1

I can take steps to find out if my ex wife cheated on me, and I do want to know, but no good will come of me knowing, nor of the steps I need to take to find out (assume that they are not immoral but are destructive). How do I balance the value of knowing with the latter? I am especially interested in a virtue based answer.

  • i suppose the question is whether my ex wife's fidelity is worth suffering the destructive things for. given she's your ex wife, perhaps not –  Nov 15 '23 at 22:45
  • 1
    I had a psychology prof in college who said, "You can leave your wife, but you can never leave your ex-wife." Although I think you can avoid all contact with them, which might lead to more happiness. – Scott Rowe Nov 15 '23 at 23:26
  • they're not like that, being my ex wife, they are quite attention seeking, bitter and out of control @ScottRowe –  Nov 15 '23 at 23:32
  • The most important decision you can make in life is to choose your parents well, but choosing your ex-wife is right up there :-) – Scott Rowe Nov 15 '23 at 23:33
  • 1
    that's a strange way of saying "look after yourself". i won't get what i want from them, so i should just leave it. the value of knowing hahah @ScottRowe –  Nov 15 '23 at 23:36
  • If you want an answer based on virtue ethics then what good will come of your knowing about your wife's behaviour is irrelevant (whatever you consider as a virtue). This is a consequentialist approach. In virtue ethics goodness comes from practicing the virtue, so, assuming it's virtuous to look for the truth, every step of the way in your quest for truth will be good. When he left for war Odysseus knew he was going to suffer, yet he went anyway because he was practicing the virtue of courage and honouring his pledge to king Menelas. – armand Nov 15 '23 at 23:45
  • no i don't think consequences are irrelevant to virtue @armand and there are other virtues than epsietmic ones –  Nov 15 '23 at 23:47
  • Well, then i'm afraid you are not asking about virtue ethics. – armand Nov 16 '23 at 00:00
  • i am not asking about vulgar virtue ethics @armand and you are bad at wikipedia if you think it says that consequences are irrelevant rather than not centre (as in consequentialism) –  Nov 16 '23 at 00:00
  • LOL... so when the established definition of philosophical terms disagrees with you it's vulgar? Sorry, i had no idea i was involved in such an elevated high horses discussion. (voting to close because of obvious lack of prior research) – armand Nov 16 '23 at 00:03
  • no it's you @armand –  Nov 16 '23 at 00:04
  • stop beefing with me @armand it's petty and vindictive. if you can't see that, then maybe go spend some money –  Nov 16 '23 at 00:06
  • If you actually think i am beefing with you for bringing a polite, argumented , structured and documented comment about your question in order to help you improve it, you need to grow up. Take ownership of your contribution to this SE instead of whining. For exemple, explain why you think consequences are relevant to virtue. You hold a position that goes contrary to established philosophical concepts. I bet you have a good reason for that and i, for one, would be interested in reading it. Instead you prefer insulting me... and THAT's petty and vindictive. – armand Nov 16 '23 at 00:12
  • see my edit @armand but actually it's just common sense. in what way do i instantiatew the vitue of love, especially nurturing love, if i don't care about the effects i have on anything? –  Nov 16 '23 at 00:14
  • the answer is "in no way". nd i'm not sure that the trojan war was a how to guide on happiness @armand are you thinking of the oresteia? –  Nov 16 '23 at 00:25
  • 1
    Choosing your fellow SE members is important too. I forget to mention that. – Scott Rowe Nov 16 '23 at 00:33
  • it's ok to disagree on things, even if they are questions of ethics @armand may i ask how you decide to do anything if you don't care about consequences at all. maybe i'm dimwitted, but i don't see how i could tie my shoelaces (ready for war or to teach) if i didn't consider how i need to tie a good knot - if i don't want to do it again –  Nov 16 '23 at 01:59

3 Answers3

4

There is no "should" in wanting to know what's true.

One can justify not trying to establish the truth merely by deciding that you'd rather not know.

Skeptics would argue that's generally a bad idea, because knowing what's true makes it more likely for the outcomes of your actions and what happens to you to match your intentions and desires. But one could just decide that's not important to you.

A more reasonable reason to avoid committing effort to investigating a particular claim may be that you have no reason to believe it's false (although you may only find such reasons upon investigation), that you have reasonably good reasons to believe it's true, or that it's not important enough to warrant spending the time on it required to investigate it.

That said, if e.g. you don't try to establish whether anyone is drinking from the river you're using to dispose of your poison, one could make the case that you're immoral. Intentionally avoiding establishing truth would be a poor moral defense of one's actions.

NotThatGuy
  • 9,207
  • 1
  • 18
  • 32
  • yes this is somewhat useful, thanks –  Nov 16 '23 at 09:14
  • 1
    A German judge once decided that setting a derelict house on fire is attempted murder unless you checked personally that there is nobody inside. So there you really want to establish the truth. – gnasher729 Jan 10 '24 at 10:06
  • @gnasher729 huh, doesn't 'murder' require intent? Perhaps reckless endangerment or manslaughter, but for murder you would need at least a suspicion that someone you intended to kill was inside the derelict house. Must make it hard to demolish old buildings in Germany, I wouldn't go inside something that looked like it could fall down on me. – Scott Rowe Jan 10 '24 at 11:46
1

If it is a purely private matter, you have the right not to know. The other person has the right to privacy. But if it is a public matter, other moral considerations might come in.

Meanach
  • 2,337
  • 7
  • 36
0

Don't do it, honour your ex wife's wish for privacy and freedom from you, the virtue of forebearance over that of love of truth, at least if you can safely assume that no good will come of you finding out

There is disagreement among virtue ethicists over whether the consequences of an action are relevant to its ethical value. Some argue that as long as the act is virtuously motivated, the consequences are irrelevant

You never know, they may even tell you one day.