if I were being cheated on and understanding of the anonymous nature of it, considering the messenger is an innocent party who just happens to have bad news to deliver.
Yes I dare say you would. Now what would you appreciate if you were cheating?
That is to say, if someone were to come to you with news of your partner's infidelity, you'd tell them to buzz off because you never expected your vows of faithfulness would be taken seriously 100% of the time. You don't live in fairy tale land and you're not terribly troubled when you learn the fairy tale you pretended to be the case is shown not to be. Your view is forged from reality, not through armchair introspection, which means it avoids the abstract hypothetical of whether one is obligated to inform another of a damaging truth by your making reference to too many real details of the shit that goes on in most fucked up marriages.
The guilty always appreciate going undetected. Do you suggest that the harm to the cheater ought be considered before revealing the truth?
Quoting Hanover
This. I identify with innocence. That is rationalisation.
A marriage, as I understand it, from the ceremonies I have attended as a groom, a groomsman, and a simple guest (not all at the same time mind you), is where two people make a lifetime commitment to one another, and , importantly for this discussion, forsake all others.
I recognize that not all adhere to this quaint notion of marriage and some do allow for various dalliances, but, in order to keep consistent with the OP, I'm referencing only those marriages where cheating can occur and I'm speaking of my duty to inform the cheatee of the cheater.
I persuaded myself that unnecessary harm being caused to others should be stopped, especially if you are able to to do. And in this case, the OP is able to do so. If you found that the wife was being beat by the husband, would you not try what you can to stop it? Call the police? Tell someone else who might be able to help? Etc...
Quoting tim wood
So you base your moral actions on whether or not it is a crime? Hundreds of years ago, owning a slave wasn't a crime. So you'd be fine with that? If rape was legal, would you be fine with that as well? Basing your moral actions on what the law dictates, is a very poor way to come to a moral decision.
Quoting tim wood
I am not deciding what is right and wrong for other people. It is demonstrably wrong that cheating causing pain in a relationship. This is a form of dishonesty and manipulation, but at a very high degree. People's relationships, especially marriages, are not to be taken lightly. That is two people who decided to trust in each other, and when someone breaks that trust, that is immoral. I don't object to the sex. I object to the dishonesty and unnecessary pain that is being caused to the other person. Which is what I stated from the beginning about how I defined morality.
Quoting tim wood
Yeah so again. If beating your wife was legal, such as in other cultures, people should just turn a blind eye and mind their own business right? We shouldn't try to intervene and stop it, or call the authorities, because they aren't breaking a law. Right?
Quoting tim wood
How do you put others at risk by revealing the truth to what is happening within a dishonest relationship? It's unethical to allow it to go on, rather than to reveal it for what it actually is. You have it backwards.
Do you really need me to rephrase all of those reasons in a less subjective way for you to allow the conversation to continue?
Quoting tim wood
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
What reason would I will something? What universal basis could there be for my willing something?
Quoting tim wood
When I wrote that I knew you would probably point it out, and in doing so imply I'm being a meddlesome child who likes to get in the mix of other's affairs(no pun intended). I think that is because you are confusing their relationship and the potential outcomes of my informing the cheated with my decision to inform.
Quoting tim wood
I see it in exactly the opposite light. Any pain or damage would be the responsibility of the cheater. It was their actions that crossed the line and it is their actions that would determine whether the relationship ends or mends. At no point could the cheater say, "Well, all of this is the informer's fault! If only you'd stayed oblivious life would be peachy!" I am only allowing the wronged party a chance to make decisions based upon reality.
Quoting tim wood
You could send me an email, or even a message here, informing me of the potential ills of my unclean penis. It's entirely up to me what I do with that information. You would be in no way imposing on me and I would probably just disregard what you said.
My should is not forcing anyone to do anything. It is stating the facts on the ground. Nothing more.
Quoting tim wood
I've been married for a decade.
I think chatterbears and I are on the same page, or at least I'm on the same page as chatterbears.
Some marriages are mirages. Most seem to be mixtures of hopes, fears, love, high expectations, and at least in the beginning, enthusiastic commitment. Later on the commitment may change from enthusiastic to resigned commitment, just as love changes from lusty romance in the beginning to something much more sober and less sexual.
I've seen what happens (up close and personal) when friends and relatives decide that a relationship or marriage needs a truth-telling intervention. The results can be intensely negative, and the people who carried out the intervention will be blamed--as perhaps they should be.
Is it stupid to expect fidelity in this day and age? (Was it ever sensible?)
Yes, I think it is a little stupid to expect fidelity under any and all circumstances. Let's say the husband is in the navy (cue the Village People) and is on assignments that take him away from home for long stretches of time. Is the wife NOT somewhat naive to think that her husband has never and will never find sexual partners during the long months of separation? (The long months of separation alone will probably erode love and commitment.) Is the husband sensible to think that when he periodically leaves his wife alone for months at a stretch that she might wish the affection of even an interloping partner?
Failure to maintain marital vows doesn't make someone evil, and therefore subject to anything that might happen to them, especially when what makes marriages work well is missing.
I think what Wood meant is that you won't get credit for good outcomes, and you will be blamed for bad outcomes. Why?
Because in spilling the beans, you become the most visible and least valuable person in the equation, rating well below the adulterous spouse. Therefore, the full truck load of tragedy will be dumped on your doorstep.
In this situation, you either protect a person from a lie, which essentially renders so much more to come a lie, because it would be based on lies. Or, you protect a person from the moment in which he or she will realize that something is wrong with his or her relationship in a catastrophic degree.
In any form, you are not obligated or responsible for 'their' doings. Perhaps you could have changed an outcome of perhaps the relationship getting better and the cheater never cheating again... At this point you would have to rely on probability. But are you going to base your actions on a faith of something happening? In the end it will be faith that dictates what you will do. Because even no fact can stop someone from doing something. Are you moral for revealing or not?
This is what I would probably call something with no solution.
Life sometimes has no solution. And why should it have a solution? Who are we?
If you can measure the epistemological support you have that would support telling on the cheater against the what would be lesser epistemological support of the withholding of such knowledge then I would say you have grounds for revealing the other person's information. This is the only way--something based in an accurate, reasonable measurement of possibility.
There is a reason people love to gamble.
@tim wood@Bitter Crank@chatterbears@Hanover@unenlightened
How strongly do you believe in this prospective act if you are not willing to claim it personally, by name?
Indeed they do. Perhaps I want to spare my partner the sad and humiliating truth that I have come to find her unexciting, if not repulsive. Perhaps she finds me so, and we have had no physical relations for years. Perhaps apart from this, we get on well and are happy together. Perhaps both of us are cheaters sparing each other's feelings as best we can.
Quoting Blue Lux
Perhaps the solution is already in place, and the problem is the moralist who finds it their duty to tell the truth and impose it on us. Relationships are more complicated than a mere contract of exclusivity - who knows, there might even be children to consider. Which is why I place the emphasis on caring for the people, both parties, as the condition for intervening in such a situation. If we were talking of serious abuse, I would take a different line.
Having said that, there is the case in which an honest partner is being betrayed on a daily basis and if and when they do find out, their whole life is devalued in their own eyes, and the friend who has known and said nothing is a party to the betrayal. So it is definitely something worth bringing to a philosophy forum to get the wisdom of the dudes on.
The cheated person in this scenario doesn't even have an opportunity to be the aggrieved party by your standard. All I would be offering is the cheated person a chance to decide for themselves if they are aggrieved or not. Implicit in your point is that there is a chance the cheated person might not be aggrieved if they found out. So I intend on letting them make that decision on their own.
Quoting tim wood
Once again, I do not need to know the totality of their behavior to know that one person has cheated on the other. I have not brought up crime or slavery in this discussion other than in the OP to illustrate that there are times where one is morally obligated to do something. You are making a legal distinction which isn't at all relevant in my view.
I came here for the wise neutral party as I am/was conflicted by this.
Quoting tim wood
In this hypothetical you are forcing a physical action upon me, which would be assault or kidnapping. Providing me with the information is a much more fitting analogy.
Quoting tim wood
Why the animosity? I never claimed to be an ethical hero, nor would being an ethical hero change anything in this case. Or would it?
Quoting unenlightened
I think all of this is very interesting and I'm certain many couples feel this way. That said, dishonesty need not be the standard in these situations. I don't think it's utopian to hope that the world can move to a place where people understand this can and does happen, and that we could be honest and caring enough that we allow each other to make the decisions that are best for our individual and collective lives.
Maybe you're right and they both find each other mutually repulsive; should both of them live lives of dishonesty and desperation because of it? Wouldn't it be better for one or both parties to own up to their feelings and get on with their lives, allowing the other to do so also? I know I painting very complex relationships with a simple brush, but social norms can change over time and these things could become easier, so long as we allow them to.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I said it somewhere earlier that I cannot identify myself because how I found out would become immediately clear and would damage other relationships. I would have zero qualms coming forward under my own name in this case.
And here you acknowledge that this sort of truth telling (like the truth of who you are) can damage relationships.
I still think that one should think long and hard about reporting to people you think have been harmed how they have been harmed. I'll grant that your motives are probably good -- I'm not suspecting you of doing this for malevolent reasons.