Let me preface this by saying that I’m not a religious person. I’m more concerned about morality than religion. But I thought this question could be examined from both aspects.
I’m sort of seeing this lovely girl named Chelsie. The problem is that Chelsie’s married. For the last eight years, to a gentleman named Bill. However, the marriage is essentially a sham. Bill and Chelsie don’t talk, they don’t show affection for each other, they do not make love…they basically are nothing more than roommates. Bill is about eight years older than Chelsie, who is my age (28). Chelsie has a nine year old daughter, Allyson, from a relationship prior to Bill. Chelsie and I have known each other for a little over a year and a half. She started out as the friend of a friend, but she and I have grown signifigantly closer in that time. We’ve developed feelings for each other, to the point of being closer than friends, and have spoken of us becoming a couple after Chelsie and Bill are divorced, which is where their marriage is heading. She has went out an applied for an apartment, which she was offered a lease on. She turned it down, because she didn’t quite have the strength to turn the thought into the deed at that point. We have discussed this at great length, but have yet to act on it. However, I can see this coming to a point where we will soon act on it. Since this is all background, let me now pose the question: Is adultery wrong, even if the marriage is only in effect on paper? And, is it wrong to covet someone who is unhappy in her marriage? I would never think of breaking up a happy marriage, or being an influence in a happy marriage being broken up. So, do these commandments still apply? Is it morally wrong to want and be involved with someone who is unhappy with where their life has taken them, when I, according to this person, help bring some happiness into her life?
… but then again the OP begins with pointing out that he’s not a religious person. So, the TC don’t apply to him, rendering the question non sequitur, like asking if it’s still illegal to drive faster than the speed limit when you don’t actually drive.
Superdude, if you were looking for some sort of news - a late-breaking bulletin from the Allmighty suspending enforcement of the commandments concerning coveteousness and adultery - then I’m sorry to inform you that you’re out of luck.
If you’re willing to disregard the commandments as authority, then you have some room. You could certainly make the argument, as you do, that the marriage is already over.
My personal touchstone, though, would be when the married partners have a legal separation and have begun divorce proceedings. Before that - in my view - it’s really simply wrong to be involved with someone that’s married.
Admittedly, I may be somewhat biased based on my own history. Years and years and years ago, I started seeing a married woman, who assured me that her marriage was all but dead, she was on the verge of asking him to move out, they just needed to get their finances in a little better shape… blah, blah, blah. After more than six months of sneaking around, it became clear to me that, whatever might be wrong in their marriage, she had no intention of leaving it.
As long as she’s living with her husband, then - as far as you know - he has every reason to believe she’s faithful to him… and what you’re contemplating doing can only be described as cheating. She moves out, draws up a trial separation agreement… then it’s clear to all concerned that she’s ending the marriage.
If you were looking for advice, Superdude, then I would be echoing a “Me, too” to Bricker’s wise comments.
But it seems you’re seeking an independent standard on which to judge your own morality. And you’ve stated that “you’re not a religious person.”
My conclusion, based on my own ethics, is that only you and Chelsie know what is moral for you to do at this point, and at subsequent points in the relationship-complex you’ve described.
Go thou, and do what is right. Not by Jerry Falwell’s standards, or the Pope’s, or mine, but by yours and hers.
Our story turned out to have a happy ending but I know there are many people who have been in this situation who didn’t get the happy ending. That other person (you) looks really good when the one you’re with doesn’t make you happy. You seem like you’re a really decent guy so I don’t mean any offense.
I was worried for a long time that I was just the “rebound guy” or the knight in shining armour, I hope you get the picture.
You’re apparently past the point of being just friends but that is what Chelsie needs now most of all. Divorce is a big deal and it takes time for a person to get through it. Entering into another relationship right away is just not the greatest idea.
I’d take things very slowly and my hope is that things do work out for you.
A question for Polycarp: (Appologies to Superdude for using his thread to do this - anyone else who wants to answer can do so…)
The question is this: Are you implying that there is no absolute morality? Or are you saying that morality is a decision that we each need to make for ourselves and that we cannot (should not) be forced into a particular morality - although you happen to have an opinion on which is the “best/correct/most useful” one (since you have made your own choice)?
Bad idea. Dear Abbey and Ann Landers have at least one letter a week demonstrating why this is a bad idea. Not only from a breaking God’s commandment point of view, but from a human relations point of view.
Duly noted, though I hardly think that Ann Landers and Dear Abby are credible sources of morality. They strike me as being very antiquated and conservative in their thinking.
Superdude, there are only two possible cases: there is an objective moral code that addresses this situation, or there is not.
You’ve rejected a classic source of objective moral code - the Commendments of the Bible. You’ve also rejected Ann Landers and Dear Abby - a wise ove in my view, but that’s neither here nor there.
The point is: in the absence of an objective moral code, you must rely on your own conscience to decide what is right.
As many great philosophers through the ages have realized, however, our own conscience is not always the reliable guide it ought to be. Humans are prone to rationalization - to inventing reasons to permit them to do what they wish to do. It is for this reason that objective moral codes are valuable - they allow a cooler, wiser standard to prevail.
But they may also be fraught with outdated thinking, or draw their standards from sources with which you may not agree.
The solution I offer is not mine, but comes from the esteemed thinker Hillel, who said: “That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow.”
This allows a reasonable balance between following outdated or inapposite moral codes, and yet still having an objective standard. Do not do unto others what you do not wish done to you… kind of a reversal of the traditional “Golden Rule.”
If you were married, what would you have a potential paramour of your wife’s do?
I agree with the philosophy, Poly, but in this case, there’s a third party involved: the husband. If you change the last sentence to read…
Not by Jerry Falwell’s standards, or the Pope’s, or mine, but by yours, hers and her husbands.
…I’d be in complete agreement. But unless he expressly agrees, I don’t see any way to make it “right”.
Fenris
*I’m not putting this in the other thread, because I’m in agreement with Poly to a large extent, except on the specific example chosen, which is connected to the OP.
One point that I didn’t mention in my OP was the fact that, even before she and I started down this road, she suspected that Bill was cheating on Chelsie. I didn’t mention it because there’s no concrete proof. But all of the typical symptoms are there. He’s stayed overly concerned about where she goes and what she does. He’s gone to the history bar on their computer to figure out what websites she’s visited over the course of the day. The whole working late thing. I once heard a quote that went something along the lines of “who should fear theft more than a thief?” Seems to me that that same standard would apply in this case, though I could be mistaken. But who would be more inclined to be so anal-retentive about someone else’s whereabouts than someone who was trying to cover their own?
The commandments were not thought up by some Jewish elders thousands of year ago. They are the basis of a morality that is shared by most of the world’s religions. With the exception of the Sabbath, I cannot think of a philosophy that would allow any of the commandments to be broken.
Polycarp,
Of course you are wrong. Morality is not defined by the individuals or we would have evolved into a bunch of drunken thieving killers. Wait maybe it is! No the irrational people that would define their morality as taking from you what they want are controlled by the rest of a moral society. I know you say things like this to stir people up but some people believe you.
Superdude,
my advice, for what it is worth, run as far away from her as possible. she has a kid from a previous relationship. and now she is in a marriage that she is willing to cheat on. doesn’t sound promising.
With all due respect, Superdude, I think you’re already well down the rationalization road. If this situation is subject to an objective morality (Biblical or otherwise), special circumstances don’t nullify your duty to the objective morality. She is another man’s wife. She has likely made vows which specifically prohibit her from taking a lover outside of their marriage. That the husband might have broken his vows to her does not excuse her from honoring her vows to him. That their marriage is hollow does not mean it should be open to third parties. Covetousness happens. Special circumstances don’t abrogate your duty to avoid it.
Until Chelsie and Bill have both left their marriage, and/or agreed with each other that the marriage is dissolved --no longer binding to either party-- you have neither the right nor the moral grounding to interfere.
In short, the fact that their marriage is (according to her, anyway) only on paper means that the marriage still exists. Until her husband knows and agrees that the marriage is over, she shouldn’t fuck around, and you shouldn’t help her.
Society adopts behavioral standards, some by law and some by custom. Many people act out of prudential motives – i.e., failing to do something they see no moral harm in because it is forbidden or frowned on by “society.” Others see the act of breaking the law as ipso facto immoral. And still others do not.
However, there is no such thing as “a moral society.” Individuals act morally – or immorally. Their moral code may be that shared by the society they live in, but only they make moral choices based on it.
I’m glad you “know” this. It is not true. If it were true, I would be trolling, an offense against this board’s rules.
I will expect you to retract this remark and apologize forthwith.
How about, “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me?” Not all religions worship the God of Abraham. For that matter, not all are monotheistic.
Anyway… Superdude, a question about Bill cheating on Chelsie. When she started to suspect this, did she think he was doing anything wrong? His actions are not justification for bad behaviour on her part. The old “Two wrongs don’t make a right” thing.
Answer honestly. Commandments or no, are the two of you doing something wrong? If you can honestly answer no, why are you looking for justification? And if you honestly answer yes, why are you continuing to do so?
Your actions are up to you, of course, but if you are doing something that you know to be wrong, you need to accept the risks and conseqences of that action. If you are doing something you know to be right, the rules of a religion you don’t follow shouldn’t worry you.
PolyCarp,
you test my sword again! touche! I know a lot of things. I know a lot of wrong things. I am not infallible. What I meant to say, in my clusmy way, that if you throw a comment out there without clarification then it seems like you are saying “morality is defined solitarily by the individual”.
We do whatever we please, as long as the societal laws aren’t broken, and if they are then we aren’t caught.
Are you saying that the kid who steals because his parents taught him is acting on him morals, which is the same as a person who does charity work because he was taught so? These are 2 moral people?
Is morality a definition, or just the rules of conduct which everyone self defines?
I shall apologize not fortwith but maybe in a forth-night.
SeaWitch,
the other religions might not specify the God of abraham as the only true God, but they would demand that they are the true God. and not allow dallying with other deities.