Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Scarlett could not believe her luck. For as long as she could remember, Brad Depp had been her heart-throb. Now, amazingly she had stumbled across his secluded holiday home in the Bahamas, which not even the paparazzi knew about.
What is more, when Brad saw the solitary walker on the beach, he had offered her a drink, and as they talked he turned out to be as charming as she had imagined. And then he admitted that he had got a bit lonely these last few weeks, and although, because of his lifestyle, it would have to remain a secret, he would very much like it if she were to spend the night with him.
There was just one problem:Scarlett was married to a man she very much loved. But what you don't know can't hurt you, and he would never know. She would get a night of fantasy and Brad would get a little comfort. Everyone would be either as they were or richer for the experience. No one would suffer. With so much to gain and nothing to lose, what earthly reason could there be for Scarlett to resist Brad's fabulous come-to-bed eyes?
If someone trusts you, what is lost if you betray that trust? As Scarlett is tempted to see it, sometimes nothing at all. If her husband remains ignorant of her tryst, then his trust in her will remain intact. 'No one gets hurt' runs her reasoning, so why not go ahead?
Is this really the best way to determine the morality of our actions; tot up consequences in terms of happiness and misery and go with whatever course of action increases the former and minimises the latter? The system has the merit of simplicity, but it also seems to gloss over some of the subtler dimensions of our moral lives.
Consider the nature of trust. Many people would say that mutual trust is one of the most important things in their close personal relationships. Most of the time we would know straight away if this trust has been betrayed. If we trust someone to spend our money wisely, for example, we soon find out if they have blown it on something useless. This is trust, but it is not the deepest kind, because we do not just rely on trust to make sure our wishes are respected; we can see if they haven't been.
The deepest trust, in contrast, is precisely the willingness to place our faith in someone even when you could not tell whether they had kept their word or not. This is the kind of trust that dispenses with the safely net of openness or disclosure. Sure trust is essential if we are to be secure in fidelity, for, as we all know, infidelities can often be kept secret, sometimes for ever.
So if Scarlett has her night of passion with Brad, she will have broken the deepest trust of all. The fact that her husband would never know is precisely what makes her betrayal a profound one, for to be trusted in such circumstances is to be trusted as deeply as possible.
And yet, ' No one gets hurt'. Trust may have been broken, but trust is not flesh and bone. How can it be that Scarlett harms no one, yet shatters the most important part of her most treasured relationship?
Extracted from 'The pig that wants to be eaten' by Julian Baggini
Quote of the day: You know the blogger has nth to blog about when he starts extracting articles.
What is more, when Brad saw the solitary walker on the beach, he had offered her a drink, and as they talked he turned out to be as charming as she had imagined. And then he admitted that he had got a bit lonely these last few weeks, and although, because of his lifestyle, it would have to remain a secret, he would very much like it if she were to spend the night with him.
There was just one problem:Scarlett was married to a man she very much loved. But what you don't know can't hurt you, and he would never know. She would get a night of fantasy and Brad would get a little comfort. Everyone would be either as they were or richer for the experience. No one would suffer. With so much to gain and nothing to lose, what earthly reason could there be for Scarlett to resist Brad's fabulous come-to-bed eyes?
If someone trusts you, what is lost if you betray that trust? As Scarlett is tempted to see it, sometimes nothing at all. If her husband remains ignorant of her tryst, then his trust in her will remain intact. 'No one gets hurt' runs her reasoning, so why not go ahead?
Is this really the best way to determine the morality of our actions; tot up consequences in terms of happiness and misery and go with whatever course of action increases the former and minimises the latter? The system has the merit of simplicity, but it also seems to gloss over some of the subtler dimensions of our moral lives.
Consider the nature of trust. Many people would say that mutual trust is one of the most important things in their close personal relationships. Most of the time we would know straight away if this trust has been betrayed. If we trust someone to spend our money wisely, for example, we soon find out if they have blown it on something useless. This is trust, but it is not the deepest kind, because we do not just rely on trust to make sure our wishes are respected; we can see if they haven't been.
The deepest trust, in contrast, is precisely the willingness to place our faith in someone even when you could not tell whether they had kept their word or not. This is the kind of trust that dispenses with the safely net of openness or disclosure. Sure trust is essential if we are to be secure in fidelity, for, as we all know, infidelities can often be kept secret, sometimes for ever.
So if Scarlett has her night of passion with Brad, she will have broken the deepest trust of all. The fact that her husband would never know is precisely what makes her betrayal a profound one, for to be trusted in such circumstances is to be trusted as deeply as possible.
And yet, ' No one gets hurt'. Trust may have been broken, but trust is not flesh and bone. How can it be that Scarlett harms no one, yet shatters the most important part of her most treasured relationship?
Extracted from 'The pig that wants to be eaten' by Julian Baggini
Quote of the day: You know the blogger has nth to blog about when he starts extracting articles.
Zero-Niner, Roger...out 10:17 PM