I'll take 'morality play' for 200, Alex...

I was having a conversation with a group of people today. It was in regards to a woman's unfaithfulness to a man with another man. They felt that the 'other man' should be held in some way responsible for the demise of the relationship between the couple. I thought about it and found myself disagreeing to a certain degree. I felt that the 'other man' isn't really morally obligated to the fidelity of the relationship between the other two people. I got shot down of course, but it made me think what is morality? What makes my idea of morality more or less than another persons?

The 'other man' is immoral because he 'should know better', or that he was selfish in his needs and desires - totally disregarding the impact that these events will have on the couples' lives. But how did it become his moral responsability to uphold the relationship this woman had with her partner, or even the people directly for that matter? How did he come to be labelled as selfish? Is selfishness truly an evil thing? Is it wrong to want the best for yourself? If she had decided that she wanted to be unfaithful and she chose this man who would want to be with her anyway - is he being selfish by accepting her offer?

These actions would be seen as immoral because religion and generations of social programming have made it out to be so. It is understood (at least partially) that we have a social obligation to our fellow man, and is evident through our social security system, low income housing etc. Focusing on the self or the individual could then be considered a truly selfish (and possibly (obviously) immoral) act. But if we 'join together' in social activism (in either the private or the public sphere) and neglect the desire to obtain betterment within our own lives, wouldn't that simply reduce us to achieving as much as the lowest common denomonator? Would we not then simply be stiving for mediocrity? Would that then not be a most immoral and depraved act, only to do as good as the next person because you were afraid of how your achievements may affect them?

I am certainly not abolishing things like Compassion and Understanding. However - compassion and understanding to what cost? Because you feel obligated due to social conditioning, therefore sacrificing yourself and perhaps your own beliefs, desires and moral fabric - would this not be immoral? To go against something you believe in because its the right thing to do? What is right anyway?

Sure, this is only a pretty theory. I absolutely believe that killing a person to take their job because you want it, raping and maming a person because they have a sexual attractiveness that you want and feel you are entitled to are abhorrations, most certainly. To steal and cheat and lie are ugly behaviours. That certainly there are people out there who need a chance to make it better for themselves and if social programs help then that's good, the programs are working as they should. However, as a result of these thoughts, I have made myself out to be a total hypocrite? Maybe out there, there is some sort of happy balance. I just haven't found it yet.

It's a thought that I will keep working on...