RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Those Tough Choices

Friday
May 27, 2005

Those Tough Choices by Joseph Rowlands

A man has a dilemma. He's cheated on his wife, and now he has to decide what he's going to do. Now he has to choose between telling her or keeping it a secret. Even if she decides not to leave him, she may never trust him again. If he decides not to tell her, he's got a different set of problems. What should he do? How does Objectivism help him decide on a course of action? (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (51 messages)

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 1:06am

Joe, what can I say? You've done it ... AGAIN?

How in the hell do you manage to fit such wisdom into such a delightful and succinct read? I wish that you had a television show--like Jerry Springer, only more moral and more real (to befit you). You could end each show as he does--only with your superior, encompassing, empowering wisdom.

You have such a talent, not only for saying the right thing--but in the right way. You're admirable. Thank you.

Ed

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 2:10am

Joe, I agree completely that the relationship was ruined as soon as he had the affair. Before then really because if he's even thinking about it he's not much interested in his wife.

With lesser values things get more complicated because you might have five or ten smaller values all vying for importance. Most of our time is spent dealing with lesser values and it is from these that our habits are formed. I'll try to think up a good example tomorrow.

Tangent: your example calls to mind an argument I once had with a teacher about the difficulties in finding a job during the Depression. Of course, those were awful times and folks were understandably desperate. But one argument that I kept hearing from him was that the men who had families to support should be given advantages (jobs!) over those who didn't. It was as if the men simply arrived on the scene with families to support. No thought was given to their responsibility in choosing to have all those mouths to feed.

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 2:55am

Well said, Joe.....

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 4:21am

Good article Joe.

Should the husband be honest to his wife and say that he now is attracted to another woman? Or should he hide his true motives and say that he just woke up one day and is no longer interested in the relationship anymore?

When I split with my Girlfriend I told her truthfully all the reasons that I was splitting up with her, although I knew the information would hurt her. I think in the long-term it was much better thing to have done as she is still a good friend.

If I had lied about my motives or only told half the truth, I don't think our friendship could have lasted.

As you touch upon in the article, I think one needs to honest and straight-forward in relationships for the sake of one's own self-esteem and ego. It means you can hold your head up high and expect the same of others. You expect friends or partners to be straight with you, so you should be straight with them.

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 5:46am

If he decides not to tell her, he's got a different set of problems. He'll fear that she might guess or learn about it somehow. He'll feel guilty whenever she shows him affection because he'll know it's based on a lie. He won't be able to enjoy her love because he'll know he didn't earn it. He'll know that he's a liar. He won't be able to get on with his life, as his future will be based on a very unreliable foundation.

This is so Dostoyevski. Do normal people really react like this?

(Edited by Robert Davison on 5/27, 6:42am)

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 6:08am

If they are sociopathic, they don't.
If they realize that other people exist, and have feelings, too, they do, at least to some degree.
If these concerns DON'T bother the cheater, he ought to leave his wife and find some whose feelings and life mean something to him.

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 6:17am

Interesting article, Joe, one that has earned my sanction. What you state here describes the Hank Rearden affair with Dagny Taggart behind the back of Lillian Rearden in many ways. Of course Hank "should have" not married Lillian in the first place, or he "should have" divorced Lillian before pursuing a relationship with Dagny. The main difference is that Hank had no interest in maintaining his marriage with Lillian but did have an interest in continuing the affair with Dagny. In fact, he requested a divorce from Lillian but she would not grant him one. Interestingly, he might have stayed in his unhappy marriage had it not been for Dagny's "interference." Do Hank and Dagny qualify as "dishonest" even though their mutual happiness demanded it?

A famous case some years ago involved a lawsuit of a wife against her husband's mistress for "interfering" with the marriage. I do not know all the other details. But it does beg some questions regarding at what point we can judge the jilted spouse for having failed to meet his or her part of the marriage contract. Does a wife who loses all interest in sex and no longer offers her husband that physical bond qualify as a violator of the marriage agreement? Does a husband who unilaterally quits his job and no longer supports his part of the household expenses qualify as such a violator? I know of some couples who have separated and gone many years into new relationships without ever doing the work of officially divorcing. This sometimes happens when one or the other digs his or her heels into the ground and makes it nearly impossible for the other to complete the divorce without going bankrupt.

Ah, those tough choices! I don't mean to change the context of your scenario, Joe, but clearly it provokes thought into these other areas. Good job.

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 7:11am

Great article Joe. Real life stuff. Every choice, every action of either evasion or honesty has a ripple effect.

I have been there. I have done the honest thing and explained that my heart was no longer in the relationship and that I would be moving out. I can't say even now years later if that course of action was the "right" one.

Let me approach it from a different viewpoint. A close close friend comes to me with an almost identical problem. He is in a passionless marriage. He is, he thinks, in love with a co-worker. He feels he should end the marriage now and pursue the other relationship. He feels this is the moral thing to do. But is it really? I am not so sure. There are other variables. Should he end a marriage that might be saved were he *not* so disengaged, for what might be a transient relationship, and a huge mistake? And I am not talking about marriage the institution, I am talking a couple, a relationship of two who once loved deeply and may find that spark again with the proper effort. I didnt know where to guide him. I told him to confront the issues head on. I should have had more in my arsenal of psychology and objectivism to help him.

There are no easy answers when you are dealing with the hearts of people.

John

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 7:25am

Joe,

I like this theme in your writing, that we are responsible to act on our own behalf before disaster strikes. People whine when one says, "shouldn't have happened in the first place . . ." but that's perhaps the most relevant thing to say. It's a Joe-ism. We have options in this life, that's the whole point.

It requires not just reaction, but purposeful action. Only then can the true potential of the virtues be unleashed.

You are a good example of this, I'm struggling to catch up. Dynamite as always.

Julia

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 7:37am

Great article, Joe. For the record, though, I think the right thing for the cheater to do is to come clean with his significant other and break off the relationship.

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 7:59am

About Hank. I think his dishonesty comes in not looking at what Lillian and Phiilip and his mom really are, moochers and value destroyers. He turns away from reality there, not in pursuing Dagny. Had he looked the facts squarely in the face, he would have long since thrown them off and been free to be with Dagny.

P.S. Scott, i sanctioned your post. Any decent person would feel guilty when he lies and cheats someone he cares about. Heck, I'd feel guilty doing that to any good person, not just my husband.

Kelly

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 9:53am

Great article Joe. This goes well with your other active vs. passive virtue articles and strikes another blow against the rationalistic, reactionary view of ethics.

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 10:15am

Ethics isn't supposed to be used only when you get into a bad situation. Properly applied, ethics should help you avoid the bad situations in the first place.

That's the heart of the article. Often the answer to the person in a bad situation who whines "Why me?" is "Because you made poor choices."

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 11:40am

Ethics isn't supposed to be used only when you get into a bad situation. Properly applied, ethics should help you avoid the bad situations in the first place.

That's the heart of the article. Often the answer to the person in a bad situation who whines "Why me?" is "Because you made poor choices."

And then they get mad at you for pointing it out to them. The messenger gets clobbered.

Habits play a mighty role in all this. The reinforcement we get as a kid shapes our ethics. Our friends influence us too. A drastic change of our ethical habits requires a drastic change in our environment. That means cutting ties or at least distancing ourselves from those early influences. You'll always be a kid in your hometown.

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 5:02am

The point of the article--"think ahead"--is well taken, but you're quite right that "He shouldn't have had the affair" is not a fair answer to the legitimate question you posited. Objectivists make mistakes, and even behave immorally at times, and we do end up in shady situations, despite our best intentions. Objectivist Ethics is just as applicable then as it is at any other time. Still, even without immoral, mistaken decisions, acting ethically is not a guarateed road to freedom from tough decisions. It's a guide through uncertainty, after all, not a ticket to omniscience.

So what should a man who "cheats" on his wife, girlfriend, boyfriend or whatever do? Maybe a topic for a different article.

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 12:14pm

Well, Dr. Laura says that you shouldn't tell your spouse, because that only makes them unhappy and doesn't really accomplish anything except alleviate your guilt at their expense. I think I probably agree with this.

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 2:14pm

Lance: I agree that the messenger would be unwise to deliver that bit of advice! When someone is so deep in their victim mentality they have to really want to face responsibility in order to accept advice like that.

A drastic change of our ethical habits requires a drastic change in our environment. That means cutting ties or at least distancing ourselves from those early influences.

I really disagree with this. If your primary influences (I assume we're talking friends and family here) are destructive or harmful to you, then this might be the necessary. But under normal circumstances when your philosophical views veer away from those around you, distancing yourself seems excessive. It seems like running away to avoid facing criticism or defending your ideas.

I'm skeptical of anything that requires so dramatic a change. Developing your ethical system should be natural extension of who you are as you work to become the person you want to be. To cut off your friends and family because they are like what you used to be smacks of rebellion or rejection for its own sake. It's easy to stand as a individual if you've pushed people out of your life. The challenge is be a strong individual in the face of those formative influences, and do a little influencing of your own.

Joe: I also really liked the idea of choosing to act or nor act to support your virtues. It really drives home the theme of personal responsibility in cases that at first glance would seem be attributable to "circumstances" somehow beyond a person's control.

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 3:22pm

A drastic change of our ethical habits requires a drastic change in our environment. That means cutting ties or at least distancing ourselves from those early influences.

I really disagree with this. If your primary influences (I assume we're talking friends and family here) are destructive or harmful to you, then this might be the necessary.

Hey Angela, it's interesting. There are degrees of harm. If we develop virtue when we are young then our friends and family no doubt supported us. For everyone else, we have to go in search of virtue. We have to get away from the expectations of our neighborhood because everything in that environment presses on you to be what they want you to be. There must be exceptional environments out there and I hope you're in one.

The greatest individuals leave the neighborhood. Ayn Rand left it (she would have been killed if she hadn't). Michael Jordan, Paul McCartney, Wayne Gretzky all had to leave the neighborhood to develop the best within themselves.

The challenge is be a strong individual in the face of those formative influences, and do a little influencing of your own.

I agree that ideally your family and friends would be open to this. And to some extent they are. There were some great people in my old tribe but there were some stubborn bastards too. It's much easier and far more sane to start in a brand new place where no one knows you. If the goal is to be who you want to be then why not make it as easy as you can on yourself? It'll be hard enough as it is. And you can always hop a jet to visit the ones you love. And so can they.

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 3:16pm

No sane man will wake up one day and tell his wife that she is not his top value any more, or that he just felt like having an affair with another woman, and he doesn't know why. There is always a story to know behind every affair.
dc

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 3:39pm

The greatest individuals leave the neighborhood. Ayn Rand left it (she would have been killed if she hadn't). Michael Jordan, Paul McCartney, Wayne Gretzky all had to leave the neighborhood to develop the best within themselves.

By the way Angela, I don't intend the above as absolute proof. A person can certainly live well close to home provided the environment is supportive.

(Edited by Lance Moore on 5/27, 3:40pm)