Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Empiricist]

What makes you say the physical aspect is disproportionate, and presumably worse than ending the relationship altogether and refusing to so much as speak to the other person afterwards?

Effectively? Because it may be classified as an indictable offense and possess the capacity to cause actual physical harm.

[IronyOwl]

After he's 'beat them up' it's presumed the relationship is over. To continue it beyond that point would be most likely incredibly unhealthy for both of them.

What makes you say that?

Effectively? Because it may be classified as an indictable offense and possess the capacity to cause actual physical harm.

Why is the law relevant here? Why is physical harm notable but emotional or other harm not?

[Empiricist]

Two reasons. Firstly, law reflects society's values. Hence as it deemed physical harm to be a crime and refusal to speak to a person ever again not to be, the former may thus be considered to be worse than the latter. Secondly, because performing a possibly illegal activity is going that extra mile to be a dick.

[Arcvasti]

DISCLAIMER: Also everyone in the provided scenarios are total douchebags, the only thing being measured here is their objective douchiness, which is really a bit abscract.

Analysis:

Scenarios 1 & 2: The guy who beats up the person his girlfriend was cheating on is marginally worse, since its possible the guy was innocent and didn't know his girlfriend was in a relation ship. In either case, using physical violence is completely unacceptable and the boyfriend is a major douchebag anyways.

Scenarios 3 & 4: Here is where it gets tricky. If his friend somehow doesn't know about his girlfriend being in a relationship, lashing out at him is not only morally wrong, but ruins a friendship without him having done anything wrong. However, this scenario is sort of unlikely, seeing as friends would generally know she was in a relationship with their friend. I'm once again going to point out that physical violence is a completely inappropriate reaction and that the boyfriend is being a class 1.5 dingus in either case. I'm actually pretty sure that both hypothetical boyfriends are equally bad and the friend and girlfriend are, in this case, equally guilty of betraying trust. Having a [girl]friend who doesn't respect your relationships, with them or with others, is hardly the kind of thing anyone wants. Honestly, in that situation myself, I'd have distanced myself from both of them, probably while giving them the finger as I walked slowly into the sunset.

Basically, the only real difference between Scenarios 1-2 and 3-4 is that the one sleeping with his girlfriend in Scenarios 1 and 2 might not have intended to get between someone elses relationship and lashing out at him is not only morally wrong, but irrational as well. So the boyfriend in Scenario 1 is slightly more assholish then he would be in the other two situations, because he's reacting with violence to someone who may not even have intentionally provoked him.

FAKEEDIT: Warning - while you were typing 4 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

: \

: |

: /

[LordBucket]

reading comprehension failure in the other posters

...yes.

With the information given, the boyfriend is an equal asshole in each situation, both for immediately resorting to physical violence against someone he allegedly cares about and for abandoning the other.

It's only specified that he "abandons" anyone in scenarios 3 and 4. No such thing is stated in scenarios 1 or 2.

the boyfriend is an equal asshole in each situation

they're just as worse as each other in all the scenarios seeing as either way they beat up someone up. I mean, in the first two scenarios, being prepared to harm someone you supposedly loved or just some random stranger you know little about is fucked up either way. In the last two scenarios, either situation involves attacking someone they had some sort of strong bond with.

In all scenario's, Boyfriend is equally bad across each scenario

These answers fascinate me. You really perceive no difference one way or another? "He beat somebody up" so he's equally bad and his motivation and who he chooses to beat up makes no difference? Really? In scenarios 1 and 2, beating up your girlfriend is no more or less ok than beating up a total stranger? Really? Or, as both Reelya and IronyOwl point out, the guy she slept with had presumably made no commitment to anyone, whereas the girlfriend presumably had. Do you really perceive no difference between his choice of target? Retribution against someone who breaks a commitment is no more or less ok than directing your retributino against somebody totally else? Seriously? If Bob promises to do something, and then doesn't deliver on his promise...it makes no difference to you whether I beat up Bob for his failure or beat up you for his failure? Seriously?

Consider that while in scenarios 3 and 4 we can probably assume that the friend knew about the relationship, in scenarios 1 and 2 there is no indication that the guy she slept with had any knowledge of the relationship at all. Imagine being the guy in that possibility. You have consensual sex with a girl, and then some guy you don't even know beats you up for it. Now compare that to being the girl. You cheat on your boyfriend and he beats you up for it. Do you really perceive no difference between the two?

After he's 'beat them up' it's presumed the relationship is over.

It may be presumed, but it's presumed by you. Note that in scenarios 1 and 2 it's not stated, and  in my own rel life personal experience of having seen this phenomenon...the scenario 1 case often does not result in  breakup. Additionally it is explicitly stated in scenario 3 that he stays with the girl.

First set: Scenario One. His issue is with her. He has no formal relationship with the other man whatsoever, so beating him up is considerably more thuggish and pointless. Beating her up is probably not productive, but technically an interaction with somebody who has a formal relationship with him.

Second set: Scenario Three. His exclusivity is a matter between him and his girlfriend, not him and his best friend, so the same issue applies as before. That said, since they do have a formal relationship, there's much more room for ambiguity on the matter.

My own view, exactly. The guy in scenario  1 is worse than the guy in scenario 2. Scenarios 3 and 4 are more difficult, but yes, I'd say that beating up the girlfriend and remaining friends with the guy is probably not as bad as beating up the friend and staying with the girl. Because...well, because of my own personal biases, really. I assume that the girlfriend has explicitly agreed to terms (implied by the fact that it's stated she cheated) but it seems probable that the friend hasn't explicitly agreed to terms. It might be assumed and expected that "you don't sleep with your friend's girlfriend," but explicit contract is weightier to me than an implied contract. Similarly, if the girlfriend never actually agreed to not sleep around, and the boyfriend simply assumed that she wouldn't, that reduces liability on her end, in my view. But again, since it's explicitly stated that she did cheat, it seems reasonable to interpret all four scenarios as that a formal agreement of fidelity was in place.

[Empiricist]

These answers fascinate me. You really perceive no difference one way or another? "He beat somebody up" so he's equally bad and his motivation and who he chooses to beat up makes no difference? Really? In scenarios 1 and 2, beating up your girlfriend is no more or less ok than beating up a total stranger? Really? Or, as both Reelya and IronyOwl point out, the guy she slept with had presumably made no commitment to anyone, whereas the girlfriend presumably had. Do you really perceive no difference between his choice of target? Retribution against someone who breaks a commitment is no more or less ok than directing your retribution against somebody totally else? Seriously? If Bob promises to do something, and then doesn't deliver on his promise...it makes no difference to you whether I beat up Bob for his failure or beat up you for his failure? Seriously?

Yes. My opinion is that physical retribution is unacceptable in such circumstances regardless of target. Just because they had more of a reason to resort to violence against one party does not automatically make it more acceptable. Furthermore, I was unclear on whether or not the other guy knew that he was cheating or not.

[Leafsnail]

I don't think unfaithfulness provides any justification for physical violence so they are all the same.  Every scenario involves a man beating someone up for no reason.

[Yoink]

I'd say the girlfriend is the worst in scenarios 1 and 2, although the boyfriend is a huge jerk in scenario 1 as well.
I don't see why everyone seems to think physical violence immediately makes everyone around the perpetrator saints by comparison.

[Cheeetar]

After he's 'beat them up' it's presumed the relationship is over.

It may be presumed, but it's presumed by you.

This is quite possibly the best armchair psychology I've ever seen. Who else would be presuming it?

[LordBucket]

My opinion is that physical retribution is unacceptable in such circumstances regardless of target. Just because they had more of a reason to resort to violence against one party does not automatically make it more acceptable.

That's...interesting.

Furthermore, I was unclear on whether or not the other guy knew that he was cheating or not.

I'm not sure that matters.

For example,

1) Adam has an apple. He promises to give it to you. Bob has no idea Adam made this promise, and asks Adam to give him the apple. Adam gives him the apple, thereby breaking his promise to you.

2) Adam has an apple. He promises to give it to you. Bob knows that Adam made this promise, and asks Adam to give him the apple instead. Adam gives him the apple.

3) Adam has an apple He promises to give it to you. Bob know that Adam made this promise, and Adam offers the apple to Bob, without Bob asking for it. Bob accepts the apple.

Each of those seem different to me, but while we might rank our perception of Bob here, Adam is the one breaking his promise in all three cases. Bob neither made nor broke a promise in any case. Regardless of how we perceive Bob, Adam is the guy breaking promises here. That makes him worse than Bob, in my view.

Now, comparing apple-scenario-3 with the original post about cheating...imagine that the guy the girl cheated with knew about the relationship, but wasn't party to it. Imagine that the girlfriend sexually propositions him. He knows she's in a relationship, and he knows she's about to cheat on her boyfriend. Even if we say that he's "worse" than the guy who doesn't know, because he knows he's "facilitating" the act of cheating....the fact remains that it's the girl who's doing the actual cheating.

Robbing a bank is worse than knowingly accepting stolen funds.
'
Whether or not the guy "knew" the girl was cheating on her boyfriend, he's not the one cheating on the boyfriend. She is. Hi knowledge of the situation might affect our perception of him, but no amount of knowledge on his part changes the fact that she is still worse, because she's the one breaking a promise, not him.

[4maskwolf]

I have one piece of advice for you regarding this thread, LordBucket.

Kill it.  Kill it right now.

This thread is an excellent means to no perceptible good end, unless you consider angry words and Toadhammering a good thing.  What do you expect people to learn or grow from in this thread?  There are no facts here, only opinions.  Nobody is right, because there is no right answer.  All this will be is an endless circle-wank over semantics and personal opinions, and that is the BEST case scenario.  I have no idea what drove you to create this thread, but my advise is to lock it and let it be.

[LordBucket]

There are no facts here, only opinions.  Nobody is right, because there is no right answer.

Sometimes questions without objective answers are the most interesting questions.

If you don't want to participate, that's fine. Here are google image search links for kittens and hedgehogs to entertain you instead.

[Bauglir]

-snip-

Was in bad taste.

[IronyOwl]

Two reasons. Firstly, law reflects society's values. Hence as it deemed physical harm to be a crime and refusal to speak to a person ever again not to be, the former may thus be considered to be worse than the latter. Secondly, because performing a possibly illegal activity is going that extra mile to be a dick.

Do you actually believe this, though?

[alexandertnt]

Without more information on the scenario's, (and because I can think up plenty of scenario's where the other guy is a real asshole) I can't say who is more wrong. I don't feel it is right to just average the morality of all the possible scenario's either. I don't think it's right to just look at action and ignore intent.

Because of this, I change my answer.

I don't know. With the way I judge what is right and wrong, I don't have enough information to go off.