Thought of the day
 

Which is worst?

a.) Cheating on your partner.

b.) Cheating on your partner when drunk (using intoxication as a mitigating factor in your defence).

c.) Deciding that you might want to cheat on your partner and so going and getting drunk and placing yourself in a situation which would most probably result in you cheating on your partner and then doing so (using intoxication as a mitigating factor in your defence).

I'm no lawyer but i believe that people can get reduced sentences for commiting crimes whilst not in a fit mental state (i.e. diminished responsibility for killing someone after they've just killed your friend in front of you or whatever). As such B might hold some water (however im sure you'd get a longer sentence for killing someone whilst drink driving etc). C holds an element of pre-planning but again your "under the influence" so would it be worse than deliberately doing something whilst sober.

I was considering this earlier and have come to my own conclusions i was just wondering what others thought.

Re: Thought of the day
 

It all depends if you get caught or not.

Re: Thought of the day
 

voluntary intoxication (from whatever source) is never a defence.

Re: Thought of the day
 

All are bad, but I think c.) is worst.

Re: Thought of the day
 

i'd say a) and c) are the worst.

b) could be you simply dropping your guard.

Re: Thought of the day
 

So lets get this straight, you are talking about a person who when sober would never consider being unfaithful? And they drink enough (either deliberately, or not) to lose their mental faculties such that they might be unfaithful?

Im not actually sure I could physically commit the act under those circumstances! It would take a LOT of alcohol to make me lose pretty deeply held values like those.

I think its therefore a pretty silly question.

Edit: I hadn't really read the options carefully, and wrote crap.

I think they are all equally bad, but C is not only bad, its clearly lunacy.

Re: Thought of the day
 

I don't hold views that "cheating" (if that's what you're insisting on calling it) is bad but I once did get incredibly drunk and then got off with a girl while otherwise being in a relationship with someone I had no desire to "cheat" on.

I did regret it though, partially because I was so drunk I ended up kissing a girl much uglier and fatter than my actual girlfriend and partially because my girlfriend (unbeknownst to me) was standing six feet away at the time. My regret was also sharpened by, while in the same stupor I broke a new camera, lost my phone and loudly condemned all of Peckham and it's citizens for being shit (while standing outside the KFC there).

So to answer your question, C.

Re: Thought of the day
 

Abstract thought experiments about moral problems are almost always a waste of time, you have to deal with actual examples with context in order to get anywhere. The type of cheating that someone does while drunk is likely to be different from sober cheating (eg its probably more likely to be with a stranger, its more likely to be a one-night thing, and so on).

Re: Thought of the day
 

I don't drink and I hardly do immoral things :(

Re: Thought of the day
 

"Cheating" - in my opinion - is doing something (not necessarily even physical) with somebody, that you wouldn't want your partner doing with somebody else*.

Obviously the tolerance levels are different for each of us. I wouldn't want my girlfriend kissing someone else, so I don't kiss anyone myself as that'd be cheating (in my mind).

I'd be more willing to forgive my girlfriend if she was drunk and it happened. However, the circumstances and situation and a whole host of other factors would come into play too (if I forgive her this time does that then mean she'd regard it as ok to do in the future?). I'm certain my girlfriend is a nice young lady who'd never look elsewhere though, as she knows the grass is nice and green where she is!



*I've tried rewording that sentence a few times but it's hard to make it read fluidly. If anyone fancies giving me a helping hand (providing you understand the gist of it!) that'd be nice!

Re: Thought of the day
 

Unless youre a religious fundamentalist/kantian its likely that your 'moral axioms' will be somewhat nuanced and context-dependent, hence requiring details about the actual situation in question. The main problem with the specific question in this thread is that (as I said) the sort of cheating someone does when drunk is generally different from the sort of cheating someone does sober - a one night stand with a stranger met at a club is different from sleeping with someone youve known for a while, and so on.

Its like the 'would you kill 1 person to save 10 people' thing; it might be an interesting thing to discuss (although it isnt), but it tells you pretty much nothing about a person's actual ethics because its a purely abstract situation with no real-world context or relevence - who are the people? why are they going to die? How would something like this ever occur?

Re: Thought of the day
 

trying to tell anyone other than members of this forum that the hysteria about children and sex is silly will only make them accuse you of justifying rape.

If they then make the comment 'sex between adults and children is wrong' and you (quite reasonably i thought) point out that the age of consent is actually below the age at which you're no longer considered a minor the level of hate reaches 11.

Re: Thought of the day
 

so which have you done? i presume c) (no other woman would sleep with you)

Re: Thought of the day
 

If you are contemplating cheating on your girlfriend/partner, then you might as well do both of you a favour and end the relationship now.

It will save pain in the long run.

Re: Thought of the day
 

this thread should be retitled 'thought of the gay'.

Re: Thought of the day
 

This also brings up the moral dilemma of what one should do when faced with two fighting women:

1] End the fight.
2] Pour baby oil on each of the contestants, set the video camera, and sit back with a beer.

Re: Thought of the day
 

I doubt people mean that though. They mean "hitting a woman is never ok, at least not in situations you're realistically going to encounter".

I would say torture is never acceptable, but of course it's possible to imagine some absurd 24 style scenario where terrorists have nukes in all the hospitals in the world and only one man has the code to stop them going off, and the only way you can get the information...etc. But that's ridiculously unlikely to occur to anyone, let alone me, so I'm fine with my absolute statement on torture.

A basic premise of any discussion on morality is that you're talking about the actions of human beings on some level. If you're talking about how you might design advanced robots in order they did no harm then it's different - you have to be exact and specific with every clause because there's no common-sense/intelligence to draw upon. With human beings, there should be no mindless application of rules without regard for the context. So "never" might not mean "never" if you distort the situation enough.

And so, in a discussion, if you say:
"Imagine you're walking down the street and you see someone about to beat up a pregnant woman, do you try to stop them?",
I'll say "Yes, of course." But then if you say
"Ah, but the woman was Adolf Hitlers mum and you had just been sent back in time - lol, owned you just caused the deaths of millions"

Well...that doesn't mean I was wrong, it just means your scenario is stupid.

If you're not trying to win some contest then I'd say a key part of any debate is trying to understand what the person meant in a flexible manner that's fair to them, not seeing if you can mis-apply their moral axioms to absurd scenarios to see if they result in outcomes they oppose.

Re: Thought of the day
 

Incidentally, I wouldn't say thought experiments are totally without merit, although I agree with Nod about the context. Sometimes they're useful to get a general feel for someone's views on a subject.

In some cases, an actual real case can obscure the underlying issue - especially if the facts come to light slowly.