Steinbock’s Limited Application of the Immorality of Adultery
At first glance, it seems as though adultery in our culture is mostly regarded as an issue of private matter, it chiefly involves spouses. But on closer inspection it appears that the common consensus (that most hold, not all) on adultery fails to recognize the repercussions of holding such a notion. This is because, as Steinbock argues, the way we view adultery affects the thoughts and feelings on love, marriage, and family (for the purposes of this essay I will not delve too deeply on this point because it is so overarching but rather use this point to raise issue). So, then, it holds that although adultery is a private matter one must not regard it as “morally neutral”. (Steinbock, …show more content…
I say this because it is explicitly stated by her and the nature of her language infers such an assumption. This is a crucial distinction that cannot be ignored because affairs entail a recurring sexual encounter to which Steinbock is referring to when saying adultery. However, affairs are not the only form of adultery. First and foremost, Steinbock establishes certain notions- sexual intercourse gives rise to mutual pleasure which gives rise to feelings of happiness and people “naturally have feelings of affection for those who make them happy” and at the same time, sex is “physical and psychological exposure which requires and creates trust”(650). She then moves on to say that trust is “closely allied” to love (note she does not say that trust entails love, but merely that they occur together) (651). In short, Steinbock establishes a connection between sex and love, but then moves on to say that it is possible to have one without the other. This then gives rise to the notion that one can have sex without being in love, but one cannot have sex without feeling some sort of physical or psychological exposure. So then it follows that if one can have sex without love and one feels exposed physically and psychologically, is there a degree to which one can feel exposed contingent on the type of sexual encounter? An affair is recurring in that one continuously cheats on their spouse and, …show more content…
To this I reply there are instances in which one lies to protect their spouse (breaks the promise of always being honest), it is non-recurring and in the long run does not harm their partner, but rather protects them from the emotional damage of today. Let’s take for instance, the case of one’s spouse asking them if the food they’ve made is delightful or not, of course the partner will claim it is delightful even if in reality it is not. This can then be applied to a one-night stand, it is mutually made clear that it will not recur, and this experience has little to no emotional exposure. In this instance they would be breaking a promise (of always being honest), but would do more damage if they did tell the truth. Although one is breaking a promise, they would inflict more harm to their marriage if they did keep this
At first glance, it seems as though adultery in our culture is mostly regarded as an issue of private matter, it chiefly involves spouses. But on closer inspection it appears that the common consensus (that most hold, not all) on adultery fails to recognize the repercussions of holding such a notion. This is because, as Steinbock argues, the way we view adultery affects the thoughts and feelings on love, marriage, and family (for the purposes of this essay I will not delve too deeply on this point because it is so overarching but rather use this point to raise issue). So, then, it holds that although adultery is a private matter one must not regard it as “morally neutral”. (Steinbock, …show more content…
I say this because it is explicitly stated by her and the nature of her language infers such an assumption. This is a crucial distinction that cannot be ignored because affairs entail a recurring sexual encounter to which Steinbock is referring to when saying adultery. However, affairs are not the only form of adultery. First and foremost, Steinbock establishes certain notions- sexual intercourse gives rise to mutual pleasure which gives rise to feelings of happiness and people “naturally have feelings of affection for those who make them happy” and at the same time, sex is “physical and psychological exposure which requires and creates trust”(650). She then moves on to say that trust is “closely allied” to love (note she does not say that trust entails love, but merely that they occur together) (651). In short, Steinbock establishes a connection between sex and love, but then moves on to say that it is possible to have one without the other. This then gives rise to the notion that one can have sex without being in love, but one cannot have sex without feeling some sort of physical or psychological exposure. So then it follows that if one can have sex without love and one feels exposed physically and psychologically, is there a degree to which one can feel exposed contingent on the type of sexual encounter? An affair is recurring in that one continuously cheats on their spouse and, …show more content…
To this I reply there are instances in which one lies to protect their spouse (breaks the promise of always being honest), it is non-recurring and in the long run does not harm their partner, but rather protects them from the emotional damage of today. Let’s take for instance, the case of one’s spouse asking them if the food they’ve made is delightful or not, of course the partner will claim it is delightful even if in reality it is not. This can then be applied to a one-night stand, it is mutually made clear that it will not recur, and this experience has little to no emotional exposure. In this instance they would be breaking a promise (of always being honest), but would do more damage if they did tell the truth. Although one is breaking a promise, they would inflict more harm to their marriage if they did keep this