Should I expose a cheater?

Joe, I understand how analogical (as separate from anal retentive) arguments work. Relationships are not only not pianos, but informing someone about a possible infidelity is insufficiently LIKE informing someone of a piano falling for that particular analogy to be useful or instructive. In other words, the problem is not that you used an analogy, it's that you used a bad analogy.

Those are rather formidable considerations indeed. The bolded section is the crux of the whole matter. In fact, it is so hard to know -- the condition of knowing in advance whether Friend would cause more harm by not telling or telling Wife is so hard to fulfill -- that in effect you are saying in that section that Friend should not tell Wife.

Which, generally speaking, I agree with.

I can imagine many kinds of situations where it is relatively easy to predict that telling Wife would be less harmful than not telling her.

J_B wrote:

Not all that farfetched in the least.

Considering that some studies put the percentage of infidelities that end in divorce at less than 50% (one survey found that 64% of couples experiencing infidelity choose to retain the marriage), it is quite farfetched. Your proposal works as a thought experiment but doesn't match up with what has actually been observed to happen in real-life situations.

MG, this friend isn't a she, it's a he who might not be such an uninterested party.

joefromchicago wrote:

I can imagine many kinds of situations where it is relatively easy to predict that telling Wife would be less harmful than not telling her.

Then I'm sure you won't mind providing some examples?

Note, you are not stating here that situations exist in which telling Wife would be less harmful than not telling her, but that there are "many" kinds of situations where it is relatively easy to predict this outcome.

MG, this friend isn't a she, it's a he who might not be such an uninterested party.

Now, of course, I assume that you'll come back and say that these scenarios aren't very likely, and I'd agree. But I didn't say that the scenarios I imagined were likely, only that they could be imagined. I'll add, however, that my initial post was predicated on the notion that a bystander (such as ourselves) would never have as much information as Friend. There's a good chance, therefore, that we wouldn't know if Friend's situation is like one of the ones I've listed. Friend's action, therefore, must be informed by the totality of the circumstances, whatever those might be, and he alone is in the best position to evaluate them.

In terms of this:

Quote:

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.

Those are rather formidable considerations indeed. The bolded section is the crux of the whole matter. In fact, it is so hard to know -- the condition of knowing in advance whether Friend would cause more harm by not telling or telling Wife is so hard to fulfill -- that in effect you are saying in that section that Friend should not tell Wife.

Which, generally speaking, I agree with.

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.

what if she killed him, bella?

First off my agenda is simply this, I care about this friend an enormous amount, but not in the way that once she breaks up with her husband that I want to swoop in and grab her up, but in a way as that I want to see her happy and with someone who appreciates her for who she is.

Excellent post as always, Brooke. Glad you saw this thread.

I actually mostly agree with that. The only part I disagree with is that I think there are some things about THIS situation that Friend (aka Random Acts) has revealed between the lines but might not admit to himself, that we are justified in bringing to his attention.

Most specifically, that he may have feelings for Wife himself, and that might crave a hero role where he is her rescuer and they ride off into the sunset together, with dastardly husband cursing and kicking the dust in the distance.

Of course, ultimately, it is Random Acts' decision. None of us know his real name or where he lives or are otherwise equipped to force his hand in any way. All we can do is try to help him see the totality of the circumstances -- and he does seem to me to have at least one blind spot.

No, I want to be a friend to someone who might need it. If my friend knew without a doubt that my man was cheating on me and didn't tell me, I'd feel betrayed by BOTH of them.
Why can't you get that?

Just because you'd keep your mouth shut and betray a trust between friends, doesn't mean everyone would.

Whether the friend is interefering or not , she has seen the husband be unfaithful.
If the husband is innocent he has nothing to worry about.
A friend would tell the wife that she was being cheated on, somehow provide evidence to support her claim.
Once the wife has the facts she can make up her own mind.

What kind of a friend are you if you keep information like that to yourself?!

Fine, but when facing any moral dilemma, Friend is the only one assessing the formidable considerations listed in your first post. Friends do act in what they believe is the best interests of others, but I don't think they can effectively remove their own agendas from the equation (particularly in this case) and meet the reasonable expectation.

It seems that many members are second guessing..............what if, what if. I don't think that is an issue at all. No one is responsible for the acts of another person.

If the man is truly a friend, he would not concoct any false scenarios. To me that is just as fraudulent as cheating. What I think that he CAN do is to point out certain things without "putting his finger in her mouth". The key, IMO, is helping her to realize that she is being deceived without throwing the gory details at her.

Chai Tea wrote:

Bella Dea wrote:

So she kills him.

I didn't kill him.

You can't control the actions of another person.
I'd feel bad he was dead but there'd be no weight on my shoulders.

OMG!!!!

I can't believe you just said that!

It's like you'd want to be an impersonal God....distributing your little pearls of poisen, but then saying you're not responsible for the outcome.

If a person takes action, with ANYTHING, they are part of the result.

Jesus bella....that is just plain scary.

It's like "the operation was a success, but the patient died"

Again, why wouldn't you go to the cheater?????

No, I want to be a friend to someone who might need it. If my friend knew without a doubt that my man was cheating on me and didn't tell me, I'd feel betrayed by BOTH of them. Why can't you get that?

Just because you'd keep your mouth shut and betray a trust between friends, doesn't mean everyone would.

If a patient dies on the operating table, they die. The doctor isn't always to blame, Chai. Sometimes, it just happens. So you're saying that if someone has a massive stroke on the table while in surgery, the doctor should be liable? That's crap. Sometimes, yes, it is the fault of the surgen but not always and making that analogy is ludacrist.

It's like saying I'm to blame for my friends suicide because I thought maybe one day he'd go through with it.