A quick Internet search turns up very little causal data on the relationship between cheating and happiness, so for purposes of this analysis I will employ the following assumptions:
a. Successful secret cheating has a small eudaemonic benefit for the cheater. b. Successful secret lying in a relationship has a small eudaemonic cost for the liar. c. Marital and familial relationships have a moderate eudaemonic benefits for both parties. d. Undermining revelations in a relationship have a moderate (specifically, severe in intensity but transient in duration) eudaemonic cost for all parties involved. e. Relationships transmit a fraction of eudaemonic effects between partners.
Under these assumptions, the naive consequentialist solution* is as follows:
Cheating is a risky activity, and should be avoided if eudaemonic supplies are short.
This answer depends on precise relationships between eudaemonic values that are not well established at this time.
Given the conditions, lying seems appropriate.
Yes.
Yes.
The husband may be better off. The wife more likely would not be. The child would certainly not be.
Are there any evident flaws in my analysis on the level it was performed?
* The naive consequentialist solution only accounts for direct effects of the actions of a single individual in a single situation, rather than the general effects of widespread adoption of a strategy in many situations—like other spherical cows, this causes a lot of problematic answers, like two-boxing.
Ouch. In #5 I intended that the wife would lie to avoid breaking her husband’s heart, not for some material benefit. So if she knew the husband didn’t love her, she’d tell the truth. The fact that you automatically parsed the situation differently is… disturbing, but quite sensible by consequentialist lights, I suppose :-)
I don’t understand your answer in #2. If lying incurs a small cost on you and a fraction of it on the partner, and confessing incurs a moderate cost on both, why are you uncertain?
No other visible flaws. Nice to see you bite the bullet in #3.
ETA: double ouch! In #1 you imply that happier couples should cheat more! Great stuff, I can’t wait till other people reply to the questionnaire.
The husband does benefit, by her lights. The chief reason it comes out in the husband’s favor in #6 is because the husband doesn’t value the marital relationship and (I assumed) wouldn’t value the child relationship.
You’re right—in #2 telling the truth carries the risk of ending the relationship. I was considering the benefit of having a relationship with less lying (which is a benefit for both parties), but it’s a gamble, and probably one which favors lying.
On eudaemonic grounds, it was an easy bullet to bite—particularly since I had read Have His Carcase by Dorothy Sayers, which suggested an example of such a relationship.
Incidentally, I don’t accept most of this analysis, despite being a consequentialist—as I said, it is the “naive consequentialist solution”, and several answers would be likely to change if (a) the questions were considered on the level of widespread strategies and (b) effects other than eudaemonic were included.
Edit: Note that “happier couples” does not imply “happier coupling”—the risk to the relationship would increase with the increased happiness from the relationship. This analysis of #1 implies instead that couples with stronger but independent social circles should cheat more (last paragraph).
and several answers would be likely to change if (a) the questions were considered on the level of widespread strategies and (b) effects other than eudaemonic were included
This is an interesting line of retreat! What answers would you change if most people around you were also consequentialists, and what other effects would you include apart from eudaemonic ones?
A quick Internet search turns up very little causal data on the relationship between cheating and happiness, so for purposes of this analysis I will employ the following assumptions:
a. Successful secret cheating has a small eudaemonic benefit for the cheater.
b. Successful secret lying in a relationship has a small eudaemonic cost for the liar.
c. Marital and familial relationships have a moderate eudaemonic benefits for both parties.
d. Undermining revelations in a relationship have a moderate (specifically, severe in intensity but transient in duration) eudaemonic cost for all parties involved.
e. Relationships transmit a fraction of eudaemonic effects between partners.
Under these assumptions, the naive consequentialist solution* is as follows:
Cheating is a risky activity, and should be avoided if eudaemonic supplies are short.
This answer depends on precise relationships between eudaemonic values that are not well established at this time.
Given the conditions, lying seems appropriate.
Yes.
Yes.
The husband may be better off. The wife more likely would not be. The child would certainly not be.
Are there any evident flaws in my analysis on the level it was performed?
* The naive consequentialist solution only accounts for direct effects of the actions of a single individual in a single situation, rather than the general effects of widespread adoption of a strategy in many situations—like other spherical cows, this causes a lot of problematic answers, like two-boxing.
Ouch. In #5 I intended that the wife would lie to avoid breaking her husband’s heart, not for some material benefit. So if she knew the husband didn’t love her, she’d tell the truth. The fact that you automatically parsed the situation differently is… disturbing, but quite sensible by consequentialist lights, I suppose :-)
I don’t understand your answer in #2. If lying incurs a small cost on you and a fraction of it on the partner, and confessing incurs a moderate cost on both, why are you uncertain?
No other visible flaws. Nice to see you bite the bullet in #3.
ETA: double ouch! In #1 you imply that happier couples should cheat more! Great stuff, I can’t wait till other people reply to the questionnaire.
The husband does benefit, by her lights. The chief reason it comes out in the husband’s favor in #6 is because the husband doesn’t value the marital relationship and (I assumed) wouldn’t value the child relationship.
You’re right—in #2 telling the truth carries the risk of ending the relationship. I was considering the benefit of having a relationship with less lying (which is a benefit for both parties), but it’s a gamble, and probably one which favors lying.
On eudaemonic grounds, it was an easy bullet to bite—particularly since I had read Have His Carcase by Dorothy Sayers, which suggested an example of such a relationship.
Incidentally, I don’t accept most of this analysis, despite being a consequentialist—as I said, it is the “naive consequentialist solution”, and several answers would be likely to change if (a) the questions were considered on the level of widespread strategies and (b) effects other than eudaemonic were included.
Edit: Note that “happier couples” does not imply “happier coupling”—the risk to the relationship would increase with the increased happiness from the relationship. This analysis of #1 implies instead that couples with stronger but independent social circles should cheat more (last paragraph).
This is an interesting line of retreat! What answers would you change if most people around you were also consequentialists, and what other effects would you include apart from eudaemonic ones?