It was reported in Guardian (UK) that therapist, Mira Kirshenbaum, has in her new book “When Good People Have Affairs” written that cheaters are good and kind people in search of happiness who have made a mistake, and affairs can actually help marriages.
Even more, she says that cheaters should never admit to it.
‘A lot of people confess because they feel they just have to be honest. Well, honesty is great. But it’s a very abstract moral principle. A much more concrete, and much higher, moral principle is not hurting people.
And when you confess to having an affair, you are hurting someone. If you care that much about honesty, figure out who you want to be with, commit to that relationship and devote the rest of your life to making it the most honest relationship you can,’ she said.
Well, so honesty is a ‘very abstract moral principle’, and a ‘much more concrete, and much higher, moral principle is not hurting people.’
Do you agree affairs are good for marriages, honesty is as described, not telling the spouse of an affair is appropriate, and not hurting people by being dishonest is a much higher morality?
Joanne said,
June 18, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
HOw can one be dishonest so that peole are not hurt?! It hurts more if I find out you have been dishonest to me! You will commit two wrongs, infidelity and dishonest. I can’t understand this writer’s thiking! It is twisted logic to say not to hurt people is a higher morality to honesty!
charis said,
July 6, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
I did a research paper entitled, “What happens when there is no happily ever after? The impact of infidelity on the family”.
I used to think that if one is really repentful after committing an affair, then he/she should confess to the spouse. Now, however, I see this is only a general rule which usually applies. The exception, however unlikely it may be, is for example, where the innocent spouse is for some reason too weak to take the truth so much that it may destroy the spouse. And if the repentful adulterer wants to confess so as to lift a burden from his chest (as he comes to realize that he cannot live with the guilt), and does so despite his or her spouse’s vulnerable state, then is this not selfishness?
Lillian Tan said,
July 6, 2008 @ 11:52 pm
I dont agree the writer Mira says that honesty is a very abstract moral priciple.She also write not hurting people is higher to honesty.Honest is not abstact at all-everyone know what honesty is.We all learn from young from our parent what honesty is.In my view,all moral principles are on same level none higher or lower than other morals.I won’t be dishonest just not to hurt people.I think it is always right to be honest even if it hurts people cause it means I have done wrong and this wrong must make right.
politicssexreligion said,
July 7, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
Hi Charis,
I agree that the person who confesses is most times under the pressure of truth-telling ie ‘getting off one’s chest’ the misdemeanor. It is the conscience that is pricking.
I think an act of confession is not just to stop the conscience from pricking, it is to elicit redemption for oneself.
In instances it will appear that the confession just transfers the burden to the wronged. The act of confession seems to say “There, I have done the right thing by confessing, now the burden is on you to do the right thing – to forgive me. I am absolved by my confession and no longer burdened to do the right thing. The hard part is on you now, not me.”
If the confessor stops at this, then actually there is no confession and there is little chance of redemption.
There is no redemption because there is an absence of contriteness.
It is a ‘cheap’ confession.
A confession that is accompanied by contriteness offers not only redemption for the confessor, but also personal growth for the party who is wronged. If such a confession is not done, there is no opportunity for personal growth for both parties.
Hence, a truly contrite confession is always preferred. A contrite confession includes thinking of the consequences of the confession to the well-being of the wronged party, and taking care of him/her after the confession.
What if it is felt that the wronged party may just go off the bend?
One can be idealistic and say whatever the consequences, a truly contrite confession is always preferred, and whatever the consequences – so be it, because the only right thing to do is a contrite confession.
One never know, of course.
Are you a subscriber to “situational ethics”?
I would say I am not, as there should be absolutes and ideals one subscribes to.
However, I would never condemn anyone acting otherwise than the absolute and the laid down and the ideal in a situation. I cannot carry the burden of judging someone who is in a situation I am not. Who knows – I may just do the same in the same situation, so I cannot be condemning others.
I guess that is why God is merciful and forgiving… and loving.
Hi Lillian,
I think what Mira might have meant is the ‘practice of honesty in situations’ that is ‘abstract’, not the word itself.
I don’t agree with Mira that not hurting people is a higher moral principle – practising morals will always hurt some people, including oneself – and is hurt so bad a thing it should be avoided at all cost, even to the extent of being dishonest?
I think that will start us down the slippery slope to deception.
Hurt is sometimes good – it helps growth. A little like getting an immunisation jab!
To avoid all hurt and to practise deception – is a deception in itself. Don’t ever be deceived, or practise deception!
charis said,
August 23, 2008 @ 12:57 am
Not a question of situational ethics, but what actually constitutes ethics. Therein lies the black and white box, or the hues of grey. And confession to God is a seperate issue from confession to men. You may argue that you can never have the later without the former, but again, while that is certainly true in most situations, I will not make an absolute statement.
politicssexreligion said,
August 23, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
Hi Charis,
Well, yes…different people have different takes on what constitutes ethics- hence the black and white and grey. There is also then the process of application of ethics.
You may want to take a look at this……http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics
Er…although I used words like ‘confession’, ‘contrite’, etc which I borrowed from religion, I really only wanted to talk about admitting a wrong to the wronged party. Perhaps I can rephrase it as ‘Admitting a wrong to someone I have wronged, apologising for the wrong, and feeling genuine remorse for it, and caring and loving enough to care about the consequences.’ ie ‘admitting to a wrong’ = ‘confession’, ‘remorse’ = ‘contrite.
I have actually left God out of this discussion; sorry for the confusion arising from my using those words.
Relationship, marriage, fidelity…and so on and so forth – we all struggle with it, don’t we? Sometimes it seems that it is the only worthwhile thing to be preoccupied with, other times we get all bleary and hope it just goes away and we ask ourselves is it worth the bother – the rest of it that comes clanking along with it.
Those couples who are able to stick with it – how lucky they are (of course, there is hard work involved, but then there are those who work just as hard but it all just turns upside down all the same).
There is one absolute that I would stand up for, and strive for, though – unconditional love. :0)