Hacker News Reader

Comment by 2muchcoffeeman | Hacker News Reader

I would not trust any person who cheated on their spouse either.

Nor would I want to hang out with colleagues at a strip club if we were not friends outside of work.

I don’t think this is some gender thing. Maybe be men are more likely to be coerced into doing these things. But I think they’re having fun.

View on HN

Completely agree on this. Cheating on someone (be it a spouse or a business partner) is the definition of being untrustworthy.

To be clear, obviously I don’t mind how and with who people are spending their nights, as long as they are not deceiving someone. It’s a shame that open relationships are not more accepted, but that’s not an excuse because nobody forced a cheating person to take an engagement in the first time.

  > I would not trust any person who cheated on their spouse
  > either.

In personal relationships—by all means. In business matters—it depends, unless you think that someones views about family directly transfers to the business world. If anything I'd speculate there should be an inverse correlation: the more seriously someone treats their business the more sloppy they can be about personal relationships. I would not be surprised if workaholism caused more divorces than cheating.

>>> I would not be surprised if workaholism caused more divorces than cheating.

Doubtful. The man is traditionally expected to have the job and provide for the family, while the woman can take care of the children at home. It's somewhat assumed that the man will spend a lot of time at work.

>I would not trust any person who cheated on their spouse either.

I would be careful about that, because that group includes the likes of Martin Luther King, Jr., Stephen Hawking, Einstein, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm inclined to feel the same way, and have ended personal relationships when I found out someone had cheated on their spouse, but some of history's greatest figures cheated on their spouse.

Trustworthy =/ World changing.

People can have a net positive on the world and still regularly backstab acquaintances. See Steve Jobs.

I think, generally speaking, there are very few people who would consider Martin Luther King Jr., George Washington, etc. as "untrustworthy." Some historians suggest that "Honest Abe Lincoln" cheated on his wife with two men.

What could trustworthy mean if historical archetypes of honesty and great morality are not considered trustworthy?

> What could trustworthy mean if historical archetypes of honesty and great morality are not considered trustworthy?

What do the two concepts have in common at all?

Trustworthy means he will not screw me over if, say, I were to borrow him money. That simply has nothing to do with "who the person" is but only with "what he is like in his personal relationships". Business relationships are very personal and greatly dependent on one's personality.

In fact, the "greater" the person (in those historical, societal senses of the word) I'd actually be biased to trust them less even without any knowledge of their otherwise untrustiness.

It doesn't mean they are bad people. Everyone makes mistakes. You can do business with someone you can't trust, just don't put yourself in a position where your life/business/career/happiness depends on them behaving.

It doesn't necessarily mean that they're bad people, but it's certainly a good indication that they're bad people at least on a personal level. Of course this is assuming that they operated in an environment with the same ethics as my own.

Men are not wired for monogamy. It is like saying you might be bad person because you breathe. In a relationship this is a mutual effort to resist those needs, but failing to do so doesn't make you bad.

Actually, cheating involves lying. A spouse is explicitly or at least implicitly expecting the other part no to lie about extra relations. If lying about those extra relations in this context doesn't makes you a bad person, then I don't know what is.

Fair point. If I knew a couple in an open relationship, I'd be uncomfortable, but I wouldn't make a judgment on their integrity.

Logical fallacy. Doing one bad thing does not make one a "bad person" if such a thing even exists.

If the alternative is to break up a family so the cheater can be 'honest' with him-/herself, is a lie and a happy family worse than a broken family? Stop seeing things black and white.

Ask the wife whether she'd prefer to know, then decide whether the alternative is preferable. And besides that, other alternatives exist too. Marriage counseling is a thing.

Yes, hypocrisy is one of the worst things that you can to yourself and others.

At the beginning a family is made of two parents. When only one parent takes such dramatic decisions as to lie to their spouse in order to hide its cheating under the umbrella "its for the best of the family", then I stand to my point of view: this person is acting badly (shortcuted to "a bad person").

And I can understand specific contextes, so don't come up with things like "what if the other is handicapped".

But it's ok, you place value in peace of mind, I place value in respect, different points of view, nothing new, no big deal.

I don't believe in happy relationships based on lies. The deception will always affect the relationship.

- If someone wants to believe the lies, then in order to avoid discovering the truth, they will keep the relationship intentionally superficial.

- If someone doesn't want to believe the lies, they will discover the truth sooner or later and they will just be acting through life.

We’re also wired for murdering, raping and pillaging. That’s not gonna stop me from judging people who succumb to their desires at the expense of other people

What expense does a person suffer if they are being cheated on? Some forms of cheating involve financial irresponsibility, but not all. Some forms involve health risks, but not all. So let's not generalize all cheaters as perpetrators of harm to their first partners.

Judge all you want, but if it ain't illegal don't shove your values down people's throat.

Do you realise you're using the word "cheater"?

Having multiple relationships, known to all parties is subjectively wrong and we can argue about it as much as we want.

Agreeing to a monogamistic relationship and secretly breaking that agreement, as implied by your use of the word "cheater", is objectively wrong.

I find it hard to imagine most social norms, and much of what we consider to be good/bad behavior, is reliant on what we're "wired" towards; influenced by, sure, but I would imagine most of it is along the lines of "regardless of human nature, this is the way we should operate". Respecting monogamy, at least in America, is one of those things: regardless of how we naturally would like to behave, we are expected to (and promise to) respect the sanctity of marriage. That one fails to is not excused by our wiring; we obviously should be capable of exceeding that. It is, supposedly, one of those abilities that make humans as a species notable.

And if we go to an extreme, that you operate solely on your wiring and nothing else... well, you're hardly a modern human at that point.

> Respecting monogamy, at least in America, is one of those things: regardless of how we naturally would like to behave, we are expected to (and promise to) respect the sanctity of marriage.

When did residing in a particular nation-state define such specific moral boundaries? Are you saying if I move to China I can cheat on my spouse because that's how things are done there? It seems you are applying your own morals to 300 million members of a very diverse group of people.

Im saying that I'm only going to speak for country I know. I considered christian/puritan, but its not just them, and I thought perhaps abrahamic was sufficient, but im not sure of the muslim treatment. I'm also aware that hindus curremtly have a far stricter, and more culturally/socially enforced, view on marriage; most Americans I've met have difficulty even processing how important they take marriage to be, arranged or by love. The non-christian chinese and africans, I have no idea.

So I'll only make the general claims for Americans.

And dare I say it... not only "one of those abilities that make humans as a species notable", but

...one of those abilities that make humans as a species noble.

Think about it this way. The guy who, with his nature and peer pressure both strongly incentivizing him to cheat on his wife, and still not cheating on her, that person is much more likely to be trustworthy. At least predictable and dependable.

The older I get the more I realise life is complicated. I get the need for us to strive to be the best we can be and to those around us but it ain't easy. Please don't get me wrong, imoral acts should be condemned but often I wonder when I reading wording on headlines whether the person killed 3 innocent people or had an affair.

> imoral acts should be condemned

What defines immorality and how should that condemnation take place?

Ah you have hit the nail on the head. It's not just who defines morality, it is often also circumstances surrounding events that all combine to make life complicated. A man and a woman swear to be faithful to each other, then it is immoral to cheat on each other. The religion you follow also defines what is immoral and what isn't. There are also different ways to intepret religious passages.

The reason I said life is complicated is because it is impossible to define immorality for everyone. There is also the issue of the law, what is legal may not be moral. Then they are personal circumstances. Is it immoral for an abused married woman/man to cheat? Everyone will have their own answer based on their beliefs. This is why life is complicated. It isn't as straightforward as media headlines we see.

Don't forget Schrödinger. Is there a correlation with being a physicist?

Such an absolute and unconditional statement can’t ever be right, Never say never

Relationship not working for you? Tell them. I’d love to hear a logical reason to cheat.

I suppose at the same time you shouldn’t jump to conclusions.

But if I knew someone was cheating. Definitely trusting them much less.

It is easy to take moral high ground if one has never been in such situation. Those things are complicated.

There are plenty of people who have been in that situation and have regrets. They themselves take the moral high ground in condemning themselves. Hopefully, they heal by also forgiving themselves. People who refuse to admit wrong are more on the sociopathic side of the psychological spectrum.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com