Extramarital Sex, Kant and Hobbes - Essay Example

? Extramarital Sex, Kant and Hobbes Teacher               Extramarital Sex, Kant and Hobbes Extramarital affairs or what is more popularly known as infidelity is the act of having a sexual or intimate relationship of a married person with another individual other than his or her spouse. In Waterloo, I have sometimes overheard some married men say that they have once or twice committed infidelity against their wives, although I have not heard wives say the same thing. I know extramarital affairs exist but although it does seem to affect only married couples, it actually affects their children and the society where these couple and children live, and is even one of the main causes of domestic violence (Gannon, 2012). According to the latest report at Psychology Today, “30 to 60 percent of married individuals in the United States will cheat on their partner at some point in their marriage” (Firestone, 2012). Nevertheless, the moral goodness of extramarital affairs cannot be determined by religion, sociology or psychology but can only be assessed by philosophy, through Kant’s and Hobbes’ theories. It is the Christian church that is vehemently against the nature of infidelity, which they call adultery, and considers it as an evil deed since it is God who binds two people in the sacrament of marriage. In our place in Waterloo, New York, the Prysbyterian church as well as the other Christian churches condemn the practice of having extramarital affairs. However, there are problems with these Christians who commit adultery or infidelity yet still go to church and believe that they have not done anything wrong anyway. Some Christians, for example, argue and rather rationalize the words of the Bible. According to the Book of the Hebrews 13:4, “Let the bed be undefiled for fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Jackson, 2013). Nevertheless, what modern Christians do instead of simply following the Scriptures is that they rationalize whatever is written and define it in their modern terms. For example, according to Christian writer Wayne Jackson (2013), what people do instead of just simply follow the verse of the Book of Hebrews is to define phrases like “defile the bed” and somehow pretend to be theologians in interpreting the language of the Bible based only on their own favor. If therefore, one thinks that as long as he is not using a “bed” when he is committing extramarital affairs then he believes that he is spared from God’s wrath as stated in the Book of Hebrews. Moreover, some people may only just rationalize that perhaps the other person is also committing the act and so revenge through infidelity is somehow justified. This rationalization is what is extremely wrong with modern Christians, and thus, this could be the reason why religion seems to be an inconsistent means on which one should base his stance on infidelity. The other problem with some Christians is that instead of focusing on the Scriptures, they have gone practical already. For example, some Christian advisers of Crosswalk.com like Nancy Anderson (2009) states that “when Secret Service agents guard the President, they continually scan the crowd” and so one can also “spot a [spouse] who’s acting ‘guilty.’” Moreover, Anderson (2009) provides a list of signs to watch out for in order to find out whether one’s spouse is cheating, such as “changing eating and sleeping patterns,” “pulling away from church and extended family,” and “taking off his or her wedding ring” (Anderson, 2009). Nevertheless, the Christian site does not say what to do next in case one indeed finds out that his or her partner is committing extramarital affairs. Should he or she then call the police, seek the advice of a lawyer, talk to a pastor, or condemn the spouse right away? These Christian sites are even teaching their followers to be suspicious of one’s spouse instead of advising them to confront him or her regarding the matter, thus instilling a negative view in many Christian readers of the site: That all people are naturally liars, especially those who are married. Besides, what should be taught by the church is not to be suspicious but to be honest about the matter, and not to catch and condemn the sinner but to learn how to forgive them. Such inconsistency regarding the issue somehow blurs the stand of religion on the matter of extramarital affairs. This is the reason why religion seems to be a weak basis for determining whether extramarital affairs are indeed morally good or morally wrong. The weakness and inconsistency of religion regarding extramarital affairs is often taken advantage by liberal-minded individuals. According to British sociologist Catherine Hakim, “Our French neighbors – who [are] ‘masters’ of seduction – have a ‘philosophical approach to adultery’ and allow their partners off the marital leash” (Edwards, 2012). What gives the French the authority to dictate to us how we should go about our marriages? And what authority does this woman Catherine Hakim has for indirectly teaching us that we should ignore our values? Based on what she said above, it seems that she is even giving adultery or infidelity a label – which is the only way to a successful marriage. The inconsistency of her logic, no matter how realistic it may seem to many of those who believe in her, lies in the phrase “marital leash,” where she somehow unjustly and illogically concludes that marriage is a stifling of one’s rights and a situation where one is tied on a leash. In fact, what Hakim does not consider is the idea that marriage is done out of the free will of two people who want to live together and build a family. Nobody is forced to get married with anybody, unless he is or unless he does not realize he is. Nevertheless, in America or in Waterloo, I do not think there is really anyone who is forced into marriage even if the case is that of an unwanted pregnancy. Marriage is still a free decision that one has to make. Moreover, Hakim adds that “successful affairs where neither partner is hurt are possible” (Edwards, 2012). Is this the condition and is this condition good? As long as someone is not hurt in a relationship, then infidelity is perfectly OK. However, what Hakim fails to see is that such instances of extramarital affairs do not hurt because they are not known and they are kept secretly from the other spouse. Naturally, no one is hurt by a secret but just because there is no harm caused does not mean that the act is good. It is in fact similar to a blind man in front of an anaconda ready to gobble him up. The blind man may enjoy the fact that he cannot see the evil in front of him, but sooner or later we know what will happen. Whether told or untold, everything bad will eventually have negative effects on the people concerned. Hakim also adds “The temptation is always there for everyone” (Edwards, 2012). This is somehow falsely based on the assumption that whatever is done by the many or by everyone must be natural and normal, and therefore moral. What is done by everyone may in fact be natural and normal but there is absolutely no way to assume that it is also moral at the same time. Morality must be based on the Scriptures and the goodness or badness of an act is not to be determined through a consensus among human beings. Moreover, Hakim also says, “Total discretion is the absolute rule, the other party should never found out” (Edwards, 2012). Once more, this is somehow related to her previous theory that a marital relationship is OK as long as there is no harm done on any spouse, because anyway he or she does not know anything about it. Nevertheless, the only possible way to counter Hakim’s idea of “total discretion” is our example of the analogy of the blind man and the anaconda. Just because you do not see something, it does not mean that it cannot hurt you. What is evil remains to be evil whether or not it is seen and whether or not it causes immediate harm. In contrast with the stand of Hakim, a psychologist believes that it is wrong to have an affair because of certain psychological justifications. Lisa Firestone (2012), a PhD in Psychology and one of the expert psychologists at Psychology Today, “Avoiding affairs often means offering our partners more freedom, increased independence, and open communication.” She also says, “Maintaining intimacy means breaking down restrictions and building up trust” (Firestone, 2012). Although Firestone explains her concepts in detail, she somehow forgets the fact that most of the words she uses in her statements are actually abstract and thus requiring concrete explanations and examples. How exactly can avoiding an affair offer “more freedom” and “increased independence” because realistically the idea seems like one is being tied on a leash? We are to make an exception, however, if one has chosen to do so. This one means that what Firestone is actually doing here is somehow simply confuse people by using abstract terms with other abstract terms. Thus, even though her stance on extramarital affairs is parallel to mine, I personally do not agree with her justifications. Moreover, Firestone says, one’s infidelity usually stems from the inability to do certain things for one’s partner such as allowing them to hold on to their friendships, expanding his world by making new friends and trying new things, keeping his or her friends regardless of their gender. Moreover, Firestone (2012) emphasizes that some of the reasons why infidelity takes place in marriage is that married couples often lie to each other, talk about their relationship problems with other people especially potential love interests, make contact with people that would trigger the jealousy of the partner, create false expectations in other potential romantic interests, and consider each other as parents from whom they have to get permission all the time before they try to do something. What does this mean now? She believes that extramarital affairs somehow stem from the wrong way of doing things in marriage. Extramarital affairs are a result of not doing something one should have done, and doing something that one should not have done. However, although Firestone here is offering very useful and practical advice, this view is entirely simplistic. It means that through her article what she is implying is that if you do this and you do not do this, your marriage will work. However, it is not as simple as that. Besides, what she is showing here is not that infidelity is evil but that it is simply a natural problem that needs to be fixed. It is therefore natural, and this implication may in fact encourage her readers to think that since infidelity is natural and that it can be fixed anyway, then there must be no harm in doing it. Based on the articles above, religion, sociology and psychology may be somehow helpful in fixing marital problems caused by extramarital affairs but none of these three can exactly determine whether infidelity by itself is morally good or not. Fortunately, philosophy has the answer. For Immanuel Kant, it is clear that extramarital affairs are not morally good. Based on Kant’s categorical imperative, “Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Chaffee, 2011). This means that the only way one can determine whether an act is morally good or not is whether it can be made into a universal law. If, however, infidelity is made into a universal law, then it will defeat the value of marriage and of the family. For others, marriage is nothing but a mere union of two people that can be easily broken. However, one should try to remember that marriage is a contract. Now, if infidelity is to be made into a universal law, then it means that contracts can be broken and there should not be such a thing as contracts. Moreover, since infidelity is based on lies or on the violation of the promises made in the marriage contract, then if infidelity were to be made into a law, it means that lies and violations of promises are OK. If lies are OK, then it means that the truth and promises must not exist. This is the result if infidelity were to be made into a universal law. Moreover, if infidelity were to made into a universal law, then all the consequences of infidelity must also be considered natural for they will be regarded as mere effects of the law. One of these consequences is naturally the fights, the broken families and the dysfunctional children. These will all become normal since they will be regarded as effects of the natural law. However, if one considers fights as natural, then peace must not be true. If broken families are natural, then good families are wrong. Lastly, if dysfunctional children become the rule, then mental health and the whole of psychiatry must be wrong and must not exist. Based on these deductions, Kant’s categorical imperative implies that extramarital affairs are morally wrong since the practice cannot be made into a universal law. With his social contract, Hobbes somehow agrees with Kant. According to Hobbes, “People enter into a social contract enforced by a central authority to ensure everyone’s safety” (Chaffee, 2012). Since infidelity causes harm to the society, although indirectly, through broken families, dysfunctional children, constant fighting among couples, and violation of the legality and sanctity of the contract of marriage, then it must be against the social contract that ensures everyone’s safety. The effects of infidelity may include alcoholism, violence, mental problems, trauma, and even murder to name a few. These effects are obviously a harm to the society and therefore naturally violates the social contract. Thus, based on Hobbes’ philosophy, the social contract must be strongly enforced in order to ensure peace in the society and since infidelity violates this peace, then it violates the contract. It is then a political evil. The social contract is based on the natural law: “A man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or takes away the means of preserving the same, and to omit that by which he thinks it may be best preserved” (Chaffee, 2012). Since we have concluded above that extramarital affairs cause numerous harmful effects on the society, on the family and on the married couples themselves, it is therefore against the natural law which is the preservation of life. Moreover, since the violation of the contract of marriage would normally encourage one to violate other legally bound contracts, then infidelity is actually a prelude to other criminal violations, which is naturally against the law of nature. This makes infidelity a natural evil. Infidelity, adultery or extramarital affairs cannot be proven evil by religion, sociology or psychology, and its true moral nature can only be determined by the philosophies of Kant and Hobbes. Religion is bound to personal interpretations and rationalizations. Sociology favors extramarital affairs but in an illogical manner. Psychology is against it but cannot concretely justify its claims. However, Kant, through his categorical imperative, concludes that if infidelity were to made into a universal law, then it will negate truth, promises, legalities, and mental and emotional health. Moreover, infidelity violates Hobbes’ idea of the natural law or of the preservation of life, and it violates the social contract designed to protect the welfare of each citizen. References Anderson, N. C. (2009). The Warning Signs of Infidelity. Retrieved from Crosswalk.com: http://www.crosswalk.com/family/marriage/the-warning-signs-of-infidelity-1336759.html Chaffee, J. (2011). The Philosopher’s Way: A Text with Readings: Thinking Critically about Profound Ideas. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Prentice Hall. Edwards, A. (2012). Could having an affair SAVE your marriage? British scientist recommends ‘good infidelity’ and looking to the French for inspiration on successful relationships. Retrieved from Associated Newspapers Ltd.: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2190860/Could-having-affair-save-marriage-British-scientist-recommends-good-infidelity-looking-French-inspiration-successful-relationships.html#axzz2KgjgSX4f Firestone, L. (2012). What’s Wrong With Infidelity?. Compassion Matters. Retrieved from Psychology Today: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/compassion-matters/201209/whats-wrong-infidelity Gannon, M. (2012). Domestic Violence Often Triggered by Jealousy. Retrieved from Live Science: http://www.livescience.com/22039-domestic-violence-often-triggered-by-jealousy.html Jackson, W. (2013). What is Adultery?. Retrieved from Christian Courier: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/343-what-is-adultery Read More