Is Morality Dead ?

[Blue Spiral]

I don't think there's anything wrong with being a more sensitive person, and wanting to get into a safer type of relationship--one that's built on an agreement of commitment, rather than how someone feels at any given moment.

 

I also don't think it's particularly compassionate to criticize those who are sick of being chewed up in the modern-relationship meat-grinder.

[TMifune]

Let me preface this by saying that I do not agree that every relationship must last until death in the absence of abuse.

 

That said, "it just doesn't work out" is again a deflection of responsibility. There are two and possibly more actors making choices that affect that relationship. Those choices determine whether it will or wont' work. Those actors have responsibility for that. I'm not saying it's immoral every time a relationship fails.

 

Here's a good example.

Partner A has a good job offer 2,000 miles away. Partner B's family lives here and doesn't want to move. They have 4 choices really.

1. LDR
   
2. Partner A gives up the job and stays
   
3. Partner B moves with Partner A
   
4. They break up.
   

These are just circumstantial choices. I wouldn't ascribe a morality to any of them. These are morally neutral.

 

Now, let's say

Partner C and Partner D have been together for 3 years. Partner C has started to take the relationship for granted. As a result of taking the relationship for granted, of not giving as much of themselves, Partner C feels like the spark's gone. In addition Partner C isn't happy at work or generally with some non-relationship aspects of their life. Partner C meets Interloper G, and feels a spark for them. Things progress. Partner C cheats on or leaves Partner D with stories about how they "just fell out of love".

 

This I would say is a morally negative situation. Partner C bears responsibility for their inaction in taking the relationship for granted, followed by their action of getting together with Interloper G. Also, I believe that Partner C bears additional responsibility for projecting their unhappiness with things that have nothing to do with the relationship onto Partner D.

 

Again, I'm not saying that all relationships that fail are immoral. We could have a whole debate on what "success or failure" even means in respect to relationships. But the ending of some relationships is because of immoral acts on the part of one or both parties.

 

And I believe that in a large majority of cases the person who says "I fell out of love" did it as an active (though likely not conscious) choice. They chose to invest their energy elsewhere or to take the relationship for granted. I'm not necessarily ascribing a moral value to that, simply that I think people miss that, their withholding from the relationship is just as likely to be the cause of their unrest as their unrest is to be the cause of them withholding.

[Hermes]

Yes, MTifune.

 

"I believe that in a large majority of cases the person who says "I fell out of love" did it as an active (though likely not conscious) choice. They chose to invest their energy elsewhere or to take the relationship for granted. I'm not necessarily ascribing a moral value to that, simply that I think people miss that, their withholding from the relationship is just as likely to be the cause of their unrest as their unrest is to be the cause of them withholding."

 

I won't add anything to your excellent post, TM.

[mhowe]

Morality may not be dead, but this thread certainly is. Lol.

[saluk]

There are many relationships that last a lot longer than they should. There are also many relationships that fail not because of any real incompatibility, but because one or the other member stopped valuing what they had and faded out without putting in any effort.

 

I don't think it's fair to criticize those who stay too long, or those who fade away too much. Every relationship is different, and everyone is stuck in their own experience. It's hard to see it from the inside for what it is. And I'm not sure if it's a morality thing or not. But one of the biggest problems that I see, are how feelings-based most relationships are.

 

If the reason you "commit" (for some level of commitment) to another person is based on how you feel about them, it makes you very vulnerable to two things. 1) you are much more likely to be blind to true incompatibilities, and 2) if you feel different one day, the basis of your relationship is gone. I'm not saying you shouldn't feel good about who you commit to, but I think a lot of people get into a relationship and move very quickly before really seeing if both their feelings and their lifestyles are a good match. I've done it. I think of all the times I've been hurt, either from girls I liked who didn't like me back, or from relationships that ended, and if there's one thing I can point to that unites all of them, it's that I decided she was the one I wanted long before I took a hard look at whether that was even remotely likely.

 

If everyone could learn to have a more healthy and realistic view of commitment, neither afraid of it or rushing toward it, but stepping towards it with the right timing, a lot less people would be hurt. But... feelings always tend to become the driver, and maybe that's just how it has to be, as we are all emotional creatures. The reality is always messier than the theory

[Hermes]

Saluk. A very common sense opinion. And honest.

[faraday]

It takes two people to make a relationship work....and what one person thinks is "good enough" might not be enough for the other person. Should they sacrifice themselves for the other person?

 

I was very unhappy in my relationship with my daughters father. I tried for almost 3 years to get him to go to marriage counseling. I was miserable- diagnosed with situational depression. It's funny, I told him all the time how unhappy I was...but when I finally ended things, he was shocked. Said he didn't see it coming. He thought we were happy, even though I cried all the time and would beg him to spend time with us...beg him to help me with the responsibilities of a household- either by working full time (like I was- he was part time), helping with childcare (which he didn't- I did everything), helping with housework (he didn't- everything was a "pink" job), maintenance of our home (like the gate that stayed broken for 2 years)....Should have I stayed?

 

I'm so glad I didn't. I'm so much happier now. I have a better quality of life...and now my daughter sees what a healthy relationship looks like. Her dad wasn't abusive...he never cheated...he just didn't grow up when we had our daughter. He was fine when I was 21...but by 26 I had completely outgrown him. It happens. I'm not a mean person. I didn't end things with him to hurt him. I did it because....I am worthy of being with someone who treats me well.

[Hermes]

Of course you should not have stayed, Faraday. Your husband could not be described as "lovely, loving and supportive", by any means. Not cheating does not mean the "other" wasn't abusive. He was. Abuse doesn't just mean beating someone into a pulp.

 

The OP wasn't talking about that kind of relationship......

[journeynow]

Call me old fashioned but I believe that commitment means you stick with someone forever unless they do something to deserve you breaking that bond.

So why does almost everyone now believe that it's acceptable to break up with a partner who has only ever offered love and support ?

Hurting someone in that way is to my mind far worse than physical violence and does more damage.

 

Yeah, there is a tendency to treat relationships as disposable or replaceable. Folks have different definitions of commitment, vows, and love, and we are all learning as we go.

 

And we also change careers, homes, even countries.

[faraday]

Of course you should not have stayed, Faraday. Your husband could not be described as "lovely, loving and supportive", by any means. Not cheating does not mean the "other" wasn't abusive. He was. Abuse doesn't just mean beating someone into a pulp.

 

The OP wasn't talking about that kind of relationship......

 

You're missing the point. My ex felt that he was awesome. He thought he was a great bf. A great father.

 

It's subjective.

 

So just because the dumped thinks, "this relationship was so awesome, I was so nice, how could they leave??" ...Doesn't make it accurate.

[Hermes]

Yeh, I know, Faraday. Of course he thought he was awesome. I do know what you are saying.

And then, of course, (I got this right?) you were only 21 when you married?

[Cheetarah]

You're missing the point. My ex felt that he was awesome. He thought he was a great bf. A great father.

 

It's subjective.

 

So just because the dumped thinks, "this relationship was so awesome, I was so nice, how could they leave??" ...Doesn't make it accurate.

 

Yes yes, exactly. It is incredibly subjective.

[journeynow]

Morality may not be dead, but this thread certainly is. Lol.

 

Oops. Well, I'm late, and haven't followed all of the posts, just the OP.

[j.man]

You're missing the point. My ex felt that he was awesome. He thought he was a great bf. A great father.

 

It's subjective.

 

So just because the dumped thinks, "this relationship was so awesome, I was so nice, how could they leave??" ...Doesn't make it accurate.

Don't worry. We got the morality court here at ENA to show us exactly which relationships were deservedly dissolved and which ones were the result of lazy, heathen, excuse makers.

 

You've got the thumbs up from other posters, BUT WILL THE OP AGREE?

 

Stay tuned...

[Hermes]

Sigh Yes, Journey.

Are we turning into a Kleenex society? No wonder so many children are homeless or have to be taken into care when there is so little commitment out there, or more accurately, so little thought put into what commitment actually means.

The infatuation (sparks and fireworks, flavour of the months) seems to be all that matters.

 

How grateful I am (and I am not saying this lightly, and I am depressed by a lot of what I read on here) that my parents decided to work at their relationship and give themselves and us a good life.

[j.man]

Sigh Yes, Journey.

Are we turning into a Kleenex society? No wonder so many children are homeless or have to be taken into care when there is so little commitment out there, or more accurately, so little thought put into what commitment actually means.

The infatuation (sparks and fireworks, flavour of the months) seems to be all that matters.

 

How grateful I am (and I am not saying this lightly, and I am depressed by a lot of what I read on here) that my parents decided to work at their relationship and give themselves and us a good life.

It's more than a tad disingenuous to bring children into the equation like that. I don't think anyone has suggested an extra effort shouldn't be made when an dependent third party is involved.

[Hermes]

Give it a rest, J. Man. This is giving me a headache

[Clinton]

Yes people in the past stayed together. Not out of love or because they were more commited to making it work though.

 

You were labeled by divorce back then. The word divorcee had all sorts if negative connotations. If your husband cheated or beat you, we'll tough cookies. Don't want to look bad in the eyes of the community.

 

And people stayed together out of economic necessity. Women stayed home and raised kids and had no means of supporting themselves. So leaving was not really an option. And the little kiddies suffered in different ways back when a man ruled the roost.

 

I'll take today over yesterday any day of the week. At least you're together today because you want to be, not because you have to be.

[faraday]

Yeh, I know, Faraday. Of course he thought he was awesome. I do know what you are saying.

And then, of course, (I got this right?) you were only 21 when you married?

 

I was never married. When I take my vows, I will take them very seriously...I will know my future husband well before I take the plunge.

 

I met him at 21. Found out I was pregnant at 24 (when I was in the process of ending things with him actually. So I gave him a choice: grow up and be a good husband and father, or we can abort and we both could walk away- no hard feelings. He promised me he was going to get his sh*t together).

 

He proposed. I accepted...but never set a date.

 

He didn't change. He didn't get it together. I finally got him to go to counseling with me after years of begging, but at that point, it was done- three weeks later we were done. I had heard too many empty promises, I had fought too long on my own...and I had nothing left to give him. It was time for me to focus on our child, and on taking care of myself....he was dead weight- I couldn't carry him and keep us afloat any longer.

 

At 26, I told him it was over.

[Moontiger]

Haven't read the while thread but I wanted to say: no matter how well you treat someone, they are under no obligation to stay with you. It's rather self centered to think a person is obligated to stay with you.

[Blue Spiral]

Haven't read the while thread but I wanted to say: no matter how well you treat someone, they are under no obligation to stay with you. It's rather self centered to think a person is obligated to stay with you.

 

Doesn't that sort of invalidate the whole "marriage vow" concept? I don't believe in marriage, myself...but if the vows don't obligate someone to stay with you, what's the point of making them?

[Shane Falco]

Sigh Yes, Journey.

Are we turning into a Kleenex society? No wonder so many children are homeless or have to be taken into care when there is so little commitment out there, or more accurately, so little thought put into what commitment actually means.

The infatuation (sparks and fireworks, flavour of the months) seems to be all that matters.

 

How grateful I am (and I am not saying this lightly, and I am depressed by a lot of what I read on here) that my parents decided to work at their relationship and give themselves and us a good life.

 

I love a good strawman argument.

[journeynow]

Doesn't that sort of invalidate the whole "marriage vow" concept? I don't believe in marriage, myself...but if the vows don't obligate someone to stay with you, what's the point of making them?

 

Right. While should not "forced" to stay "forever" what's the point of making a commitment if it is not a really a commitment? In the same vein, why make a promise of you are not responsible for following up or a contract if you only honor it if you feel like it? I understand people change their mind, or learn more over time that didn't play into the original decision, but I also come to learn that people give different meaning to words, and different underlying beliefs.

[journeynow]

I love a good strawman argument.

 

What does this mean?

[Moontiger]

Doesn't that sort of invalidate the whole "marriage vow" concept? I don't believe in marriage, myself...but if the vows don't obligate someone to stay with you, what's the point of making them?

 

Depends on the marriage vows I suppose. I was speaking more to non-marriage relationships.

 

My marriage vows (if I ever get married) will involves such as promising to respect and honor each other. Promises that promote both of us an individuals and as a unit. But no bull-ploop about staying with each other no matter what. Sometimes the best thing you can do to honor a person is let them go.