Is Adultery Ever Morally Acceptable?

Dec 14, 2011
Brittney Weber

Secret Love Affair - markhillary

In many social circles, adultery is viewed as being morally unacceptable regardless of the circumstances. Is there ever an exception?

Adultery is defined by Merriam-Webster as "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband" (m-w.com).

Defense of Adultery

While most people shun the act of adultery on a moral level, there are some philosophers, such as Richard Taylor, who argue in favor of it: "The joys of illicit and passionate love, which include but go far beyond the mere joys of sex, are incomparably good" (Taylor in Velasquez 444). He goes on to say that such love affairs should be kept hidden from one's spouse so as not to hurt them by telling the truth.

Argument Against Adultery

In the spirit of honesty, Janet Smith argues an opposing belief: "The very importance of the attempt to live an ethical life lies in the fact that in acting the individual forms herself or himself either for the better or for the worse. One of the foremost questions to be asked by the moral agent in the decision to do an action is: What kind of person will I become if I do this act?" (Smith in Velasquez 472).

Adultery: Moral or Immoral?

In response to Smith's question, another must be posed: what if, by committing adultery, a person is being more honest with themselves than they would be whilst remaining in a marriage that is a facade? Refer to a specific scenario where two people have a marriage based strictly on convenience, comfort or image. This works for them until one of them finds someone who stimulates them in an intellectual, emotional, spiritual, and sexual level in ways that their spouse cannot. However, this person's spouse is unaware that they have found someone who fulfills them in a way that they cannot fulfill each other.

The question is whether it is immoral for this person to commit adultery. If morality is equated with honesty, could it be argued that it would be immoral not to be honest with themselves? Of course, they could always divorce their spouse, but this may cause even more unrest than it would to carry out this adulterous relationship.

A Deeper Examination of Adultery

Examining this topic on a deeper level, would it be viewed as a moral relationship if the sexual aspect dissolved from the picture? That is, if the aforementioned situation is the same, yet it is stripped of any sort of sexual intimacy, is it considered any less immoral? It certainly no longer fits within the lines of adultery, even though a deep connection remains between this person and another who is not their spouse.

In summary, if honesty is deemed an important virtue, the subject of this honesty must be taken into consideration. Is it more important for one to be honest with themselves or with another (such as their spouse)? Is adultery, in this case, a cowardly way out or is it a compromise?

Sources

"Merriam-Webster." m-w.com. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictoinary/adultery Retrieved 16 Oct 2011.

Velasquez, Manuel. Philosophy: A Text with Readings. 11th Ed. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2011. Print.

Brittney Weber - I play on words like they're a jungle gym, dangling from modifiers and running on sentences.

Comments

Dec 14, 2011 11:10 PM

Ronald G Falconberry :

A very interesting and balanced article, Brittany. Clearly, there are people who believe that adultery can almost be necessary in some cases.

However, I am not one of them.

Philosophy is an interesting thing. It can take something that is immoral and declare it moral. The concept reminds me of discussions regarding situation ethics many, many years ago. The argument was that something that is bad can actually be a good thing depending on the situation or circumstances.

Marriage is not a legal contract; it is a relational commitment. Both parties pledge to go from being two people into becoming one couple. They pledge to forsake "all others until death do us part." Those aren't just words. They are a solemn promise to stand side by side in thick and thin for as long as they both live.

Of course, once they get married every couple has disagreements, arguments, and all kinds of conflicts. There will be times when they really don't want to be with each other. But their commitment keeps them together and, as the years go on, they grow closer and stronger. If they let their emotions control them, they won't last. It's their commitment that provides the power to persevere.

Adultery, however, is not a "compromise": it is simply immoral. There is nothing good about it and it always causes harm to a great many people. Yes, honesty is an important virtue but when it is used as a mask for selfish sexual gratification it is nothing more than a lie.

But today, people think of love and marriage as a "feel good" thing. "As long as I'm happy, we're good." So many people search for their own personal happiness but, in marriage, if you focus on making your spouse happy it will, in turn, bring happiness and satisfaction to both people in the relationship.

Successful marriages revolve around selflessness whereas giving in to a sexual relationship with someone else is the epitome of selfishness. A person should be more concerned about how they can be a better partner to their spouse and build their relationship instead of looking for their own sexual satisfaction with some hot young lover. Then, the idea that not telling the spouse about the affair to spare their feelings is not only disingenuous, it is nothing short of cowardly. The fact is, sooner or later the spouse is going to find out.

This reminds me of a song back in the 1970s by Judy Collins called "Torn Between Two Lovers." In the song, the woman sings about how her lover provides her with some things that her husband can't but she doesn't love her husband any less than she did and doesn't want to leave him but she also doesn't want to give the lover up either. To me the song was about self-serving gratification regardless of the husband's pain or agony which is why I never liked the song.

So, that's my personal (albeit long-winded) take on adultery. Philosophers can debate the semantics of marriage, adultery, morality, and honesty all they wish but, in the final analysis, adultery IS immoral and devastating.

Dec 15, 2011 7:30 AM

Brittney Weber :

Thank you for your input, Ronald! You made some excellent points.

I like how you describe marriage as a relational commitment rather than a legal contract. I think many tend to see it as the latter, or as a relationship rooted strictly in emotion. While emotions will certainly be involved, a selfless commitment is key, as you noted.

The concept of adultery typically revolves around the sexual nature of the relationship, as that is the key part of the definition. I often wonder whether there is any distinction between the intellectual, spiritual and emotional gratification of a friendship and that of a relationship and whether indulgence in those is ever wrong.

Dec 15, 2011 10:33 AM

Guest :

I liked the article quite a bit, it's a reasoned and balanced approach to the subject. I agree with much of what Ronald stated in his comments as well. So long as the subject remains coached within the standard confines of the institution of marriage, adultery is morally wrong.

As a parallel, I would pose the example of a murderous sociopath. This is a person who has left the bounds of society's rules and committed murder. Ethics aside, the fact this person has abandoned those rules does not make it moral for them to murder somebody. What do we do with this person? We remove them from society. The means by which we do this is entirely a different subject, and the parallel stops there.

In the case of adultery, the very nature of a marriage commitment binds two people together, as Richard pointed out. Unless stated and mutually agreed to by the couple otherwise, this usually includes sexual fidelity as one standard by which that commitment is measured. While some may disagree with the specifics of that standard, (i.e. is kissing allowed?) it still serves as a standard measure of commitment that is fairly easy to judge transgression or adherence to. Hence it's often over-arching importance as compared to the more esoteric qualities of a committed relationship.
Those more esoteric aspects of a standard marriage commitment are much more difficult to judge; love, companionship, and so on. It's enough to say that when any of them threaten the original mutually agreed to commitment, they too must constitute an adulterous violation of that commitment. This is why adultery can still violate a committed polyamorous relationship.

Dec 15, 2011 5:50 PM

Brittney Weber :

Thank you for your insightful input on this topic! Two things stand out for me in your response:

1. The parallel you drew between adultery and a murderous sociopath. I particularly like how you pointed out that, even though the people in either situation may have a different set of morals or have abandoned society’s agreed upon rules, this does not automatically make their actions moral.

2. Your mention of polyamory is helpful, as I think it is a topic that is not well understood. (Even my spell check wants to change it to “polymer.”) It also helps answer the question about the honesty involved in the other elements (as you said, the esoteric aspects) of a marriage. It is important to realize that there are boundaries in any relationship, and most people can reasonably gauge whether their actions fall inside those bounds.

4 Comments