"REASON AND EMOTION IN THE TEMPLE OF MORALITY"

[tbieter]

Here is David Brooks' essay published today.

It prompts me to wonder about those cases where a brilliant intellectual and skilled reasoner in ethics (such as a professional philosopher) intentionally engages in an extended adulterous affair.

http://www.twincities.com/ci_12100824?I ... cities.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One would think that Professor Haldane, upon concluding his reasonings, would conclude that adultery is morally wrong and that he should not engage in it:

"Richard Baron Post subject: Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:06 am
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:55 am
Posts: 488
Location: London Yes, Haldane was a truly wonderful man, right up to the end:

http://nsm.uh.edu/~dgraur/Texts/Cancerhaldane.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He lost his Cambridge job for adultery (planned in order to get his lover a divorce). He appealed successfully against Cambridge's charge of gross moral turpitude, I think on the basis that while it was moral turpitude, it was not gross. But it was decided that the University could still dismiss for adultery.

I encourage all Americans visiting Britain to head for the shop where A_Uk bought the book, and change their money there at the very favourable rate of 50 pence = 25 cents.

_________________
Richard"

A Second Case: A professor of philosophy (married with four kids), from whom I took four or five courses, got a temporary one semester appointment to teach in Australia. There he met a woman. He then received another one year appointment at the same university. He moved there without his wife and kids. HE MOVED IN WITH THE WOMAN! His wife learned of the affaire when she called one evening, the woman answered, and the wife was told to call back the following day - "we are giving a dinner party now". Of course, they gotr divorced.

My Question: What explains the commission of such an act by Haldane, or any other professional philosopher? And what, if anything, can justify such an act?

[Psychonaut]

Being a skilled reasoner in ethics just means you have the best excuses.

[RachelAnn]

A Second Case: A professor of philosophy (married with four kids),...got a temporary one semester appointment to teach in Australia... he met a woman....then received another one year appointment at the same university. He moved there without his wife and kids. HE MOVED IN WITH THE WOMAN!

Stop right there. When a person marries, they commit themselves to monogamy. When kids are involved, each person has their fair share of responsibility - different tasks perhaps, but same amount of responsibility.
When the philosophy professor initially took a semester-long job, his parenting responsibilities could be met by sending child support.
The minute he knew he would sleep with the Aussie, he ought to have had the balls to tell his wife, and to begin the divorce proceedings.
He should have had that conversation before his pants hit the floor. (I abhor cowardice).
That is the very best course of action I could think of, that might possibly justify his sleeping with the Aussie for the first time.

[Richard Baron]

Some philosophers will reason their way out of moral realism and into, for example, emotivism, and perhaps that enables them to square their affairs with their intellects. Perhaps there is room for empirical evidence here. Can we find a correlation between distance from moral realism and/or from deontology and propensity to have affairs? Russell and Ayer both had active social lives.

[RachelAnn]

If one cannot commit to monogamy, then do not marry someone who expects it of their spouse. If one should be open and honest about maintaining an "active social life," then their partner has the choice to stay or to leave the relationship. It takes personal courage to be so honest with oneself, and forthright with another.
Dishonesty and deception are what really frost my cookies - not extramarital sex in and of itself. Let the pants fall where they may.

[tbieter]

Hi Richard,

Previously, you and I agreed that we would not vote for a nihilist candidate for public office. Let me put this question to you:

Would you trust an admitted nihilist professor of philosophy in an important matter? (Would you let your daughter date one? ) My question is prompted by the following text:

"moral realism, a metaethical view committed to the objectivity of ethics. It has (1) metaphysical, (2) semantic, and (3) epistemological components.
(1) Its metaphysical component is the claim that there are moral facts and moral properties whose existence and nature are independent of people's and attitudes about what is right and wrong. In this claim, moral realism contrasts with an error theory and with other forms of nihilism that deny the existence of moral facts and properties. It contrasts as well with various versions of moral relativism and other forms of ethical constructivism that make moral facts consist in facts about people's moral beliefs and attitudes." The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 511

As I interpret this paragraph, the author's contrast is with moral realism vs. nihilism, in its many modes.

Tom

Some philosophers will reason their way out of moral realism and into, for example, emotivism, and perhaps that enables them to square their affairs with their intellects. Perhaps there is room for empirical evidence here. Can we find a correlation between distance from moral realism and/or from deontology and propensity to have affairs? Russell and Ayer both had active social lives.

[artisticsolution]

Hi RachelAnn,

R;It takes personal courage to be so honest with oneself, and forthright with another.

AS: I agree, but learning to be honest with oneself, may come years after the nuptials have taken place...especially if the person married at a young age. Sometimes you simply don't 'know' yourself enough to be able to predict what you are going to feel in the future. The sad truth is you can't help who you love. Can you?

R:Dishonesty and deception are what really frost my cookies - not extramarital sex in and of itself. Let the pants fall where they may.

AS: If the husband said, 'I want to be completely honest with you...I want to have sex with this Aussie." Would it be any less painful to his wife?

[tbieter]

Richard,

Regarding empirical evidence, I enjoyed reading Paul Johnson's (British historian) book Intellectuals

http://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Pau ... 429&sr=1-2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As I recall, Johnson preasents case histories of intellectuals who are immoral and hypocrits. Marx, Rousseau, Russell are there. Its a really interesting study.

Tom

Some philosophers will reason their way out of moral realism and into, for example, emotivism, and perhaps that enables them to square their affairs with their intellects. Perhaps there is room for empirical evidence here. Can we find a correlation between distance from moral realism and/or from deontology and propensity to have affairs? Russell and Ayer both had active social lives.

[tbieter]

Richard,

I'm embarrassed. According to Christopher Hitchens, whose scholarship I admire, Paul Johnson had a mistress. Thus, he is an adulterer and monumentally guilty of public hypocracy. http://www.salon.com/media/1998/05/28media.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe I should just shut up.

Tom

Richard,

Regarding empirical evidence, I enjoyed reading Paul Johnson's (British historian) book Intellectuals

http://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Pau ... 429&sr=1-2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As I recall, Johnson preasents case histories of intellectuals who are immoral and hypocrits. Marx, Rousseau, Russell are there. Its a really interesting study.

Tom

Some philosophers will reason their way out of moral realism and into, for example, emotivism, and perhaps that enables them to square their affairs with their intellects. Perhaps there is room for empirical evidence here. Can we find a correlation between distance from moral realism and/or from deontology and propensity to have affairs? Russell and Ayer both had active social lives.

[Richard Baron]

Hi Tom

Would I trust a nihilist professor of philosophy on an important matter? No, but I would try to work out what sort of character he really was, and work on that basis. It would be possible for the nihilism to be froth on the surface, and for there to be something better underneath. The dissonance between the underlying personality and the surface appearance would itself be worrying, but at least someone who was only nihilist on the surface would be better than someone who was nihilist all the way down.

Would I let my daughter date a nihilist professor of philosophy? I have no idea. I have not had children, so I cannot tell how I might handle such questions if they occurred in practice.

On moral realism, you quote a perfectly good definition, but I would not myself see a big gulf between moral realism and all alternative positions. Some other positions get close to realism. Simon Blackburn's quasi-realism is an example (see Blackburn, Ruling Passions).

It is I believe a recognised function of public intellectuals such as those you mention to entertain the public.


Hi AS,

I agree, you do change. Simply being married can bring to light things about yourself of which you were previously unaware. I certainly changed between marrying at 27 and divorcing at 33.

As for being able to help who you love, the best comment I have seen was made by Lucy Kellaway in her column in the Financial Times (last year or thereabouts). She said that the best guarantee of a marriage was simply an assumption by both parties that it would continue.

[RachelAnn]

ArtisticSolution asks,

AS: If the husband said, 'I want to be completely honest with you...I want to have sex with this Aussie." Would it be any less painful to his wife?

A painful truth now, or a painful shock later? Dealing with the truth from the outset (or outback) is preferable to finding out about the skunk many moons later... from a phone call during a dinner party.

Of course a person will change, and so will a relationship. So how might one deal with relationship changes?

[artisticsolution]

Hi RachelAnn,

RA:A painful truth now, or a painful shock later? Dealing with the truth from the outset (or outback) is preferable to finding out about the skunk many moons later... from a phone call during a dinner party.

AS: But the truth is that the above situation is just one scenerio...what if the husband feels remorse and truly wishes that he had not given into temptation. In that case, if he tells his wife, he has hurt her for nothing.

I would even go one further and say that if he cheated, and through the act of that infidelity, realized his love for his wife was more important than he ever thought possible. Suppose he silently vows to take the secret to his grave so as not to do further damage to his dear wife...not only that but suppose he makes a vow that he will do right by her forever in the future....

Well, I would say she is a very lucky woman...not because he vowed to never cheat again...no...those vows are said everyday in nuptials around the world...they are often spoken like the punch line of a joke...rarely given in all seriousness...

It would not be because he couldn't or shouldn't...he would forever keep those vows because he finally and honestly realized who he loves.

What a fortunate person to truly know what they live for and an even more fortunate to be that person.

RA:Of course a person will change, and so will a relationship. So how might one deal with relationship changes?

AS: Learn to accept. The cheater is not the only one to blame, it is also the spouse who can only give his/her love conditionally. If one is not able to accept the consequences of "for better or for worse" then then one has no business getting married in the first place.

[realunoriginal]

Speaking of Reason...

Apparently, ASS believes it is acceptable for men to cheat on their wives if they are never caught...



I love how stupid people are; it's so fucking-funny!!!

[artisticsolution]

Apparently, ASS believes it is acceptable for men to cheat on their wives if they are never caught...

I want you to think about this statement of yours long and hard....take your time...think very very hard...if you need help just ask....I will be happy to help you with your logic.

[realunoriginal]

Apparently, ASS believes it is acceptable for men to cheat on their wives if they are never caught...

I want you to think about this statement of yours long and hard....take your time...think very very hard...if you need help just ask....I will be happy to help you with your logic.

I am contemplating fucking dozens of women when I get married someday and not telling my wife, just for you.

After all, what she does not know, will not hurt her, because she is a stupid bitch, and a very dumb ****.

Shhhhhhhh, don't tell her I said that, I could get in trouble...



So fucking dumb...