Is not cheating out of morals more meaningful than not cheating as long as you're in love?

[Anonymous]

I'll give you two examples:

- Married couple A: There were times the sparks weren't there anymore, some days consisted of arguments and they fell out of love with each other but they're still faithful, still decided to work on their marriage. They don't cheat because it's wrong regardless if you're in love (infatuated) or not.

- Married couple B: They don't cheat because they're head over heels with each other, madly in love. When asked why they don't cheat, that's the only single reason they can come up with ''because I'm in love''. This makes you wonder what if the infatuation period ceases and they see more of each other's flaws?

Is it more meaningful when you don't cheat because you're simply not a cheater, out of character vs needing to be in love in order to not cheat?

[BarryLiverstone]

Out of morals and character matters more

[Asker]

Exactly. If a man or woman is only faithful as long as they're in love, that means they only like the good things in the relationship and wouldn't be there during the stormy days.

[BarryLiverstone]

The marriage vows are a promise in good times and in bad. So even when the two people hate each other or are feeling bored ; they can’t cheat. Knowing you have a married partner for life is powerful and important

[In_Trance]

Morals don't exist

[Asker]

How about being a person of good character?

[In_Trance]

good is a subjective term. What's good to one person, is not to another

[BarryLiverstone]

A person of good character doesn’t sexually molest a 4 year old child.. how can that be seen as subjective?

Yes this is an extreme example but mentioned to show not everyone is subjective

[In_Trance]

@BarryLiverstone Nobody justifies child molestation. Ever. But to go with your thought, the molester is sick. There's something wrong with him or her.
If someone was insane and committed murder, they would get off with a reduced sentence. Why do you think that is?
Because we as a society have agreed they're sick and not responsible for their actions? Probably.
Why would we do it in one case and not the other?
Reality is, we as a society are very selective with things like this. We don't always agree on it, but majority or appointed deciding bodies get the final say.

That's what being subjective is.

[BarryLiverstone]

So when you say subjective you mean that society is subjective and the majority sets the rules. Or do you mean the individuals are subjective and their lived experience is reality?

[In_Trance]

@BarryLiverstone
Everything is subjective.
Again, with your example, Anyone that commits child molestation should pay the price. But they don't. Especially Religious leaders!!! They're praised in some cases. But they know exactly what they've done and continue to do. Why do we allow that?
It's because we don't all agree. It's a touchy subject (no pun intended) and the solution is subjective
Why is that?

[BarryLiverstone]

There is a difference between someone being held accountable for their evil actions and the actions themselves being seen as just. Objectively if a religious leader rapes a child they are acting incorrectly.

Why they are not punished often is because of corrupted systems

[In_Trance]

@BarryLiverstone The system is not corrupt. The punishments are clear. But they don't happen because the person that committed the crime is someone's spouse, child, parent, etc. And they're sick. The plea is to obtain the help they need to get well.
So the outcome... is always subjective. Always has been, always will be

[BarryLiverstone]

Thank you for agreeing that morals exist, objective truths exist (child molestation is wrong), and insane people are subjectively treated in accountability. Peace

[In_Trance]

@BarryLiverstone Whatever makes you feel better when you have no further responses