Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Put another way

Let's say I've got a friend (I do!) and this particular friend wants to have sex with a mentally unstable (but not dangerous) woman in a committed relationship. He persuades her to do so, and she betrays her boyfriend to have sex with this friend. This friend has no intention of an ongoing relationship with the woman - he just wants sex, and tells her so all along.

Obviously she's morally (or ethically, if you prefer) culpable for betraying a trust. Is the friend who had sex with her morally or ethically culpable for a wrong act, and if so - what?


Aug. 1st, 2008 11:57 pm (UTC)
Thinking about it... I certainly wouldn't be comfortable around someone who was that deceptive to get what they wanted.

Your analogy with the pigs, I think, doesn't hold up unless you want to treat sex as a commodity.
Aug. 2nd, 2008 12:00 am (UTC)
Even then, pigs or sex - my point is, soliciting a moral wrong is in and of itself a moral wrong, even if the other actor is willing. If you pay someone to harm another, you are culpable.

In this case he's persuading a woman to harm another for his own sexual gratification.
Aug. 2nd, 2008 12:00 am (UTC)
See above :)
Aug. 2nd, 2008 12:15 am (UTC)
Agreed. Seeking to create a situation in which other parties commit unethical acts is as unethical as the acts perpatrated by the other parties. Of course, your wording is much less verbose than my own:).
Aug. 2nd, 2008 12:15 am (UTC)
I wasn't really putting the analogy together by equating sex to piglets, so much as in both circumstances there was a deal, an understanding, and a betrayal. Dave said that the situations weren't really equivalent. I was saying that they were, or at least could be.
Aug. 2nd, 2008 12:19 am (UTC)
Except that I think Brenda the Butcher is far more emotionally involved with her husband than with the guy who sells her the pigs.
Aug. 2nd, 2008 12:25 am (UTC)
Aug. 2nd, 2008 01:50 am (UTC)
The fact that this discussion taking it down to the specific details and debating and negotiating it back and forth is pretty much an indicator of the fact that its more on the "wrong" side than the "right.

While I don't think that the person in question is the Devil, I do think it demonstrates a weak moral compass.

There are so many other people out there without the Jerry Springer drama. Why voluntarily jump into this one?
I know that's beside the point.

Long story short:

If you have to ask it / debate it, it's probably the wrong choice.
Aug. 2nd, 2008 01:56 am (UTC)
It certainly isn't a nice thing to do. We're just trying to hash out whether it's wrong -- and if it is, if it's any different than the pig situation I posted about in my LJ.


monkey pirate
Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash: Pick Two
My Yelp Reviews.

Latest Month

June 2018
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Paulina Bozek