But let us suppose that it is an ordinary one in which there is such an expectation, and that it is firmly established. Let us suppose you are successful in getting this man to leave her for you. You now know what sort of man he is; he is willing to leave whoever he is with if he thinks someone better has come along. He may very well do the same with you later on. And even if he does not, you know absolutely that he is willing to if he sees someone who he thinks is better. Do you really want to be with such a man?

Whenever people say not to do something because it is selfish I laugh. Everything is selfish - my life is all about me.

No no and no! Don't instigate cheating in weak people. Don't make silly excuses to do it.

Have some self respect! :nonooo:

His family is conservative (as is mine) so I expect so. Usually here dating and marriage quickly go together unless the people are very untraditional. But To answer your question, one must expect a man to do some 'looking around'. No one can be married unless they consider the qualities of prospective wives. I do not think it would be issue once I was married. And I am confident of my ability to serve my husband adequately.

Of course, same thing work for me - I would have to be sure that he would not show infidelity to me.

If he is willing to be unfaithful to someone else, you know that he cannot be trusted to be faithful to his agreements. If you want an unfaithful sort of man, go ahead and try for him.

Wtf? How is that appropriate in a philosophy forum. Maybe in Elle Magazine.

HexHammer;149640 wrote:

No no and no! Don't instigate cheating in weak people. Don't make silly excuses to do it.

Have some self respect! :nonooo:

Wtf? How is that appropriate in a philosophy forum. Maybe in Elle Magazine.

This whole thread went a different way than I would have expected from this forum. I guess I'll go with the Lockean approach and say that the only things you have are the things you can control (in this case, the girlfriend or boyfriend is only committed to the other person for so long as that person meets all their needs and controls their affection). If they aren't meeting these needs, or you can meet them better, than the person in question is fair game.

Don't get bogged down in ethics, just like in a free market, if you are better for someone than their current match, then it is logical that you should be with that person.

I've never had a problem with guys trying to steal one of my girlfriends, if they can manage it, then obviously something isn't going right in my relationship.

Selfish young people get by alright.
Selfish old people live lonely lives of quiet desperation.

So you think.

Maybe they are happier that way - who ever knows what the old people think.

So you think.

Maybe they are happier that way - who ever knows what the old people think.

It that is truly what Lock offered, then I disagree with Lock. Anything you have to control to have shouldn't be yours in the first place. Yet most are very possessive. The more they have the more possessed they are. I find this personally sad.

I not talking about infidelity - I never do that. I mean like trying to outcompete them and get his business instead.

Well you might be misunderstanding what I mean by control. For instance, if a farmer has access to a gigantic orchard, but he cannot pick all the apples before they spoil, then he doesn't own the part of the orchard that he cannot pick. Control is the word Locke used, but perhaps we'd be better saying "that which you cannot maintain does not belong to you."

We have applications of this idea even in our legal system. If you leave your car on a public road for too long the government will claim it has been abandoned and tow it.

The point is, if someone cannot maintain their relationship, then they don't really have one, and that person is fair game.

Ergo, hence, therefor, GO FOR IT. I highly doubt the moral measure of one's life will come down to whether or not they stole someone's girlfriend. And if it does, count me out of this morality business.

They are in a relationship for a reason. He/she may flirt with you on occasion, but that doesnt mean that he loves the person he is with any less. Just accept it as friendly conversation.:brickwall:

---------- Post added 04-20-2010 at 09:01 PM ----------



Whether or not the measure of ones life comes down to it or not, its not your place to break apart a relationship. Are you saying that you wouldnt put yourself in the shoes of the man/woman who is getting screwed over on the deal before you actually did follow through with it? Thats kinda cold. Leaving a car on a road, farmers crops, they dont have one key thing - human emotion.

How could you be certain that when you try to break up said relationship, it doesnt backfire and said guy/girl doesnt end up hating you, or at the very least losing respect for you?

I would put myself in their shoes, I'm a fairly sympathetic and empathetic guy. Human emotion is a key element! One cannot lay claim to another person. I cannot say that my girlfriend is mine. We have a relationship, sure, but what right do I have to her that others do not? It is HER right to refuse either of us.

You might be misconstruing what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that you systematically ruin someone's relationship. But you should be honest with the girl if you are interested in her. Let her make the decision, that's HER decision to make. Denying her that decision is a worse harm than being honest with her. And if a person loses respect for you because you put yourself and your feelings out there, then I would suggest that THEY are the one with the problem, not you.

Ya dig?

I was just wondering about what people think of the philosophical elements around trying to get together with someone who is already in relationship. Is it true that all is fair in love and war, or should you respect the relationship? What if the person you like expresses interest, is it okay to try to steal them from other person?

Yes, it is ok. I feel that if my girlfriend finds a better mate than me, then she ought to go with him. I am under no obligation to be with one woman.