Guest: Crime Theory meets Cheaterspeak.

Featured Image -- 281Here’s an interesting article from Honey and the Homewrecker on how some people employ a process of rationalization to justify bad or unethical behavior. I loved the featured graphic: “a guilty conscience needs no accuser.” Very true, but if and only if the person in question actually has a conscience. Some people simply don’t. My experience with a serial cheater has shown that some people can exist under layer after layer of deceit, and do so for years. Their lives are so highly compartmentalized that it can work for long periods, until …

Honey and the Homewrecker.

What is the difference – ethically speaking – between a common criminal and a man (or woman) who cheats on their spouse? I’d argue very little.

Human values are formed by internalizing social norms, which is how we each come to decide what makes us a good – or intrinsically valuable – person. These norms are shared among the people within a society and become the basis for laws and ideals about appropriate human behavior. For example, I think most people who favor fair play and integrity would agree that defrauding widows of their life savings is wrong and never okay. If only there were such a hard and fast rule about marital betrayal and robbing a family of one of its most vital members.

Alas, adultery is casually glossed over as being little more than a nebulous or murky part of the nuances of adult love relationships. It’s not. It should be called out for…

View original post 1,561 more words

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s