What constitutes cheating?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » What constitutes cheating? » What constitutes cheating?

Page: 1 2 3

What constitutes cheating?

Jing
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 13, 2008

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1

Posted 03/13/08 - 05:49 PM: Subject: What constitutes cheating?	#1
I'd like to discuss what is the precise definition of "cheating." What constitutes an act of disloyalty to one's significant other? It seems like cheating is both physical and psychological, but where do we draw the line? Does my casually looking at other women on the street count as cheating? etc etc.

Kreius
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 10, 2007

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 97

Posted 03/13/08 - 05:54 PM:	#2
Try to not think about Elephants for 2 minutes. And therein lies the problem, there's absolutely no reason to condemn an act as cheating based on mental lines; simply eying a good looking girl might get a few stern looks from my mate, but it shouldn't count as cheating. Sexually motivated actions is where we draw the line. And these are blatant ones too, like having sex, making out, 2nd basing, etc.
"Challenge your professors, even when you agree with them." -Herr Iosity

jaoman
On the Road...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 13, 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Total Topics: 82
Total Posts: 1415

Posted 03/13/08 - 11:19 PM:	#3
Cheating, as the word implies, is going against the rules. What are the rules in a relationship? Some arrogant people feel compelled to impose a standard on everyone. Being someone quite different from everyone, and preferring to have relationships with someones too, I have to say that the rules of every relationship are different and are determined solely by the people involved. Looking at other women may be cheating, if those are the rules agreed upon by the individuals. Likewise, it isn't, if it isn't prohibited by the rules. The same goes for physical intimacy. No one ever said that affection must necessarily be a limited resource. Relationships break when the individuals involved cannot agree on the rules they want to be following. Cheating is the covert expression of that disagreement. Usually it is brought on by guilt or bad communication between the parties involved in the relationship.
"With no relation to class or social background, whether it suits them or not, people yearn for a dream. Sustained by a dream, hurt by a dream, revived by a dream, killed by a dream. And even after being abandoned by a dream, it continues to smolder from the bottom of one's heart... probably until the verge of death. A man should envision such a lifetime once. A life spent as a martyr to the god named "dream." - Kentaro Miura

Fergus Currie
Blind watcher of the sky

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
Location: Athens Greece

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 144

Posted 03/14/08 - 04:14 AM:	#4
Rules, rules, rules... So what would the muslim who makes love to his 3rd wife be doing to his 1st and 2nd wives be doing? Certainly not cheating on them. Do you have a moral code? If you transgress that code you cheat in someway or another. The question is: How should one graduate the demands of retribution for such transgression? For a glance at some girl - 30 lashes, for a but grope on the bus - 100 lashes, for shagging the secretary - castration. Where do you stop? Law is only part of moral code and as such we can ascribe ourselves penance for transgressions if the present law does not cover them. Religious ground make for very poor moral exceptions. Like Mormons marrying children and muslims having multiple wives etc. The law makes provision for such exception on religious grounds not not on personal moral grounds ( I personally find this abhorrent). If I wan't to have more than one wife I must convert to a new or another religion. Only then will the law perceive my multiple marriage as legal and not bigamy! So, cheating... well, it would seem that it's up to you.
...and so Achilles never reaches the tortoise. ...so never send Achilles to get fags!

Fergus Currie
Blind watcher of the sky

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
Location: Athens Greece

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 144

Posted 03/14/08 - 04:20 AM:	#5
I guess what I'm trying to say is this: In Egypt for instance a man can have up to four wives. If he has a fifth on the side is he cheating on the other four and do the share the 'cheated-against-ness' i.e. only a quarter of the rage a single wife would feel? Strange stuff.. eh?
...and so Achilles never reaches the tortoise. ...so never send Achilles to get fags!

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico

Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 5427

Posted 03/14/08 - 06:00 AM:	#6
What commitments have you made? In the last analysis, cheating is failing to abide by your commitments.
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3641

Posted 03/14/08 - 08:39 AM:	#7
In extension that it is a breach of a contract, it is a breach of a marriage contract, and marriages are not religious institution, and one does not need to be religious to enter into marriage. The moral basis of a marriage is secular. Morality cannot be based on religion or belief in general, since it does not make something right that you stop believeing it isn't- that would be quite irresponsible. According to Kant, the moral problem marriage attempts to solve is that of treatment of another person as a mere sexual object or "objectification" for short, that is using another person only to satisfy ones desires. Marriage cleanses sexuality of instrumentality by mutual consent to give up oneself as a person to each other, thereby retaining ones personhood in return. According to Kant, one cannot give just a part of oneself since then the other would not obtain his or her person back, which in turn means only monogamy is allowed because one is not allowed to share oneself on parts. To counter against a homosexual marriage, he argues that it is a crimen carnis contra naturam as sex is then non reproductive that is contrary to end of humanity as a species.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

jaoman
On the Road...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 13, 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Total Topics: 82
Total Posts: 1415

Posted 03/14/08 - 08:58 AM:	#8
keda wrote: According to Kant, the moral problem marriage attempts to solve is that of treatment of another person as a mere sexual object or "objectification" for short, that is using another person only to satisfy ones desires. Marriage cleanses sexuality of instrumentality by mutual consent to give up oneself as a person to each other, thereby retaining ones personhood in return. According to Kant, one cannot give just a part of oneself since then the other would not obtain his or her person back, which in turn means only monogamy is allowed because one is not allowed to share oneself on parts. On the other hand, if I give myself to Stacy and get Stacy back, and then give Stacy to Suzie and get Suzie back, then Stacy has me, I have Suzie, and Suzie has Stacy. The Kantian accounting of personal finances is still fulfilled. To wit, the argument wrongfully assumes that commitment cannot be given wholly to more than a single individual. Even Kant wouldn't be able to hold this premise. One does not ration oneself out if one has multiple children. On the contrary, one gives oneself wholly to each one. Emotional commitment need not be subject to material mathematics.
"With no relation to class or social background, whether it suits them or not, people yearn for a dream. Sustained by a dream, hurt by a dream, revived by a dream, killed by a dream. And even after being abandoned by a dream, it continues to smolder from the bottom of one's heart... probably until the verge of death. A man should envision such a lifetime once. A life spent as a martyr to the god named "dream." - Kentaro Miura

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3641

Posted 03/14/08 - 04:44 PM:	#9
jaoman wrote: On the other hand, if I give myself to Stacy and get Stacy back, and then give Stacy to Suzie and get Suzie back, then Stacy has me, I have Suzie, and Suzie has Stacy. The Kantian accounting of personal finances is still fulfilled. Actually, I think you have got it slightly wrong here. It is not Stacy or Suzie you are suppose to get back, it is yourself. Morality for Kant requires the treatment of humanity in yourself and others always as an end, never merely as a means. If that humanity is lost in you, Stacy or Suzie, not accidental to your maxim, it is immoral. To wit, the argument wrongfully assumes that commitment cannot be given wholly to more than a single individual. The argument does not rest on such an assumption. What differentiates marriage from other commitments is that it is not merely a contract but an exchange of exclusive rights similar to that of private property rights. Commitments not including bodily rights have no such restriction. For more information: http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/k/kant/immanuel/k16sr/part8.html Even Kant wouldn't be able to hold this premise. One does not ration oneself out if one has multiple children. On the contrary, one gives oneself wholly to each one. Emotional commitment need not be subject to material mathematics. [/quote]
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

jaoman
On the Road...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 13, 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Total Topics: 82
Total Posts: 1415

Posted 03/15/08 - 10:50 AM:	#10
keda wrote: Actually, I think you have got it slightly wrong here. It is not Stacy or Suzie you are suppose to get back, it is yourself. Morality for Kant requires the treatment of humanity in yourself and others always as an end, never merely as a means. If that humanity is lost in you, Stacy or Suzie, not accidental to your maxim, it is immoral. See, that's where I'm bothered. To treat each human being as an end means that Suzie and Stacy need not be exclusive. Each is treated singularly as an individual end. To commit to Stacy to the purposeful exclusion of Suzie is to use Suzie as means of affirming commitment to Stacy. Bad for Suzie, but also immoral for Kant. The point I was making with the jocular is that the abstraction of giving and taking selfs and personhoods does not work. Kant has to use legal theory to rationalize his argument. In order to advocate monogamy, he has to first reduce people to objects and possessions, as under a contract. Since this clearly goes against treating a person as an end, he can then pose the idea of monogamous commitment as a way of reasserting personal value. It's a con trick. He takes the value away so that he can return it in such a way as supports his thesis. Thus the argument bites its own tail. The initial taking away of a persons value is already immoral. Everything after that and based on that necessarily suffers from the bad foundation. On the other hand, the issue disappears if we treat people not as possessions to be handed out, but as givers of experience. Each experience is singular in time and is therefore its own end. Yet, for as long as life permits, experience is also a renewable resource. One can therefore view any relation as a trade of experiences. Each party is morally obligated to his or her end of the contract. Each fulfillment of the contract is an end in itself and treats the other party as an end in itself by virtue of giving out something singular in time. Yet the terms of the contract are relative to the individuals involved. Therefore, people are not generalized into objects, as in Kant's thesis, but are viewed individually, as things in themselves.
"With no relation to class or social background, whether it suits them or not, people yearn for a dream. Sustained by a dream, hurt by a dream, revived by a dream, killed by a dream. And even after being abandoned by a dream, it continues to smolder from the bottom of one's heart... probably until the verge of death. A man should envision such a lifetime once. A life spent as a martyr to the god named "dream." - Kentaro Miura

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.