Because a betrayal of trust is not the only factor. Whether or not there is a victim doesn’t mean there was no attempt to commit a crime, for lack of a better word. If I steal some guy’s wallet, but he stops me, tells me he noticed, but that he was going to give it to me anyway, have I done something wrong?
It’s also possible that the partner is being deceived still. If the politician confesses to having slept with another person once, their partner might be able to forgive them, not knowing the truth is there’ve been many affairs over many years.
Plus there’s also the issue of who the affair is being had with. There could be another victim - the partner of the other party to the affair. And there’s the matter of the other party themselves; as has happened seemingly often recently, if a staunchly anti-gay politician is discovered to have had an affair with another man/woman, they’re going to lose a lot of support (though just to be clear, i’m not among that support).
Once again, i’m not saying all or any of this would make me not vote for someone. I’m just saying i’d prefer to make up my own mind instead of relying entirely on someone else’s.
Bad analogy. You’re assuming that the adulterer ever even made an attempt to deceive or betray his spouse. A better analogy would be if you asked someone for his wallet (or some money, at least) and he gave it to you. Has a crime been committed in that case?
In that case, there is deception, but I haven’t said it wouldn’t be unethical to lie about some extramarital partners but not others. I’m saying if there is NO deception (at ALL) then there is no ethical foul.
Personally, I wouldn’t see other person’s partner as a victim of the subject in question but only of his or her spouse, but just to clear up any ambiguity, I’ll stipulate that if there is no deception or betrayal of anyone involved on either end, that I can see no ethical foul.
The only ethical issue I would see in a cse like that is hypocrisy, not the sex per se.
I’m only saying that my own evaluation of the ethical issues would rest entirely upon whether or not the actions of the pol in question had hurt other people.
A crime as in something illegal, no. Have I done something bad? Well, that depends. Can he afford to give me that money? If so, sure, nothing wrong there. If he can’t? Even if he’s happy to give it to me, i’d suggest that I would be wrong to take it.
To put that in proper context, the adulterer’s partner may be absolutely fine with it, but that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. Even if their partner is happy with it, it could lead to the couple splitting up, if it shows a lack of emotional investment. And this still doesn’t mean that the adulterer wasn’t trying to get away with something; was the permission sought, or forgiveness given? If permission, no foul. But if the adulterer didn’t know their partner would be ok with it, then they’re happy to break what (they believe is) their closed relationship. Even if they admit to it afterwards (and so there’s no deception) that doesn’t mean they weren’t fine with having an affair whatever their partner though.
Assume he can afford to give it to you (though, I’m not sure how “afford” would translate from this analogy to an open marriage).
So what? Why would that be unethical?
Again, so what if it does? What’s unethical about a lack of emotional commitment? How would that even be volitional?
And this still doesn’t mean that the adulterer wasn’t trying to get away with something; was the permission sought, or forgiveness given? If permission, no foul. But if the adulterer didn’t know their partner would be ok with it, then they’re happy to break what (they believe is) their closed relationship. Even if they admit to it afterwards (and so there’s no deception) that doesn’t mean they weren’t fine with having an affair whatever their partner though.
[/QUOTE]
When I say no deception, I mean no deception at any point. I’m not talking about forgiveness after the fact. (But now that I think of it, once she forgives him, then how is it any of my business?)
Yeah, that is a pretty hard to translate analogy. Sorry about that.
Do they have kids?
Good point. I take it back.
There doesn’t have to be deception, though.
Partner: Hi, dear! How was work today?
Politician: Eh, I did a little bit of work, spoke to some people… and slept with that hot intern.
Partner: You did? Well, I guess I can forgive you.
Politician: Really? Huh. Cool.
Ok, that was a pretty crappy way of putting it, but what I mean is that an affair might not be hidden. Someone can have an affair and want to admit it to their spouse; to prove they can get away with something, or to put their partner in their place (as they see it). It might even be an act of revenge for some slight.
I guess what i’m saying is that for me it’s not whether someone was hurt, but whether it was an attempt to make someone hurt, or a lack of caring either way.
I’ve seen that before, and I have no idea where they’re getting it. Right, maybe merely being married and having a load of kids isn’t enough to dispute it, but he went to great trouble to get married, even admitting to his potential father-in-law that he was an illegitimate child in his letter asking for Elizabeth’s hand. He also had a notorious affair with a tarty little blackmailer called Maria Reynolds that cost him a not inconsiderable amount of time, money and professional danger.
Besides that, he* was *quite attached to a childhood friend called Philip, whom he wrote often, named a son after, and if I recall correctly whose death may have spun Hamilton off into the depression that eventually led him to committ suicide by future Vice President, a rather novel approach. But it might have been son-Philip, not friend-Philip, I can’t remember offhand. Anyway, if there’s any evidence beyond that of Hamilton being queer I don’t know about it, and frankly I think I would.
Just finally got the link to work, and it has more info than the one I thought it would. Still very very scant; Hamilton was a romantic and loyal sort for someone so practical-minded, and it’s entirely in character for him to have written all kinds of flowery stuff to all kinds of people.
I don’t want to get too caught up in nuances and scenarios, but basically I’m saying that extramarital sex doesn’t have to entail any betrayal or deception and I think it’s those things, not the sex, which can make adultery unethical. As a voter, if I am reasonably satisfied that a politician’s sexual relationships have not involved any emotional betrayals or attempts at deception, then I see it as an ethically null issue. I also don’t think it automatically means that the person is dishonest or untrustworthy.
I will admit to a twinge of distaste when it comes to pols (or successful men in general) ditching their spouses for younger trophy wives. It’s not a decisive factor for me but I count it in the debit column.
If you mean ‘is it rational to expect polititians to shag around’ then I would answer ‘yes’
a) they obviously do ( I knew two House of Commons secretaries - great gossip )
b) power is an aphrodisiac to women - well in my experience it is
c) opportunity breeds activity
Is it a result of a driven conquering personality that is necessary for politics ?
No - it is human nature
Should it be part of our voting calculus ?
Yes and no, if a politician yaps on about ‘family values’ then it exposes himself/herself as a ludicrous hypocrite - it makes them look foolish - and it is not generally rational to select a foolish legislator
If they say nothing on the subject, then who cares.
If like the British MP, Alan Clarke, they are totally open about their activities, then I would chalk up a mark in their favour - an openly ‘dis-honourable’ guy is likely to be very honourable in non-sexual areas - as was Alan Clarke.
Incidentally LBJ is supposed to have mucked around
and State Troopers who drove Hillary had quite a lot to say about her activities with a guy who later shot himself in a park.
I was a bit disappointed that Clinton was evasive, he would have been a lot better off saying: ‘I refuse to answer that question, you can wait for my autobiography - it will be called Secondary Colours’
Nor should an affair, in itself, be reason to not think someone can govern well. The problem, though, for many people, is that like a spouse they see it as a reason to immediately distrust the person. And as with any instance like htis, the trust is difficult to regain.
It’s a matter of character for some people. I’ve lost (given up) friendships after the person cheated on his/her spouse. Depending on the situation, if a person can break the most intimate trust with a spouse, I’m left to wonder how trustworthy they are with people they aren’t sleeping with. It doesn’t apply to every single situation, but for the most part it’s fair to base, in part, a judgment of the character in question.
I was hoping someone had access to the figures on divorce rate in politics.
I personally feel that the kind of ego necessary to get into polkitics leaks into other parts of life. It would take a man deep into winning,perhaps not at all cost, but willing to go far. To many men women are trophies and to be conquored.
At end, I think we are past the Hart days . We may not be.
Should we go back to Kennedy days when his affairs were common knowledge but not hugely reported.? Was that better or worse?
Depends. I might question your judgement when anti-smoking and anti-drinking legislation is being decided, and I’d be concerned if your “excessive” drinking is imparing your ability to make decisions, but assuming neither of those points is an issue, why should your private life affect my firing decision?
(And isn’t that what an election is, essentially? A hiring decision?)
I think you could say a similar thing about people in show biz: that the kind of ego or personality or psychological makeup or whatever that tends leads one to become a movie star or a rock star is not particularly conducive to stable marital-type relationships.
I think it does. Just as a few corrupt politicians can make the rest look corrupt, so can one skirt chaser make the rest look like skirt chasers. It only changes when there actually IS massive corruption, such as is the case with the current Republican Congress. Then you NEED a wide brush to do your tarring.
I am not sure it matters. When Clinton got his horn honked did that make his policies bad?
It was a childish and stupid thing to do. We were at full employment, national debt was gone and at peace. I’ll settle for that.
From the day he was inagurated he was under invesigation. White water, etc. Yet he provided the amunition himself, when he had Hillary at home waiting for him.
It’s more than that. It’s your chance to influence the general ideology and public-policy directions of your government. Looking at it that way, you might prefer a sinner of your own party and/or views to a saint of the opposite side. You might even prefer an ineffective bumbler of your own views to a sharp political operator of the opposite side. Think about it.