The ethics of facilitating cheating

[Paul Carassafro]

Hey all. So I guess I entered this part of the forum because this is about economics and this topic is about a company/company ethics, but of course I will also talk about relationships.

 

So in the Netherlands there is this website called secondlove.nl, which is a dating platform for people that are in a relationship. Members need to pay a fee and pass a check done by the company to be able to set up their profile and start messaging others. The site says on its front page that this website is for people who want to cheat. "You're happy with your relationship, but you also think that monogamy seems very monotonous? You don't want problems in your relationship, but the rut is not making it better?"

 

A relationship is (in maybe a (too) narrow definition ) a deal between people and cheating is fraud because it breaks the rules of this deal: it requires initiating action on the part of the victim (the victim chose his/her partner) and violators can be avoided (one can choose not to enter into a relationship with his/her partner). 

 

Of course when two people agree to be in a polygamous relationship or when one gets "permission" to cheat, it is not cheating (more like swinging I guess) since your partner is okay with it.

 

I was discussing this and trying to wrap my head around this, I came up with an analogy (which is maybe not so good, because it does not fit perfectly).

 

So when an auctioneer auctions the product of one of his customers, he could be facilitating the fencing of a stolen good. Intuitively, I seem to think that the auctioneer needs to check if his customer has stolen his good. On the other hand, he could also say that his auctions have no guarantees and that this is the responsibility of the buyer. The auctioneer is merely giving a platform for people to make their deal. Challenging this intuitive thought, I also do recognize that companies who sell laptops give their customers a platform/tool by which they could also commit a crime (for example a buyer could use a laptop for hacking a bank), but are not responsible for such usage.

 

There is also something more going on with the auctioneer. So when one of his customers wants to auction a stolen good, one has already committed a crime (theft). When one wants to cheat, one has not cheated yet. But of course attempting to cheat (for example having a profile on secondlove.nl) is already breaking the deal in the relationship. 

 

I would also intuitively not see a company that facilitates the selling of other companies' secrets (so facilitating fraud) as being very moral. On the one hand, while I would not want to get diseases from my partner because he/she cheats, I do see some merit in the existence of secondlove.nl because if my partner wanted to cheat, his/her preference for doing that would show itself earlier and hopefully I would quickly see this in his/her behavior. After which, of course, I would most likely stop the relationship and start going into reflection mode trying to find out why I entered in a relationship with such a partner and why I did not see this coming during the relationship in the first place. On the other hand, people can also commit fraud/cheat in a other private or public places. Also, only people who have already committed fraud (trying to sell company secrets, trying to cheat) come to the platform.

 

So I guess this boils down to: is it moral to offer a platform that is explicitly about committing the final behavior of fraud: giving the fraudulent person discretion for his/her actions? Should one always check if one's platform is not being used for bad things? Should dating companies check if their customers are cheaters? Installing spyware on laptops would allow a laptop company to check if its customers are using it for an evil purpose (such as hacking a bank), but I would not see this as the companies' responsibility. And if it is not moral to offer a platform where evil is possible, how does this fit the creation of uncontrollable currencies such as bitcoin which could have had a backdoor made for fraud checking by somebody? Are owners of such a platform in a constant state of being able to act as a surrogate-self defense agent (exposing fraud)? Are we all not in a state of being able to be a surrogate-self defense agent for being able to sign up for secondlove.nl and reporting all users to the public? I would certainly tell somebody if i see his/her partner cheating somewhere, but I would not explicitly go somewhere public to check if this is happening all the time. On the other hand, secondlove.nl is a place where this explicitly happens.

 

So these are my thoughts on this. I hope it does make some sense and that it makes you think. I also thought about running this through UPB, but I haven't gotten around to really go first principles on this problem (I had this discussion last night) and I thought I'd first throw all my thoughts in here to see what you guys think. 

[AncapFTW]

Cheating is more akin to a breach of contract than theft.  You aren't physically harming the other person, but you do have an agreement, even unofficially, that you will only engage in sex with them.

 

I'd say it's closer to compare it to an employment website helping people break exclusivity contracts.  Yes, it's a bit immoral to try and cater to that market, but they aren't really responsible for the person's actions.

[MMX2010]

When a woman cheats with another man, how do you know she's the ONLY person who broke the contract? 

 

Is the contract (A) comprised of one commandment, "You shall never have sex with other people."?  OR (B) comprised of dozens of commandments, any one of which (when broken) is breach-of-contract? 

 

Since you know that the (B) - (in literally every single case, involving literally millions of cases in literally every nation that exists) - then why does your question hinge upon pretending that the answer is (A)?  (In other words, what benefits do YOU get for framing this discussion in the way you chose?  What does focusing on cheating allow you to avoid?) 

[Paul Carassafro]

Cheating is more akin to a breach of contract than theft.  You aren't physically harming the other person, but you do have an agreement, even unofficially, that you will only engage in sex with them.

 

I'd say it's closer to compare it to an employment website helping people break exclusivity contracts.  Yes, it's a bit immoral to try and cater to that market, but they aren't really responsible for the person's actions.

 

But wouldn't you say that offering a discrete place to explicitly violate fraud would make you some sort of accomplice? 

[J-William]

When a woman cheats with another man, how do you know she's the ONLY person who broke the contract?

 

Why did this become about a woman? Seems odd, the OP was very careful about saying "he/she". You're trying to tell us that if a woman is unhappy then she just can't be blamed for cheating? That's the oldest excuse in the book.

 

The marriage contract is about sex and children. It seems appropriate that you changed to talking about a woman, since in many societies it is ok for a successful man to cheat even if he has other kids, as long as he's providing well for his wife and kids.

But it is seen as a problem if the woman has an affair and the husband is paying for kids that aren't his.

 

That is generally what marriage is about. I don't have a contract with my friends because there's no sex or children involved.

[AncapFTW]

But wouldn't you say that offering a discrete place to explicitly violate fraud would make you some sort of accomplice? 

Sure.  Not as bad as violating the contract in the first place, but still bad.

 

When a woman cheats with another man, how do you know she's the ONLY person who broke the contract? 

 

Is the contract (A) comprised of one commandment, "You shall never have sex with other people."?  OR (B) comprised of dozens of commandments, any one of which (when broken) is breach-of-contract? 

 

Since you know that the (B) - (in literally every single case, involving literally millions of cases in literally every nation that exists) - then why does your question hinge upon pretending that the answer is (A)?  (In other words, what benefits do YOU get for framing this discussion in the way you chose?  What does focusing on cheating allow you to avoid?) 

Because cheating specifically involves breaking A.  Whether or not they abandoned them when they got sick, or hit them, or ignore the kids, or anything else isn't part of "cheating".

 

Or are you saying that she's justified in sleeping with the neighbor if he quits his job and gets drunk every day?

[MMX2010]

Why did this become about a woman? Seems odd, the OP was very careful about saying "he/she".

 

 

 

It became about women, when a man - (assuming he's a man, since his name is Paul Carrasafro) - asked a question about facilitating cheating.  While it's certainly possible that he's either asexual or homosexual, the far most likely explanation is that he's a heterosexual man worrying about the personal and social implications of facilitating cheating, with the personal implications forming roughly 85% of his concern. 

 

 

 

 

You're trying to tell us that if a woman is unhappy then she just can't be blamed for cheating? That's the oldest excuse in the book.

 

No, I'm not. 

 

I'm telling you that there are two possible scenarios: (1) She's unhappy because you broke the marriage contract by not living up to your vows, and so she slept with another man.  (2) She's unhappy even though you didn't break the marriage contract, and so she slept with another man. 

 

In the second case, the woman is a non-virtuous nutcase with insufficient self-awareness and self-control to live up to any marriage contract.  But in the first case, the woman and man have both broken the marriage contract and both need to introspect. 

 

However, to speak as if ALL cheating falls under the second case is strong evidence that men-in-general refuse to introspect after any woman cheats.  Why?  Because it's much easier to blame the man who cheated with your wife than it is to introspect, to cast him as the villain so that you get cast into the role of victim/hero.  It is much easier for any man to tell himself, "If only that player-asshole hadn't come along, then she would've loved me truly, madly, deeply to this very day!" than to ask, "Was she unhappy in the marriage because I understood neither myself, nor her nature, nor the nature of marriage in general?  Did I slack off, because I merely expected her to stick around?" 

[MMX2010]

Or are you saying that she's justified in sleeping with the neighbor if he quits his job and gets drunk every day?

 

I'm saying that if you truly possessed a non-emotional, non-agenda-driven desire to understand the contract-breaches in marriage, you wouldn't focus only on cheating.  You'd focus on the myriad of clauses in the marital vow, any one of which (if broken) constitutes breach-of-marital-contract. 

[AncapFTW]

 

I'm saying that if you truly possessed a non-emotional, non-agenda-driven desire to understand the contract-breaches in marriage, you wouldn't focus only on cheating.  You'd focus on the myriad of clauses in the marital vow, any one of which (if broken) constitutes breach-of-marital-contract. 

I'm saying that in a discussion about cheating (it's in the title) other ways you can break a marriage contract are immaterial to the conversation.  Now, if you want to create a topic about all of the ways you can betray your spouse, I'll talk about that.

 

If the topic was "is it immoral to buy trade secrets from a competitor's employees" I wouldn't talk about all of the other ways they could breech an employment contract because that wouldn't have any bearing on the conversation unless you can tie it in somewhere. I can't talk about embezzlement or not wearing appropriate clothing at work, or taking too many sick days, or anything else because they have no bearing on whether or not they are selling trade secrets. 

[MMX2010]

I'm saying that in a discussion about cheating (it's in the title) other ways you can break a marriage contract are immaterial to the conversation.  Now, if you want to create a topic about all of the ways you can betray your spouse, I'll talk about that.

 

Is it, really?

 

To "cheat" is to try and get way more than you deserve, relative to your conduct and abilities.  So if the goal is marriage is to acquire love, respect, and admiration, but a man's (or woman's) conduct merits him only 50% of his desires, then should his spouse remain sexually faithful to him?  Or is sexual faithfulness the greatest form of loyalty that one spouse can give to another, and is so precious that only the most hard-working, self-aware, and devoted of spouses deserve it? 

 

 

 

 

If the topic was "is it immoral to buy trade secrets from a competitor's employees" I wouldn't talk about all of the other ways they could breech an employment contract because that wouldn't have any bearing on the conversation unless you can tie it in somewhere. I can't talk about embezzlement or not wearing appropriate clothing at work, or taking too many sick days, or anything else because they have no bearing on whether or not they are selling trade secrets.

 

Like I said earlier, most men want to define "cheating" as only centered on sexual faithfulness, but there are many other ways to be unfaithful.  When we define "cheating" solely in this way, we commit fraud. 

[AncapFTW]

 

Is it, really?

 

To "cheat" is to try and get way more than you deserve, relative to your conduct and abilities.  So if the goal is marriage is to acquire love, respect, and admiration, but a man's (or woman's) conduct merits him only 50% of his desires, then should his spouse remain sexually faithful to him?  Or is sexual faithfulness the greatest form of loyalty that one spouse can give to another, and is so precious that only the most hard-working, self-aware, and devoted of spouses deserve it? 

 

 

 

 

 

Like I said earlier, most men want to define "cheating" as only centered on sexual faithfulness, but there are many other ways to be unfaithful.  When we define "cheating" solely in this way, we commit fraud. 

Yes, because a "dating site" is interested is you finding buddies you can get drunk and play poker with, instead of going home to your family.

 

"Secondlove" obviously means a set of friends your wife doesn't know about and "You're happy with your relationship, but you also think that monogamy seems very monotonous?" Obviously refers to only hanging out with people your wife approves of and letting her know when you're not going to be home.

 

Like I said, yes you can "cheat on" your wife in other ways besides sexually.  If I was dating a girl that was very anti-drug and secretly smoked weed when I wasn't around her, that would be cheating on her.  That's not what the topic or the discussion was about though.  It was about  Norwegian website for finding other people to have sex with while you are in a relationship with someone else.

[MMX2010]

It was about  Norwegian website for finding other people to have sex with while you are in a relationship with someone else.

 

Do you think the existence of the Norwegian website dramatically increases the amount of cheating in Norway?  Or do you think people who want to cheat will cheat whether that website exists or not? 

[Paul Carassafro]

 

It became about women, when a man - (assuming he's a man, since his name is Paul Carrasafro) - asked a question about facilitating cheating.  While it's certainly possible that he's either asexual or homosexual, the far most likely explanation is that he's a heterosexual man worrying about the personal and social implications of facilitating cheating, with the personal implications forming roughly 85% of his concern. 

 

 

I'm saying that if you truly possessed a non-emotional, non-agenda-driven desire to understand the contract-breaches in marriage, you wouldn't focus only on cheating.  You'd focus on the myriad of clauses in the marital vow, any one of which (if broken) constitutes breach-of-marital-contract. 

 

Then let me assure you that I'm not worrying about those implications. I came up with this title and topic because I read an interview with one of the owners of secondlove and not because I'm interested in starting my own secondlove or anything of that kind. Facilitating cheating functions as the instance that lead me to the abstract principle of facilitating fraud. In my original post I also did explicitly give a narrow definition of a relationship because I did not want to analyse cheating per se, but the general principle behind the facilitating of it. 

 

 

Sure.  Not as bad as violating the contract in the first place, but still bad.

 

The reasoning looks sound right? And I agree that it is not as bad as violating the contract in the first place. Facilitating fraud would be an ANA maybe? I'm going to think some more about this.

[NumberSix]

Relationships are not contracts.  Promises of faithfulness in relationships are white lies to make the other person feel good.  People have been brainwashed by culture to believe in the sanctimony of marriage; its all a delusion.

[Jer]

Relationships are not contracts.  Promises of faithfulness in relationships are white lies to make the other person feel good.  People have been brainwashed by culture to believe in the sanctimony of marriage; its all a delusion.

Marriages are fundamentally contracts, what else would you call it?

 

Most marriages have (at minimum) an implicit agreement to monogamy. If you don't have such an agreement to be monogamous it's not cheating. It's called an open relationship or something else.

 

I've been reading about the Ashley Madison hack and have mixed feelings. I feel like it's good to see unethical people have some negative consequences for their actions, but I feel guilty about that and still support privacy.