What would you do?

[nelmasri]

You've learned that your friend's partner has been unfaithful, an incident that's unlikely to recur and, if discovered, would destroy their family. Would you tell your friend?

[Impenitent]

extortion is wonderful

-Imp

[Walker]

You've learned that your friend's partner has been unfaithful, an incident that's unlikely to recur and, if discovered, would destroy their family. Would you tell your friend?

For a man with a male friend, stay out of the friend’s business and don’t gossip. Simple clean, no problem.

Women are different. For a woman with a female friend, that’s venturing into walking on eggshells. Going head-on into another’s domestic issues could be trouble. Although she has nothing to do with it and it’s irrational, if misery ensues she would likely be associated with the friend's bad times. She might even share a bit of cause for piping up and confirming suspicions. Although that’s also irrational it could strain the relationship, perhaps end the relationship before too long. If the woman must issue a warning to her female friend then make it an indirect, impersonal hint. The yogini handled the same situation in that way and after a couple of weeks of fermentation the friend put two and two together, on her own. However, that was different, already recurring.

What's do you say?

[LuckyR]

If you're a true friend, you'd let them know. The reason to tell them is so they know what's going on. What's the reason to withhold the information? I'm not seeing any.

[Walker]

If you're a true friend, you'd let them know. The reason to tell them is so they know what's going on. What's the reason to withhold the information? I'm not seeing any.

The reason is in the OP. It would destroy the family.

Your reasoning that a friend should tell a friend because the friend is a true friend, is rather circular.

So, you think it's preferable that a family should be destroyed to affirm your notions of true friendship?

[Walker]

The resolution of the truth conundrum that results in damned if you do and damned if you don't, is ...

Better that the cheater tell the spouse, if any telling is to be done.

But if the friend simply must tell someone, better that the friend of the family tell the cheater rather than the cheated friend, and see how that goes.

Extortion is wonderful when the cheater's own conscience is extorting.

[LuckyR]

If you're a true friend, you'd let them know. The reason to tell them is so they know what's going on. What's the reason to withhold the information? I'm not seeing any.

The reason is in the OP. It would destroy the family.

Your reasoning that a friend should tell a friend because the friend is a true friend, is rather circular.

So, you think it's preferable that a family should be destroyed to affirm your notions of true friendship?

Is ending a relationship with a person you don't want to be with, a bad thing? The friend didn't "destroy" the relationship, the cheater did. Talk about blame the messenger. Keep your eye on the ball.

Sort of like if the doctor doesn't tell you that you have cancer, you're fine. Illogical.

What kind of "friend" lets their friend continue a relationship that's fake? No friend of mine.

[Iwannaplato]

The reason is in the OP. It would destroy the family.

If it would destroy the family, there is a serious problem in the family. IOW they cannot possibly work this out. There is not enough love/foundation in the relationship to work through this event that will never recur. So, your description of the situation includes implicit serious problems in that family. Those problems exist regardless of whether the spouse gets the information. It is likely, even, that the problems are quite toxic and are already hurting everyone.

[Walker]

The reason is in the OP. It would destroy the family.

If it would destroy the family, there is a serious problem in the family. IOW they cannot possibly work this out. There is not enough love/foundation in the relationship to work through this event that will never recur. So, your description of the situation includes implicit serious problems in that family. Those problems exist regardless of whether the spouse gets the information. It is likely, even, that the problems are quite toxic and are already hurting everyone.

- My comments are based on the parameters of the hypothetical situation in the OP, not about personal preferences concerning lifestyle or family "problems," as defined by me, or you.
- There could be many reasons why it would destroy the family.
- However, why it would destroy the family is not included in the parameters of the OP. Resulting future destruction must be taken as a given.
- Whether or not the destruction of the family is logical or valid based on the information provided by the parameters is not up for debate, unless one wants to add to the parameters.
- However, adding to the parameters would be like going to a museum with a paint brush and adding to the parameters painted on the canvas that's stretched within the boundaries of the wooden picture frames. The FSK, if you will.

- What is relevant is that family would be destroyed.
- What is not relevant is judgement of the parameters of the situation.
- The parameters are limited.
- They don't deal in reasons but rather in a cold, hard fact, which is, the family would be destroyed.

- Why that should not be, is not relevant after the family has been destroyed.
- Ethically, it's rather arrogant of the tattletaler to destroy the family that is not his own, or her own, while knowing that the family would be destroyed as a result.

- Telling the cheater that the cheater could be destroying her or her own family is the limit of friendship responsibility. Boundaries and limitations.

- This is why compassion must be generated. Compassion is required to transcend the limitations of the frame. In fact, putting ego in its place so that compassion can be generated is a preliminary process for any religious, ethical, or spiritual advancement, what some folks would call evolution of the person that enables co-existence with despair.

[Iwannaplato]

The reason is in the OP. It would destroy the family.

If it would destroy the family, there is a serious problem in the family. IOW they cannot possibly work this out. There is not enough love/foundation in the relationship to work through this event that will never recur. So, your description of the situation includes implicit serious problems in that family. Those problems exist regardless of whether the spouse gets the information. It is likely, even, that the problems are quite toxic and are already hurting everyone.

- My comments are based on the parameters of the hypothetical situation in the OP, not about personal preferences concerning lifestyle or family "problems," as defined by me, or you.
- There could be many reasons why it would destroy the family.
- However, why it would destroy the family is not included in the parameters of the OP. Resulting future destruction must be taken as a given.
- Whether or not the destruction of the family is logical or valid based on the information provided by the parameters is not up for debate, unless one wants to add to the parameters.
- However, adding to the parameters would be like going to a museum with a paint brush and adding to the parameters painted on the canvas that's stretched within the boundaries of the wooden picture frames.

- What is relevant is that family would be destroyed.
- What is not relevant is judgement of the parameters of the situation.
- The parameters are limited.
- They don't deal in reasons but rather in a cold, hard fact, which is, the family would be destroyed.

- Why that should not be, is not relevant after the family has been destroyed.
- Ethically, it's rather arrogant of the tattletaler to destroy the family that is not his own, or her own, while knowing that the family would be destroyed as a result.

- Telling the cheater that the cheater could be destroying her or her own family is the limit of friendship responsibility. Boundaries and limitations.

- This is why compassion must be generated. Compassion is required to transcend the limitations of the frame. In fact, putting ego in it's place so that compassion can be generated is a preliminary process for any religious, ethical, or spiritual advancement, what some folks would call evolution of the person that enables co-existence with despair.

I don't necessarily disagree. It depends. I can't in the abstract make a decision, but in real life, I would be able to. And in real life if I somehow magically knew, with certainty (given in the description), then I would know why it would be destroyed.

I would also know what that very ambiguous in this context word 'destroyed' means.

So, I would know what the consequences are - if the real life situation matches the certainty of the thought experiment - and this would include, at least it is very likely, some sense of what the current marriage is like. For some people the word 'destroy' would mean that there would be a divorce. For others this might mean someone gets a gun and kills everyone. Whatever the actual consequences and situation, knowing these things would allow me to make a choice and that choice would depend on the specifics.

Note: I did not say I would tell the spouse. I was pointing out that the scenario entails certain things. Silence has consequences - in many usual situations of this kind. the prolonging of a situation that might be damaging to the children, if any. In other words, I was pointing out that I think the scenario as presented was making some tacit assumptions that are likely not the case or at least it seemed likely to me that the designer of the thought experiment and possibly many responders are not thinking about facets of the situation entailed by the description.

In many situations the family is already destroyed. Imagine what you have to know to know that it would be destroyed.

You KNOW it's going to be destroyed. So, how do you know that? What information do you have about the people to KNOW it will be destroyed?

What does that knowledge let you know about being silent? Compassion has to deal with action and inaction - with the added consequences of the person finding out you knew and were silent, in the context of whatever the other consequences are.

I have no answer to this thought experiment. And, given, that in a sense one cannot possibly know, one is already imaging a kind of super-me how KNOWS X, there's a silliness in the thought experiment. It's already presuming in a very ego rich way that I know things I wouldn't know. And if I know that, then perhaps I'd KNOW the consequences of not intervening, this super-me hallucinated in the experiment. That'd make it easy to decide.

It's not real. Well, that's obvious. But it doesn't fit in reality. The thought experiment is not aligned with reality. The me in this scenario is not aligned with reality. Yet, people will weigh in as if they know what 'their' decision would be - throwing this ideas into the vagueness of the scenario, without even finding out what 'destroyed' means and without knowing what one actually does/would know in that situation. Without knowing all that one would have to know to know it would be destroyed, whatever that turns out to mean. Without knowing the effects that one might or might not necessarily have to know, given one KNOWS, about what happens to the kids, which the word 'family' implies. And what they're being taught and experiencing in a house of lies.

Hubris is knowing one's answer to that short incomplete description, I think. There's ego, for ya.

The feelings underneath...

- Telling the cheater that the cheater could be destroying her or her own family is the limit of friendship responsibility. Boundaries and limitations.

I respect very much, but it doesn't really make sense in the scenario. We've already been told it will never happen again. If we are silent the person is not destroying their family, at least not via us. If it will never happen again, well, then the person has no need to be told this.

It looks like we are given a situation we can actually make a decision around. But it's not. There is so much missing and unreal.

What I presented is what I think is likely NOT being mentioned by the scenario writer. And I think it is a short cut in thinking many people make. They leave out what is present and select a few things to make their decisions and to describe the scenario.

But yes, other things might be present, and left out of the description. Whatever - that description is not something we will ever face. Though a choice we one day may face might be quickly described like that.

[Walker]

Quite thoughtful. Gracias on behalf of all for the insight.

However ...

Stick your nose into another family and you put yourself at the mercy of a two-edged sword.

On one razor sharp blade, you then bear an ethical ration of responsibility for whatever happens as a result of your “true friendship” notions.

On the other cold edge, you’re also dealing with forces beyond your control.

The tattler is moving into upper management.

The actual move upon notions of whether or not the family will be destroyed, or should be destroyed, will actually test the consequences of a vague concept about "true friendship," a testing which holds the potential for big rewards in the form of reality confirmation that all will be good as a result of one's meddlesome actions.

Maybe everyone will turn out happily ever after. Maybe not.

Unmindful tattling to the soon to be aggrieved friend, aggrieved by your sharing of what you know but maybe should not tell to that particular person, also carries a risk, such as one of the domestic partners that one is not legally a part of, suddenly running amuck, even with impliments of destruction, which is also how things work even in a banana republic, post-constitutional republic where success is achieved more by who you blow than what you know, as the saying goes, after some salesman front man for ... What? ... decides to tinker around with "fundamental change," ostensibly for the purpose of good.

But I digress, as is a wont, to elicit a response to the only question in the post.

[Walker]

If you're a true friend, you'd let them know. The reason to tell them is so they know what's going on. What's the reason to withhold the information? I'm not seeing any.

The reason is in the OP. It would destroy the family.

Your reasoning that a friend should tell a friend because the friend is a true friend, is rather circular.

So, you think it's preferable that a family should be destroyed to affirm your notions of true friendship?

Is ending a relationship with a person you don't want to be with, a bad thing? The friend didn't "destroy" the relationship, the cheater did. Talk about blame the messenger. Keep your eye on the ball.

Sort of like if the doctor doesn't tell you that you have cancer, you're fine. Illogical.

What kind of "friend" let's their friend continue a relationship that's fake? No friend of mine.

You're stepping outside the parameters of the OP and adding subjective information to expand your point of view, which is fine as an expression of who you are, but may not apply as a principle relevant to the parameters of the OP.

Friends are not licensed to meddle in people's lives. Doctors are licensed to do that.

[Iwannaplato]

Quite thoughtful. Gracias on behalf of all for the insight.

Thank you.

However ...

Stick your nose into another family and you put yourself at the mercy of a two-edged sword.

Sure, but the thought experiment includes that I KNOW what will happen in the future regarding this family. My nose is stuck in that family in the condition of the description. In real life, I have married friends. I have married friends I've known since childhood. I know an incredible amount about some of these people, even, as an outsider, how they relate to each other, their values, behavior, etc.

Do I KNOW what would happen if one of them found out the other person has cheated? Would I KNOW that they would never do it again?

I don't know. I'd be pretty cautious assuming I know. I have guesses. And I have seen infidelity situations. Sometimes I'm surprised, sometimes not, about what happens. But to KNOW.... I don't know what that's like.

The scenario indicates I know EVEN MORE than I know about people I've known for decades who confide in me.

On one razor sharp blade, you then bear an ethical ration of responsibility for whatever happens as a result of your “true friendship” notions.

On the other cold edge, you’re also dealing with forces beyond your control.

The tattler is moving into upper management.

In this scenario they're already in upper management: they KNOW the future. The know exactly what the spouse will do. They know the family will be destroyed. And unlike us, they know what 'destroyed' means.

To think you know what will happen is to consider oneself upper management.

The actual move upon notions of whether or not the family will be destroyed, or should be destroyed, will actually test the consequences of a vague concept about "true friendship," a testing which holds the potential for big rewards in the form of reality confirmation that all will be good as a result of one's meddlesome actions.

Just a note here: I am not saying that I would make my decision based on whether the family should be destroyed. Oh, they're a bad couple anyway, I'm going to shorten the hell of this marriage. No.

In real life, I wouldn't know the consequences of action or inaction.

Maybe everyone will turn out happily ever after. Maybe not.

Unmindful tattling

'Tattling' is a value laden framing. I could frame it in many ways: being honest with my friend, not keeping my friend's spouse's secrets, not playing God - though I do somehow KNOW that their spouse will never do this again, so I have some godlike aspects - not enabling infidelity. Tattling is to get in good with the authority or to smack the person one is tattling about. We can have compassion about the motives of the person who decides to reveal what they know also.

to the soon to be aggrieved friend, aggrieved by your sharing of what you know but maybe not tell to that particular person, also carries a risk, such as one of the domestic partners that one is not legally a part of, suddenly running amuck, even with impliments of destruction,

Sure, and if I think something like this will happen - I could never know it, but if I had a concern - I would not tell.

Not in the moment. But I would be telling my friend to get therapy. I would be telling them the signs that let me KNOW this is going to happen and suggesting that this is not ok.

This kind of thought experiment is misleading - I'm not saying it isn't useful (I think our discussion is useful) but it's misleading about real life decisions.

Whew. I did not tell him what Karen did, he would have gotten a shotgun and put everyone down.
Um...what else did you do?
What do you mean?
OK, you're telling me that your friend would go on a murderous rampage if he found out his wife cheated and it was a one-time never to be repeated thing and...your only reaction as a friend to this whole situation was to keep silent. I get why you didn't go to him and tell him what you knew about his wife. But why are you silent about all this other stuff? And really, you should have been talking to him about stuff long before.
etc.

If we shift to a boyfriend/girlfriend, even as adults, and the word 'destroyed' means they break up and never like each other, I think many people can imagine not hiding something like that from a close friend. Yes, in some situations I might go to the cheater just as you suggested. Perhaps leave my role at that. Perhaps just tell my friend or tell him after the cheater says nothing. I mean, in real life I don't know all the outcomes. I can't control what happens and I can't know it. I don't want to add what may well feel like a betrayal on my part to the burdens of my cheated on friend. I'm not especially trying to justify a 'correct answer' to the question, just trying to bring in all that is there that the scenario leaves out and then what it implicitly hallucinates without really considering the implications about my powers or what inaction actually does/might do.

[Iwannaplato]

Just want to emphasize what I missed on my first run through....You somehow know that they will never do it again. How does one know that????

[Walker]

Doesn't matter. That's all you've got to work with in unveiling a definitive principle.
Adding more doesn't help.

Taking that into account adds perspective, doesn't it.

"What?"