My Wife’s Lover: Is Where We Really Are As A Society?

I had to read this three times to believe it. This was actually published in the New York Times Magazine advice column titled, somewhat ironically, The Ethicist:

MY WIFE’S LOVER

My wife is having an affair with a government executive. His role is to manage a project whose progress is seen worldwide as a demonstration of American leadership. (This might seem hyperbolic, but it is not an exaggeration.) I have met with him on several occasions, and he has been gracious. (I doubt if he is aware of my knowledge.) I have watched the affair intensify over the last year, and I have also benefited from his generosity. He is engaged in work that I am passionate about and is absolutely the right person for the job. I strongly feel that exposing the affair will create a major distraction that would adversely impact the success of an important effort. My issue: Should I acknowledge this affair and finally force closure? Should I suffer in silence for the next year or two for a project I feel must succeed? Should I be “true to my heart” and walk away from the entire miserable situation and put the episode behind me?NAME WITHHELD

Don’t expose the affair in any high-profile way. It would be different if this man’s project was promoting some (contextually hypocritical) family-values platform, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. The only motive for exposing the relationship would be to humiliate him and your wife, and that’s never a good reason for doing anything. This is between you and your spouse. You should tell her you want to separate, just as you would if she were sleeping with the mailman. The idea of “suffering in silence” for the good of the project is illogical. How would the quiet divorce of this man’s mistress hurt an international leadership initiative? He’d probably be relieved.

The fact that you’re willing to accept your wife’s infidelity for some greater political good is beyond honorable. In fact, it’s so over-the-top honorable that I’m not sure I believe your motives are real. Part of me wonders why you’re even posing this question, particularly in a column that is printed in The New York Times.

Your dilemma is intriguing, but I don’t see how it’s ambiguous. Your wife is having an affair with a person you happen to respect. Why would that last detail change the way you respond to her cheating? Do you admire this man so much that you haven’t asked your wife why she keeps having sex with him? I halfway suspect you’re writing this letter because you want specific people to read this column and deduce who is involved and what’s really going on behind closed doors (without actually addressing the conflict in person). That’s not ethical, either.

“Ethics” are defined as a theory or system of moral values. People cheat – humans fail but when “ethics” demand that you ignore the very basis for ethical behavior to support a political position, they lose all meaning. There is nothing “honorable” about accepting infidelity in a marriage which is a promise to each other and a union with God unless you have no respect for your partner or belief in God.

This column would be more accurately titled “Rationalization and Relativity” because what it suggests is that honoring a political position is more “ethical” and “honorable” than being faithful to morality.

I know that it is repetitive but this is a perfect example of what F.A. Hayek stated:

Since it is the supreme leader who alone determines the ends, his instruments must have no moral convictions of their own. They must, above all, be unreservedly committed to the person of the leader; but next to this the most important thing is that they should be completely unprincipled and literally capable of everything. They must have no ideals of their own which they want to realize; no ideas about right or wrong which might interfere with the intentions of the leader.

There is thus in the positions of power little to attract those who hold moral beliefs of the kind which in the past have guided the European peoples, little which could compensate for the distastefulness of many of the particular tasks, and little opportunity to gratify any more idealistic desires, to recompense for the undeniable risk, the sacrifice of most of the pleasures of private life and of personal independence which the posts of great responsibility involve.

The only tastes which are satisfied are the taste for power as such and the pleasure of being obeyed and of being part of a well-functioning and immensely powerful machine to which everything else must give way.

But this is the bible of liberalism, the New York Times.

God have mercy on our souls.

About these ads

3 thoughts on “My Wife’s Lover: Is Where We Really Are As A Society?

  1. “Ethics” are defined as a theory or system of moral values.

    Unfortunately, “ethics” refers to a system of man-made moral values. They can and often do conflict with the universal moral values of natural law. When our “ethics” conflict with natural law, society becomes dysfunctional, which then opens the door to tyrants who are ever too willing to step in and “correct” the problem by adding their “fixes” to an already flawed “ethics” system — thus compounding the problem.

    Personally, I believe that, unless we return to the founders’ original arguments, our society will not survive — and neither will any of those that replace it unless they, too, return to those original principles and ideals. Perhaps we all need to be reading Locke again?

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s