A conversation about adultery

Marquis has stated “The moral wrongness of adultery is almost uncontroversial yet very common”. This is true almost everyone in life has come across someone who has committed an adulterous act some very morally wrong others almost completely justifiable. Adultery in Marquises text “What is wrong with adultery” was defined as extramarital sex by persons in typical marriages in our culture. Marquis uses a virtue ethics account of adultery to 1. Explain why undiscovered adultery is seriously wrong and 2. Not imply that adultery is always wrong. Marquise describes Wasserstrom's view on adultery as breaking a contract or promise, when adultery is wrong it's rious wrongness is based upon breaking a promise. The wrongness of adultery is based upon the nature and value of marriage, in a traditional sense Marquis describes a typical marriage where two pledge to each other a complex agreement of friends to unite, possibly raise a family together, make contributions to their common goals and their commitment is intended to be lifelong. When one commits adultery it is wrong because it violates a marriage contract. In a good marriage when adultery is committed it would be seriously wrong not because it could be discovered but because you would be breaking a very solemn and public pledge as marquis puts it, a pledge that on the basis of which your spouse has changed or has been willing to change life plans.

Unfortunately not all marriages are good, when a marriage is bad divorce is frequently the best option. Divorce often entails an indescribably upheaval of one’s self, spouse and children when involved. Understandably since the nature of the marriage contract often has altered one’s life because of an anticipated lifetime commitment, making this commitment with the belief that it would promote your wellbeing. One may have good reasons for not getting a divorce even if the marriage is bad. Reasons can vary from believing the overall good of the marriage weighs out the bad, believing the children or others involved would be better off if the marriage would continue, understanding that the course of the marriage has drastically altered one’s life and divorce would immensely disadvantage you, or even believing in loyalty and commitment and simply not being willing to divorce. In any of these situations with a bad marriage Marquis raises the question of adultery being morally permissible. With the contractual argument to the wrongness of adultery it can sometimes be justified 1. Your spouse committing adultery, with the pledge in a traditional marriage that one is not to have sex with someone other than the spouse and the pledge is broken since that condition no longer obtains our commitment not to commit adultery was conditional. In essence adultery is not wrong when one’s spouse is committing adultery. 2. Getting married on one of the major purposes being a loving and sexually fulfilling relationship no one gets married to be sexually unfulfilled or to be emotionally lonely. Again the only way of understanding the sexual fidelity vow is as a conditional one. If either of these conditions are not fulfil it may be morally permissible to commit adultery. Marquis uses an example a marriage where one partner is interested in sexual relations and the other is not, adultery for the sexually active partner may be morally permissible. If we thought of marriages exclusively as covenants and not as contracts we would believe that divorce is impermissible. Marquis states there are two restrictions on the conditions under which adultery is permissible. 1. One of the partners is not in love with the other or no longer desires to have sexual relations. The contract does not permit adultery in this case, on the assumption that the other spouse is willing to uphold their part of the marriage. If you’re no longer interested in sexual relations with your spouse it is your duty to do something about it. 2. Your spouse’s insufficient love for you or sexual satisfaction can be changed in regards to something you can do. In this case you have an obligation to make that change.

Liberto’s essay “The Vulnerability of men in polyamorous marriages” touches on special sorts of moral issues that may be contentious in a polyamorous marriage, and the inequalities that may arise that are particular to such marriages. Which Liberto then argues are the foundation for some moral hazards parallel to the type that Susan Moller Okin describes in her work “the vulnerability of women in marriage” For Okin two important inequalities in traditional marriages include 1. An inequality of valuable life pursuits and 2. An inequality of exit power that renders an inequality of voice within the marriage. Liberto states that the number of partners outside the primary marriage in a polyamorous marriage adds to the exit power of said spouse. She attribute this to the attention and support they give provides an immediate emotional resource in which to turn to in the event of a separation. In essence one partner may not find divorce as much of an inconvenience as the other considering they have someone else to go home too whereas the other is not invested in another relationship and would be left with much more of a burden in leaving the relationship even if it is not an injustice the correspondence between the inequity of access to extramarital partners generates moral problems. It seems that partners with more exit power must do something to correct the inequality of power that is harming their partners. This is to apply to both traditional monogamous marriages as well as polyamorous. Just as more access to extramarital partners may increase exit power, so does having a job that makes more money or being the primary provider for the family.
To conclude this paper I draw the conclusion that whether it is polygamous or monogamous marriages there will almost always be an inequality somewhere in the relationship. With any relationship that is just the name of the game whether it is your mother, sister, brother, best friend, or even a coworker every relationship is give and take. It is our responsibility as coherent capable human beings to identify what exactly we are willing to sacrifice for that promise of what is supposed to be a life long partner. I agree with Marquis view on adultery and believe in some cases it is morally permissible, though I do not believe it is black and white, when it comes to love and emotions there is a huge section of grey. I also do agree that there is a vulnerability in polygamous marriages as well, though this inequality does exist it is not substantial enough to oppose polygamous marriages. I am convinced through research and personal conviction that polyamory can be a wonderful and beautiful thing just as monogamy can be as well, and as I stated before there is inequalities in almost every relationship. Just because exit power can create an inequality doesn’t mean it will, and even when it does it doesn’t guarantee that exit power will be poisonous to the relationship. For centuries monogamous marriages have created an inequality with men vs. women and men have had more exit power, this does not mean in every marriage this has been an overwhelming problem. In some yes but not all, this leads me to believe that exit power is not a valid excuse against polygamous marriages when it is overwhelming in monogamous marriages and yet there are many monogamous marriages that flourish. Every human has the ability and freedom to decide what kind of life they want to live, and what kind of relationship they want to be in.