sozobe wrote:Joe, you forgot one:
(6) Friend is making inaccurate assumptions about how Wife views the descending piano.
And that's why relationships are not like pianos. It is generally a very safe assumption that one would not want to have a piano land on one. It is a less safe assumption that one would want to be told by an acquaintance about infidelity.
I'm not sure whose post you read, but it couldn't have been mine. Not only did I take into consideration the possibility that Friend was making an innacurate assumption, I
explicitly admitted it. I noted, in my first point, that there was a greater chance that Friend would be wrong, and I stated "I think that's true." So how exactly did I forget that point?
sozobe wrote:Note, I am not saying that you would not want to be told, or that everyone would not want to be told -- simply that these things vary to a greater extent than "I do not want a piano to fall on me."
As I acknowledged repeatedly -- that's why I identified at least four reasons why the decision to inform Wife of Husband's infidelity was
not like the decision to inform Wife that she was about to be hit by a piano.
sozobe wrote:Possible reasons a person would not want to be told a spouse is cheating include:
1.) The person is in denial. She actually knows, but is still processing at the conscious level. She may find it easier to stay in denial. While he may have opinions one way or another, this is not a decision for "friend" to make for her.
2.) The person knows, and is scared of the outcome (what happens when she has to confront the husband), and is putting it off.
3.) The person has no idea, but would much prefer to find out herself than to be told by a friend. This is especially pertinent when she is already suspicious and is probably close to finding things out herself. This is a pride issue for many people.
These can all be subsumed under my Point 4 (your first point is, indeed, explicitly mentioned in Point 4).
sozobe wrote:4.) The person suspects that "friend" has ulterior motives for dishing dirt on her husband, and especially if she finds out he staged... staged... the incriminating event, at the very least that friendship would be destroyed, and possibly she would decide that if he could stage that, the whole thing is false and she'll take her husband's word over the "friend"'s and stay with her husband, anyway.
To the extent that what you're talking about are potential consequences to Friend, I explained that I think those are largely unimportant from a moral standpoint (although they may be very important to Friend from a perspective of self-interest). To the extent that you're saying that informing Wife would cause more harm than not telling her, that is also covered in my Point 4.
sozobe wrote:Here's the problem -- how can you say with any certainty that, for the wife, knowing is better than not knowing?
I can't. Indeed, I don't know if anyone can, including Wife. But then we don't require absolute certainty before we act, especially in cases where we act out of good motives for a desirable end. As I mentioned in my original post, the fact that Friend is mistaken about the potential for the piano to fall doesn't relieve him of his moral obligation to warn Wife.*
sozobe wrote:Scenario A:
Friend tells wife. Wife freaks. Wife divorces husband. Children are torn between two households and major marital strife. Wife is left bitter and suspicious of all men and becomes a worse, less patient mother than she would've been otherwise.
Scenario B:
Friend doesn't tell wife. Husband wises up, of his own accord. Husband eventually tells wife, taking complete responsibility and apologizing profusely and sincerely. Wife is upset but is impressed with how Husband has handled it. Husband is completely clean. Husband and Wife go to counseling. Husband and Wife emerge with a relationship that is stronger than ever. They stay together for the rest of their lives, being good parents and good partners.
I am not saying that one scenario or the other applies here -- I'm saying how can you KNOW? You simply can't in the way that you can know that being squashed by a piano or a car are both bad outcomes.
Read again what I wrote:
I would say, then, that if Friend is confident that his information is solid, that he is not acting on some ulterior motive, and that he would cause more harm by not telling than by telling Wife, he should tell her. I would hasten to add, however, that those are rather formidable considerations, and one should not act unless he was absolutely confident on all those points.
Of course it is impossible for Friend to know all of the possible consequences of his action, but then that simply puts him in the same situation that he would face in any other moral dilemma. Just because we can't be sure of
all the consequences doesn't mean that we can't act at all. What is required of Friend (or anyone else) is to act reasonably, given the knowledge of the circumstances that he has or that he should have. That's all that we can reasonably expect of anyone.
*Yes, I know: pianos aren't relationships. If someone reading this right now still doesn't understand how analogical arguments work, I have neither the time nor the patience to explain them.
