Print

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

[Stuebi]

I dont really have a preference in either pair of scenarios. I think everyone is an equal moron and prick in all of them. Boyfriend for beating up somebody (Just dont hit people. Girlfriend proved shes not worth a relationsship and should be dropped ASAP. Hitting her leads nowhere), Girlfriend for cheating, Dude for sleeping with somebody else's girl.

I think the question would be a bit more interesting with more context. Did the guy know the girl he slept with had a boyfriend? If yes, beating girlfriend up is worse. If No, beating up guy is worse.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[Zangi]

Some insectoids eat their mates...
Lion Prides seem to be a group of sisters with a small number of males...

...  Yea, there are many instances of other types of...  mating arrangements, other then the monogamy type that is preferred by the culture/social norms of Humans.

[Tack]

Yeah Lions and Sea Lions are both fairly similar in that regard.

But there's plenty of Harrm type animals just as there's similar humans

[ChairmanPoo]

OP is the worst. He created those imaginary people therefore he is responsible for their misdeeds.

[LordBucket]

OP is the worst. He created those imaginary people therefore he is responsible for their misdeeds.

I am a God!

I therefore claim omniscient morality license and forgive them for their actions. Also, cookies and cuddles for everyone.

[LordBucket]

You're privileging the worth of one of the individuals he targets over the other for arbitrary reasons which weren't even part of the situations you framed. I would agree that if there was an explicit agreement of exclusivity between the boyfriend and girlfriend, he would be more justified in seeking retribution against her than against a stranger with whom he had no relationship, and likewise than against a friend (with whom he presumably didn't have an explicit agreement of similar sorts).

However, that was not part of any of the scenarios you presented. Literally all we know about the situation is that the boy and girl were in a relationship, and the boy perceived it in such a way that he considered the girl sleeping with someone else 'cheating'. There's no explicit agreement of exclusivity -- you might argue that such a thing is considered to be implied, but open relationships exist and are even somewhat common, even in some cultures which traditionally promote exclusive relationships

No, it's clearly stated in all scenarios that cheating did occur, and that sex was the act that was cheating. If these were open relationships then sex might have occurred but it wouldn't be cheating.

The thing is, all of that is related to the relative degree to which his actions are justified, or in other words, whether or not he has good reasons for assaulting another party. None of that pertains to the moral rightness of his actions. In every scenario his assault on another party is equally wrong because causing harm to other people is wrong.

That's an interesting view, but I disagree. Punching somebody in the face might be wrong and murdering them might be wrong, but I think you would agree that these are not "equally wrong" just because they're both wrong.

As far as viewing the act of causing harm with more forgiveness when there is justification for doing so, I suspect most people would agree that having a reason for an otherwise unacceptable choice act often diminishes the weightiness of the crime. For example, you might suggest that hurting someone is wrong. Ok, what if they're raping your daughter and you hurt them? Does that make it more forgivable? I think a lot of people would say yes.

Sure, "raping your daughter" is not equivalent to "caused emotional distress by cheating." I get that. But "caused emotional distress" is also clearly weightier than "gee, he was just walking down the street and so I punched him for no reason." Again, I think a lot of people would agree that hurting the person who causes harm is more easily forgivable than hurting someone who doesn't. It's not "all the same."

I think the question would be a bit more interesting with more context. Did the guy know the girl he slept with had a boyfriend? If yes, beating girlfriend up is worse. If No, beating up guy is worse.

Well, seeing how people fill in the blanks spots of information is interesting too. But personally I would disagree that the guy knowing about the relationship makes it better to beat him up than the girl. If he has no knowledge of it, then I agree it's tragically unfair for him to be beaten up because of it, but even if he knows about it...he's still not the one cheating on anyone. He made no commitment. All he's violating is social convention which may suggest that it's not a nice thing to do. Whereas the girl is both violating that social convention, and breaking an agreement she personally made. Regardless of his knowledge of the arrangement, he's not the one who agreed to it.

1. Is this woman worth it?
Let's say yes.
2. Is this man a threat?
Let's again, say yes.

Ergo: beat up the man. This establishes superiority and right to claim the mate, serves to ward off the offending male, and solidifies the original man as a protective character, which will make the mate feel safer.

...that...makes sense. But I notice that your logic could potentially apply whether or not any relationship existed in the first place. I also question the "value" of a mate who requires warding. Sounds like a recipe for your strong man to end up raising the children of the offending male.

[Tack]

Strong Male is not a forward thinker.

[Graknorke]

It doesn't really make him worse for beating up any person. I mean, convention (and immediate emotional response) says he should beat up the guy, but neither course of action really has any particular benefits over the other.

[Helgoland]

Well, seeing how people fill in the blanks spots of information is interesting too. But personally I would disagree that the guy knowing about the relationship makes it better to beat him up than the girl. If he has no knowledge of it, then I agree it's tragically unfair for him to be beaten up because of it, but even if he knows about it...he's still not the one cheating on anyone. He made no commitment. All he's violating is social convention which may suggest that it's not a nice thing to do. Whereas the girl is both violating that social convention, and breaking an agreement she personally made. Regardless of his knowledge of the arrangement, he's not the one who agreed to it.

How is a social convention not a commitment? The guy's part of society, so he should be held by its standards. He's committing adultery as much as she is.

On the original question: I'll have to disagree with the vast majority of forumites and say that the dude hitting his (ex-)girlfriend is the worse one in both scenarios. 'Not hitting women' is a much, much more fundamental rule of society (or at least society as I perceive it) than 'not hitting people in general'. According to the qualities ascribed by society to men and women respectively, the guy in each scenario is able, at least to a degree, to defend himself, to hit back, making the whole affair a fight between equals, or at least between comparables. The girl on the other hand is - according to these ascribed qualities, again - unable to defend herself, making the violence not a fight but a despicable act of brutality, because the quintessential idea of fairness is violated.
Not that hitting anyone is much of a good idea, but that should go without saying.

[XXSockXX]

The boyfriend in scenario 2 is much worse than the boyfriend in scenario 1. That's my gut reaction. Having been on both ends of scenario 1, scenario 1 describes an impulse I can understand quite well, while scenario 2 seems just plain wrong. I guess it's mostly a territorial thing combined with "hitting a girl is always worse", so I can't really explain it rationally. And no, for my gut reaction it doesn't make a huge difference whether the guy knew about the relationship at all.
Apparently this either makes me a guy who really hates violence against women or a guy who regards women as property. Hm.

Scenarios 3 and 4 are way more complicated due to the "stays with the friend / girlfriend" part. That's a much more ambiguous situation, I don't think a friendship / relationship would come out of this unharmed. If I had to choose, it would probably depend on how serious either relationship is.

[Tack]

There was a guy I became briefly aquatinted with (before realizing his craziness) who would go out of his way to gather his possy and beat down any guys who hit on his girlfriend.

His personal theory was that if everything was peachy in this relationship before the stranger entered, and his girlfriend was acting weird afterwards, then the only changed variable is the other guy, who had committed the grevious crime of destabilising his relationship.

It still baffles me.

[LordBucket]

How is a social convention not a commitment? The guy's part of society, so he should be held by its standards. He's committing adultery as much as she is.

These statements of yours imply a wildly different worldview from mine. Which is consistent with my observations during previous conversations between us. With that in mind, and the fact that we will probably be unable to reconcile the differences in our conclusions because our initial premises are different...I will attempt to respond:

How is a social convention not a commitment?

...umm, what? No? Where are you even coming from with this?

Just because something is a convention, that very obviously doesn't make it a commitment. For example, it's socially normal for women to have long hair and wear makeup. Does that mean women are obligated to do these things? Of course not. A guy holding a door open for a girl is pretty standard convention. Are you obligated to do this? No. Guy being the one to ask a girl to a dance is typical. If a girl breaks that convention and asks the guy out instead, is that wrong? No. Is anyone offended? No. Is it a problem? No.

I don't know where you're coming from to suggest that a convention is a commitment. A social convention is simply an ordinary "expected" and typical way of doing things. It is by no means an obligation. Morally, ethically, legally, culturally...in no way are social conventions commitments. They are merely expected behaviors. It's expected that you eat dinner before dessert. It's expected that you wear green on St Patrick's day. It's expected that married people have children.

There's nothing wrong with not doing the expected thing just because it's expected.

But if you agree to do a thing and then don't do it...I perceive error in that. If you go out and eat an eclair before dinner, that's ok even if it's not the social norm. But if you promise somebody that you won't do it and then do it anyway...that's an extremely different situation. Your personal promise to not do something carries more weight than simply living in a society that expects you to not do it.

He's committing adultery as much as she is.

I believe you're technically correct...but I wasn't really expecting the religious angle here.

Even acknowledging your point, it still doesn't change the fact that the girl is still doing a thing that the guy isn't. The girl made a commitment and is breaking the terms of that commitment. The guy made no commitment. Therefore, she is "committing adultery" and breaking a personal commitment, whereas the guy is only committing adultery.

Even acknowledging the adultery angle, which is worse: committing adultery plus breaking a personal commitment, or only committing adultery?

I'll have to disagree with the vast majority of forumites and say that the dude hitting his (ex-)girlfriend is the worse one in both scenarios. 'Not hitting women' is a much, much more fundamental rule of society (or at least society as I perceive it) than 'not hitting people in general'. According to the qualities ascribed by society to men and women respectively, the guy in each scenario is able, at least to a degree, to defend himself, to hit back, making the whole affair a fight between equals, or at least between comparables. The girl on the other hand is - according to these ascribed qualities, again - unable to defend herself, making the violence not a fight but a despicable act of brutality, because
the quintessential idea of fairness is violated.

I find this interesting for multiple reason.

1) It seems to me that basing one's personal views on those of society is both distasteful and dangerous. I would strongly encourage people to make their own decisions rather than simply looking at societal norms and going with the flow. At one time in this country, slavery was considered socially normal. At one time, beating your wife to keep her in line was considered socially normal. They might not be now, but how forgiving would you be of somebody who keeps slaves and beats their wife just because everybody else was doing it? Simply looking at the history of human behavior, I think it would serve us well to evaluate and make our own decisions rather than simply going with the flow.

2) Fairly often here on bay12, I'm accused of being a mysogynist. And yet, to me...since the formal, technical application of "adultery" in the judeo/christian sense is not something that carries any weight with me in this case...it seems to me that you're basically saying that it's better to beat up innocent people than a woman, because woman are not equal to men. That women are so helpless that it's more unfair to hit a woman who does something wrong than to hit a guy who doesn't.

Now, I realize that you're qualifying your statements to say that it's not necessarily you personally who sees it this way, but rather society that sees it this way...but at the same time you appear to be giving weight to the idea of basing one's views on society's views, and agreeing with the conclusion. So qualifying it by saying that it's society's views that see it this way seems like a cop-out.

[Tack]

It seems to me that you're basically saying that it's better to beat up innocent people than a woman, because woman are not equal to men. That women are so helpless that it's more unfair to hit a woman who does something wrong than to hit a guy who doesn't.

Aaaand the trap springs shut.
I hate having to defend this kind of crap.

Guess what? I don't date the type of women who would be able to take me on in a fight. Call it societal values, or primitive instincts.
This hypothetical average woman is weaker than most men, and some women. She is also brilliant, I love her, and I don't look down on her.
I do not think that she is 'helpless', but she is definitely vulnerable in certain situations, and I would instinctually want to protect her. Again, call it societal values, or old-fashioned chivalry.
Surprise surprise, This hypothetical average woman would want me to. How many female equality advocates would be out at night with her boyfriend and say 'Don't walk me home, I'm not helpless, I can go by myself'.
There's probably a few, I'll agree, but I would consider them moronically stubborn.

How does this relate? Simple. As the 'protector' of the household, or at the very least the one with the most brute strength, compared to my wife and kids, it would be nothing but a complete betrayal for me to harm them, and would shed any sense of security that the family has.
That is why men don't hit women.

[Helgoland]

First off, what Tack said captured it nicely. We have to assume that the people in question are fairly average (that no-one involved is Mike Tyson, for example), so the 'women are statistically weaker' thing absolutely applies - the social norm is just a way of enshrining that.
And I'll protest the 'crap' bit, but only weakly. It's not a misogynist point of view, is it?

Now, to chop up your post:

These statements of yours imply a wildly different worldview from mine. Which is consistent with my observations during previous conversations between us. With that in mind, and the fact that we will probably be unable to reconcile the differences in our conclusions because our initial premises are different...I will attempt to respond:

Who says we have to agree? It's all about understanding the other's viewpoint, not changing it...

How is a social convention not a commitment?

...umm, what? No? Where are you even coming from with this?

Just because something is a convention, that very obviously doesn't make it a commitment. For example, it's socially normal for women to have long hair and wear makeup. Does that mean women are obligated to do these things? Of course not. A guy holding a door open for a girl is pretty standard convention. Are you obligated to do this? No. Guy being the one to ask a girl to a dance is typical. If a girl breaks that convention and asks the guy out instead, is that wrong? No. Is anyone offended? No. Is it a problem? No.

I don't know where you're coming from to suggest that a convention is a commitment. A social convention is simply an ordinary "expected" and typical way of doing things. It is by no means an obligation. Morally, ethically, legally, culturally...in no way are social conventions commitments. They are merely expected behaviors. It's expected that you eat dinner before dessert. It's expected that you wear green on St Patrick's day. It's expected that married people have children.

Okay, maybe I should've been more clear: There's different types, levels, strengths of social conventions. There's 'Wear makeup', there's 'Don't dye your hair pink', there's 'Don't run around naked in public', there's 'Don't tattoo a swastika on your forehead', and there's 'Don't murder peoper'. 'Don't commit adultery' is a convention with a strength between the second-and third-to-last example, at least in my view. It's something that you very much shouldn't do, and something you should expect grave consequences for. Not being beaten up, of course, but social shunning etc.

But if you agree to do a thing and then don't do it...I perceive error in that. If you go out and eat an eclair before dinner, that's ok even if it's not the social norm. But if you promise somebody that you won't do it and then do it anyway...that's an extremely different situation. Your personal promise to not do something carries more weight than simply living in a society that expects you to not do it.

'Stick to what you promised' is just another convention, isn't it? One that varies in strength depending on who was promised what, even - from 'I'll totes call you' over 'In sickness and in health' all the way to 'Yes, I'll wear a condom' when you've got AIDS. You're right, a specific personal promise carries more weight than a general obligation, but then again hitting women and hitting men is not the same thing either.

He's committing adultery as much as she is.

I believe you're technically correct...but I wasn't really expecting the religious angle here.

Wasn't meant to be the religious angle, I just needed a word - religion doesn't come into it, especially since it isn't mentioned anywhere that the couple is married in the first place

I'll have to disagree with the vast majority of forumites and say that the dude hitting his (ex-)girlfriend is the worse one in both scenarios. 'Not hitting women' is a much, much more fundamental rule of society (or at least society as I perceive it) than 'not hitting people in general'. According to the qualities ascribed by society to men and women respectively, the guy in each scenario is able, at least to a degree, to defend himself, to hit back, making the whole affair a fight between equals, or at least between comparables. The girl on the other hand is - according to these ascribed qualities, again - unable to defend herself, making the violence not a fight but a despicable act of brutality, because the quintessential idea of fairness is violated.

I find this interesting for multiple reason.

1) It seems to me that basing one's personal views on those of society is both distasteful and dangerous. I would strongly encourage people to make their own decisions rather than simply looking at societal norms and going with the flow. At one time in this country, slavery was considered socially normal. At one time, beating your wife to keep her in line was considered socially normal. They might not be now, but how forgiving would you be of somebody who keeps slaves and beats their wife just because everybody else was doing it? Simply looking at the history of human behavior, I think it would serve us well to evaluate and make our own decisions rather than simply going with the flow.

2) Fairly often here on bay12, I'm accused of being a mysogynist. And yet, to me...since the formal, technical application of "adultery" in the judeo/christian sense is not something that carries any weight with me in this case...it seems to me that you're basically saying that it's better to beat up innocent people than a woman, because woman are not equal to men. That women are so helpless that it's more unfair to hit a woman who does something wrong than to hit a guy who doesn't.

1) I've long ago acknowledged that my personal views are very much based on society's views, in one way or the other - there was a good SMBC about that, I think. I just wanted to be honest about my opinion coming from a societal norm that's probably seen as outdated by many Bay12ers. It does have a very real foundation, as explained above, but the last time we discussed biological differences between men and women the whole thing went up in flames...
2) Well, that just shows that I ascribe more value to monogamy than you do... And the 'hitting innocents' vs 'hitting not-innocents' thing is weird the way you say it, because neither of them deserved to be hit in the first place. If she's a kickboxer and he's Hawking, it's different, of course, but to in any way sensibly answer the question we'll have to assume average participants (as mentioned). And the average women certainly is more helpless than the average man when it comes to defending oneself against physical attack.

Now, I realize that you're qualifying your statements to say that it's not necessarily you personally who sees it this way, but rather society that sees it this way...but at the same time you appear to be giving weight to the idea of basing one's views on society's views, and agreeing with the conclusion. So qualifying it by saying that it's society's views that see it this way seems like a cop-out.

Nonono, it is my personal view, and I just laid out that it agreed with society's view. I'm not for blindly adopting what everyone else says; I am however very much for recognizing that nobody's an island.