The Ethics of Fidelity

[e_dog]

The Puzzle.
The intuitive response to the suggestion by one person that he has a right to be unfaithful to his partner, but that his partner does not have a right to be unfaithful, is that he is applying a double-standard. And if feminists have been voisterous about anything, it is double-standards. But this relies on a simple-minded conception of standards and their application. In the right circumstances, it may be the case that the person who makes the above claim is applying a single standard, which however, applies differently in the case of different individual in different situations. Consider this example. Francis and Chris are a couple. Francis has a right to be unfaithful to Chris but Chris does not have a right to be unfaithful to Francis. Sound too good (for Francis, that is) to be true?

The Solution.
Chris refuses to sleep with Francis for a long period of time. Francis, however, has been willing to sleep with Chris. A single standard applies to both persons. That standard is: 'If your partner is willing to sleep with you, you cannot seek gratification outside the relationship On the other hand, if your partner is consistently unwilling to sleep with you, you are justified in seeking gratification outside of the relationship.' Applying this single standard, a separate conclusion is reached concerning Francis and Chris, given the facts. The objection that this constitutes a double-standard simply confuses the notion of a "standard" and "conclusion drawn from applying a standard to the facts."

Are you following me on this?