A Defense of Fidelity

Is there a reasonable defense of fidelity to your spouse that has a foundation that is neither legalistic or theistic? Is that defense superior to an alternate defense of infidelity? Can such a finding be placed on a base other than individualistic relativism?

My thought: if we accept that adultery is a kind of lying and that truthfulness is the core of morality, then adultery must on prima facie grounds be immoral. There is also the distinction between doing something that you think is wrong (say adultery) and confessing that act to someone who may be harmed by that confession (say, your spouse and children). And then the question becomes: what if your spouse acknowledges your adultery perhaps in the context of an "open marriage"? Is it then immoral? The main principle of Kantian ethics is that consequences needs to be divorced from the essence of the act itself-- that the essential rightness or wrongess of the actions must be weighed without regard to utiliterian, pragmatic, or perceived societal considerations. Thus, I think Kant would say that moral duty alone determines whether or not adultery is moral or not. OK, but is fidelity a moral duty, and if so, why?

"My morals revolve around self interest. And for me fidelity is compatible with self interest. "

While I agree with your statement, I don't think it provides a sufficient basis as a principle for ethical actions, as other people's self-interest may lead them to infidelity. Their self-interest may come from such motivates as to perpetuate their genes, for trivial amusement, or to provide tonic for a psychological condition. On what ground is their self-interest inferior to your self-interest that results in fidelity other than subjectively perceived utiliterianism? To me, Kant has the answer. Essentially, it is the recognition of the objective reality that we don't live apart from the existence of others and a morality requires a leap of empathy to recgnize the humans are not objects for our own use not matter what the jusitication of that use may be, accoding to Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative:

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means"

An argument from self-interest -- either "I yearn for sex, thus I must have her" or "I must keep myself free from disease, so I will exercise self-restraint" -- both fall into hypothetical imperatives-- conditional actions that are not tied to a universal moral law.

"Some of the most noble forms of human altruism are motivated by unconscious predispositions to perpetuate their genes."

Agreed. There are all kinds of unconscious predispositions that make us do the things we do, which is why it behooves us to reflect on these predispositions to the extent that they become conscious. The sociobiologists, Freudians, and behavorists give us insights into causes and effects of human behavior. But that is a far cry from suggesting that we are lumbering automata controlled entirely by subliminal instincts which in turn are orchestrated by our genetic heritage.

Cause and effect in motivations of even the most simple organism is more than genetic with interactions to the environment and other organisms and in the case of advanced animals with the emergent properties of cognition, education, consciousness, and choice.

I have on my wall a plaque "Children Learn What They Live"-- the credo that I have for my kids:

If children live with criticism, they learn to condemn.
If children live with hostility, they learn to fight.
If children lie with ridicule, they learn to be shy.
If children live with shame, they learn to feel guilty.
If children live with tolerance, they learn to be patient.
If children live with enouragement, they learn confidence.
If chidlren live with praise, they learn to appreciate.
If children live with fairness, they learn jsutice.
If children live with security, they learn to have faith.
If chidlren live with approval, they learn to like themselves.
If children live with acceptance and friendship, they learn to find love in the world.

In the same spirit, I might add that if children live with adulterers, they learn dishonesty and contempt for others. It seems to me that the injunction from Exodus 21:14 "You shall not commit adultery" wasn't invented by theistic overlords to deprive the masses of their simple pleasures. Rather, it reflects a truth that has emerged and has been sustained over the millenia in countless cultures that brings pain to those who violate the injunction and pleasure to those who do not violate the injunction. The Oriental idea of karma or the tao are both akin to this-- that if you violate fundamental laws of life, life will violate you, or, as Emerson writes in his essay on "Compensation": "The thief steals from himself. The swindler swindles himself."

And so I think it can be fairly said that the adulterer cheats him or herself.

"I think that these things just don't work well in general due to human nature. Jealousy, lack of communication, risk of disease, all contribute to make these kinds of arrangements difficult at best, and I see no reason to make life more difficult than it already is."

Occum's razor-- entities should not be multiplied save out of necessity-- applies here. Even LDS polygamists, who morally are straight arrows (except for their statutory rape), still have to contend with the hen house. It's frankly more than I can take. I'm somewhat bemused with the Girl Next Door show starring the Playboy bunny hatch and Hugh Hefner-- he with the shriveled testicles and a personality that more or less froze around the age of 17. There is something pathetic about a 80 year old man making awkward conversation with a twenty-something girl who clearly has no interest in his body or his mind. What on earth can they talk about after they have messed up the sheets? I suspect: not much. Hef is an example of someone who seeks the many because he hasn't found the one.

"The emergent properties (of consciousness and choice) emerge from two factors alone: genetics and experience."

Maybe. I just heard on the TV that Stones singer Keith Richards snorted his father's cremains. Was that act nature or nurture?

There are countless complex human behaviors that not only require an interaction between both nature and nature but seem to also mutate, evolve, and devolve over time. Ir wasn't until the Middle Ages before people recognize something called "romance" and it wasn't until the late Victorian period where there was a time in people's lives called "childhood" (coinciding with the invention of Santa Claus).

But I do think there are also highly complex not well-understood behavorial modalities that are hard-wired, such as the capacity to detect dishonesty and the ability to be dishonest and also the ability to express guilt, commitment, and empathy. Lacking guilt, empathy, commitment, honesty, and the ability to detect dishonesty is genetically speaking a losing strategy. It is also these common behaviors that are the foundations to religion, politics, and law-- which is also why societies almost without exception can never condone adultery.

There also appears to be a distinct gender difference in the way these behaviors appear to have developed. Woman must make a far greater investment in child-rearing with the possibility of (especially in pre-modern times) of death from pregnancy, whereas a man can be relatively speaking indifferent to the consequences of his promiscuity. To generalize, woman, because they generally are physically weaker, compensate by have increased verbal and interpersonal skills as a genetic survivial mechanism.

"I think there's an implicit contract at work."

Marriage is indeed a contract, and a contract is a triad of offer, acceptance, and consideration. The absence of any of those elements voids a contract. In the case of adultery, the missing factor is consideration, which, legally speaking, is a benefit which must be bargained for between the parties, and is the essential reason for a party entering into a contract. .