Can betrayal be justified?

Do you want to know if betrayal can or cannot be justified, or do you want to know under what conditions betrayal can be justified? Let me take the easy way out: if I were one of Hitler's generals, I would feel morally obliged to betray him in the worst possible way.

I was going to say much the same thing, except I was going to ask 'Do both parties always consider a 'betrayal' a betrayal? I don't think they always do.

Further, many betrayals of party A by party B are prefaced by betrayals of party B or C by party A (that's of course, not necessarily a justification, but a circumstance)

Your betrayal of Hitler would depend on your thoughts on him. Maybe you might think as he does. If so you might see yourself as similar to him. This would make your betrayal very difficult. However, if Hitler in your mind was a bad man then your betrayal may be easily justified. Look at it this way. You have two football teams and they both are cheating.Who would justify either one? The answer is usually the side of the field you are on. Right? Normally the crowd would rally for their team. I think it comes down to many variables. the most important variable is how you like or dislike the person cheating. It also depends on how you might benefit from the cheating. Human beings will sell their souls for greatness and perhaps Hitler is making you great at that time. If you dislike him betrayal would be justified. Yes! If you like him then betrayal would not be justified. It is up to the person and their thoughts!

Some would say that one would be fortunate to be able to betray anyone who deliberately harms the defenceless and the vulnerable.

Generally speaking, the justification for betrayal requires answering to a higher ideal.
In the case of Hitler's general, the higher ideal would have been the preservation of Germany.
In an interesting note, American law upholds marriage as the higher ideal in protecting one spouse from testifying against the other.

Betrayal can be forgiven, most easily by those who stand to gain from it, as it will be condemned by those who stand to suffer from it. Both can forgive betrayal, perhaps even justify it, but it will never be forgotten.

Imagine that you meet a woman. She is already married, but the passion between you makes her betray her husband. Later she divorces him and marries you, and her betrayal is justified in your eyes. But you will always know that she is capable of such betrayal, which can make it harder to trust her. She might say that she'd never be unfaithful to you, but you know already that she is capable of it. The same if you're a woman and meet a man in this way, of course.

It gets trickier in cases such as the one JL mentioned. If you are faithful to a leader and that leader abandons his cause or his moral values, is it betrayal to abandon faith with him, or was he the traitor to the values you held on to, which made you go against him? In such cases justification is often decided by war and victory...

Interesting interpretation, Wayne. It's my understanding that spouses not only do not have to testify against their spouses but can't do so. I may be wrong here, but it seems that their restriction regarding testimony reflects the possibility that they would be strongly biased to either condemn or defend their spouse. They are likely to lack a necessary amount of objectivity qua indifference. Just a guess. I'd like Joe's (from Chicago) input here.

I think the greater good has to be considered.

A beloved grandfather by two generations was revealed to be a molester to children in previous generations. All hell broke loose in the family after he died and it was considered a betrayal to smear his name at that late date (he died at age 98)

I also have been in grief groups with women who have found out their now deceased husband had second relationships (even with kids) or were secretly gay.

Feeling betrayed is the most hurtful, IMHO.

but what decides what the greater good?

...the "greater good" it is what happens...

i disagree. what quantifies the goodness from betrayal? action's are all to different to be compared to each other in any realistic sense.

...at the very least it teaches you to chose better next time !

well, that depends on the outcome. is to save one a third of the goodness of saving three?
it depends on so many factors, that cant be comprehended.

...precisely because you, as a small part, cannot compute the outcome of reality until reality finishes itself and loops you cannot say something is wrong...what is right is right because it happens is the best approach...is a question of power !

so right and wrong is relativistic as well, then. it all depends on the majority's view point.

...all view points are justified once they all happen relative to someone...although they are 2 order phenomena...they can be justified (dissolved) by greater degrees of order...their happening has a certain scope and depth beyond which nothing can be said upon them without they loosing their meaning as "things"...

...to a relative (scope) question, an OPTIMAL (algorithmic) relative (scope) answer !

...relative measurement is nonetheless a true phenomena, at least as true as all phenomena can be said to be true...

Nope! It can never be justified, even (especially!) by roommates, under any circumstances. Especially since they've never betrayed you!