The "God reasoning" isn't the only reasoning. Just like polygamy is a choice, so is monogamy. It's a sexual choice.

What is wrong is that people can't be open about that choice. People should be able to be open and honest about being polygamous or monogamous with their partner - yes, that might sometimes result in the relationship ending; but there's a good chance where there is a disagreement it would have ended with heartbreak further down the line anyway. This should occur long before marriage is ever on the table, or even, before a relationship is on the table.

In Africa it's important for people to know their AIDS status and be honest about it; I wish we could do the same thing with relationship preferences.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to have only one partner, there is also nothing wrong with wanting to have many partners. Both approaches to relationships have their pros and cons.

Either way, debate about polygamy vs. monogamy in this case-scenario is completely irrelevant. Someone was hacked, privacy was violated (it doesn't matter what privacy) and that is the end of that. There's no reason to attach another argument to the discussion because the hack was an outright violation in the first place.

Is it that simple? Would the outright violation of a hack be the end of the story if we were talking about something that we all agree is wrong and/or illegal? What if it was a hack on a website that connected child pornographers, or cocaine dealers, or human traffickers, or arms dealers, or planet-destroyers, or abortionists, or super-rich exploitative CEOs?

EDIT: That list started off in my head as stuff that I thought there might be agreement on, but I couldn't think of anything beyond child pornographers, so it turned into stuff that significant groups feel very strongly about but on which there is no general agreement. Hopefully both sets of stuff make my point.

Yes. The legal system is responsible for bringing criminals to justice. The system maybe imperfect but its better than vigilantes with a deeply held, righteous cause who honestly believe their targets to be evil. Fanatics of all stripes see themselves in that light and that kind of thinking is extremely dangerous. In truth, it should only be used in the event a blood revolution is the only option available to the citizenry.

In the context of a private company, yes, its never acceptable.

But don't stolen credit cards get traded online? Or other impersonation / "identity theft" information? Maybe a marketplace for one of those would be a good example.

.

The trick is probably making sure that "something that we all agree is wrong" matches with things that actually harm people who didn't freely agree to it. Things like murder, coercion, kidnapping, breach of contract, ...

Whatever you do, someone will find it offensive or harmful to them, for some definition of "harmful" -- even the way you dress, or the music you listen to, or the books you read, or who you have sex with. This isn't a good enough reason to humiliate you in public.

I'd say you cannot compare infidelity with things like murder, extortion, or someone in public office engaging in corruption or grossly misleading the public. Those things do need exposing.

In any case, not every breach of contract must be made public for all to see and humiliate you.

Where does that end? "He has an STD"? "He is unfaithful"? "He cheats at poker"? "He is a bad father"? "If I'd known that, I wouldn't have had sex, therefore it wasn't consensual".

(edited for grammar)

I never said it was. I said that under some definitions that people use it is. Especially when it involves disclosing use of birth control (all cases I know of involve men lying, as that increases the biological risk of the woman, while the woman lying doesn't make the man more likely to get pregnant) and when it involves lying about having STDs.

I'm not saying which definition is right, only pointing out that some people (and I believe some legal systems) do use such definitions (and as such this influences other moral decisions they make).

"Disclosing use of birth control" All the cases you know of involve "men lying"? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that. I just don't see 'putting or pretending to put on a condom and then sneaking it off unknowingly before intercourse' as being a common concern in sex/pregnancy. If I understand you correctly?

However, in which country is this considered rape? It's consensual sex between people of legal age, only that one of them is a lying, amoral bastard, and the act can lead to serious long-term consequences like an unwanted pregnancy. But rape? Seriously?

Also, while lying about safe sex is certainly a despicable and immoral act, it's still a private matter between two people. I don't see that it's morally right for a group of strangers to arbitrarily decide to publicly expose and shame unfaithful people, particularly since, in the context of this discussion, they cannot even know if anyone is lying about any vasectomies -- it's entirely possible the cheaters practice perfectly safe sex -- or has actually committed any act of infidelity!

Why is it automatically a private matter? Perhaps you think it should be a private matter, but someone else may think it shouldn't be, and thus the morality of something like cheating may be to them much worse than it is to you, thus morally justifying more extreme actions to be taken to expose cheating.

Also to note, something does not need to be legally considered a given crime for a person to morally consider it such. You may think them wrong, but their view is still consistent given their underlying values that you disagree with.

That a person may view this hack differently than you may not be the result of a different view on the morals of hacking or the right to privacy, but on something more nuanced like a difference in distinction between what counts as consent.

> Perhaps you think it should be a private matter, but someone else may think it shouldn't be, and thus the morality of something like cheating may be to them much worse than it is to you, thus morally justifying more extreme actions to be taken to expose cheating.

Sorry, I find this position totally unacceptable. Yes, we were always talking about people's moral opinions, which are subjective by definition, and everyone has one. People who are morally outraged about what other consenting adults do with their private lives are despicable (way more despicable to me than cheaters that keep their opinions to themselves) and they have no right to harm other people because of their own morals. Exactly how some religious fundamentalists have no right to publicly shame gay people, or some other religious people think it's their right to stone adulterous women to death.

This argument that some people care so deeply about what strangers do with their private lives that they are entitled to take "extreme actions" just doesn't fly.

PS: in which country is lying about a vasectomy exactly the same as rape then?

Exposing people to STDs is a problem which can also happen regardless of infidelity. Besides, are you saying if you practice safe sex while cheating then it's morally ok? Is it simply an issue of safe sex?

There are countries where having sex under false pretext is considered rape. For instance: saying that you are going to use a condom then removing it without the knowledge of your partner would be rape. One could argue that being in a marriage with the promise of monogamy, but failing to keep that promise, would mean that all instances of sex with your partner are then rape.

I repeat: I don't agree with this and I think that it belittles people that have actually experienced the horrors of forced rape. Perhaps there should be things protecting the victims of this situation, but calling it rape waters down the word and act. "Sexual Intercourse under False Pretenses" should have it's own set of laws and punishments around it if it should be punished, IMHO.

Having said that,

> For instance: saying that you are going to use a condom then removing it without the knowledge of your partner would be rape.

In which country is that rape? I think pretending to use a condom and secretly removing it is morally deplorable, and the mark of a terrible person, but it's insulting to actual rape victims to consider it rape.

> One could argue that being in a marriage with the promise of monogamy, but failing to keep that promise, would mean that all instances of sex with your partner are then rape

I can't think of any universe where this makes sense. It's an act of dishonesty, and a pretty serious one depending on your upbringing and personal convictions, but rape? Sorry, that sounds seriously fucked up to me. I wouldn't want to live in a place where being unfaithful is equated to being a rapist.

Exactly. And I'm not saying that is right or wrong. That is why I said 'possibly', because it depends upon if you agree with such a definition or not and if the legal jurisdiction you live in operates with such a definition or not.

If there are such countries, I wouldn't want to live there.

PS: if we're talking about countries where adulterous women can be stoned to death, I think we can all agree that is horrible and the public shaming of Ashley Madison customers completely pales next to the crime against humanity that is mutilating or murdering people for being unfaithful or gay. I'd consider those countries completely beyond the scope of this discussion.

The hell they don't. Talk to someone who was not only abused, but knows that there are unwilling photos of their abuse circulating online for sadists to jerk off over. Psychological trauma is a real thing.

I'm talking about greater goods than privacy and order, goods that make privacy and order good.

And I'm not just talking about things that one group or another really thinks should be illegal. I'm also talking about things that we've decided to tolerate as legal, but which we think are wrong -- maybe even grossly wrong -- and therefore (strongly) disapprove of and want to (strongly) discourage. I don't think things are so simple in those cases, either.

That's not much of a choice though. In several places you can go to jail for it. Or it is choice in the same way that being a criminal is a choice.

If we really had complete sexual freedom and didn't impose legal restrictions on it to protect human emotion then rape would be nothing worse than other kinds of physical force, even for children. Maybe that's how an even more advanced would see it?

When that culture normalizes things like throwing acid at rape victims and violent mass retribution for violation of religious laws, well, yes, I can and will label that culture as being backwards and primitive.

Just like homosexuality "was not a choice" a mere few years ago: yet people did choose to be open about their homosexuality and did choose to fight for their rights as homosexuals. Look where we are today: the American courts now lawfully recognize that choice in marriage.

> archaic religious beliefs

So far as advanced societies go, believing in higher power(s) is a choice. It is certainly not archaic to those who choose to do so and in the somewhat broken world today, possibly more relevant to them than ever. I've never understood why those who are discriminated against have discriminated beliefs. It's not right when their force-feed their beliefs down people's throats, but that doesn't make it right to force-feed Atheism/Agnosticism down theirs.

Is it? That must be the reason why all recent U.S. Presidents were all fervent atheists...

Is it a choice in a society where swearing on a religious tome is still considered a rational way to induce people to tell the truth in court? I know that's just theater (otherwise perjury would not be a felony). Still, I think it's a telling detail of how far you would go without believing in something in contemporary American society.

The "wrong place" isn't HN, rather: it's text. A lot of nuance is lost in text and this is an incredibly nuanced subject. We'd most likely end up having a fierce fight 50 comments deep, where in person we'd probably land up agreeing on most things after 2 minutes.

You may not be aware that the NT says that people shouldn't take an oath instead let your "yes be yes"; ie just tell it straight, be honourable. It's never come up but I'd be unwilling to swear on the Bible in court as it's against my faith as a Christian.

I do not agree though that text isn't the right form. We will probably never talk to each other in person, but we had a text-mediated prolific and mature discussion that, in the end, enriched both of us.

Thanks.

You're not immune to this kind of scandal unless you're in a sexual relationship with somebody and you have no expectation to be made aware of their other sexual activities, in which case you're not in a healthy relationship.

I doubt Bertrand Russel would be very fascinated by polyamory - it's just another concept that works great in theory but becomes endlessly complicated in reality.

"The psychology of adultery has been falsified by conventional morals, which assume, in monogamous countries, that attraction to one person cannot coexist with a serious affection for another. Everybody knows that this is untrue."

"There can be no doubt that to close one's mind on marriage against all the approaches of love from elswhere is to diminish receptivity and sympathy and the opportunities of valuable human contact. It is to do violence to something which, from the most idealistic standpoint, is in itself desirable." [...] "but I do not recognize in easy divorce a solution of the trouble of marriage[...] but where there are children the stability of marriage is to my mind a matter of considerable importance.

[...]

I think that, where a marriage is fruitful and both parties to it are reasonable and decent, the expectation ought to be that it will be lifelong, but not that it will exclude other sex relations.

A marriage that begins with passionate love and leads to children who are desired and loved ought to produce to deep a tie between a man and a woman that they will feel something infinetly precious in their companionship, even after sexual passion has decayed, and even if either or both feels sexual passion for someone else. This mellowing of marriage has been prevented by jealousy, but jealousy, though it is an instinctive emotion, is one that can be controlled if it is recognised as bad."

Bertrand Russel, Marriage and Morals

This seems to be a common view of the left on HN. The biggest example being the most common defense of privacy I see: "Gays need privacy because many live in countries where they will be killed if found out". So in other words, once the entire world is accepting of gays, there will no longer be a justification for the existence of privacy.

This is the wrong way to be looking at this issue. Regardless of what the users of this site did, it does not excuse the behavior of other parties. It doesn't excuse Ashley Madison's failure to protect user data. It doesn't excuse the hackers theft of that data. It doesn't excuse the disclosure of that data by the hackers or people on Twitter.

Lamenting people's hangups about infidelity is the wrong response to this situation.

Mine was a very specific assertion related to the king of leak we're witnessing: what's making this data so relevant and prone to gossip is the way we give for granted the monogamous nature of our relationship and how we deal with a moral set of dogmas that society inculcates on us "because God says so".

Who doesn't live by these archaic impositions and accepts more open forms of relationship has a strong advantage because his pursuit of perfectly natural sexual desires doesn't need to be hidden and is not considered (especially by the partner) as an immoral and punishable thing.

Don't pretend that monogamy is purely socially constructed. There is absolutely nothing wrong with consensual open relationships, and we'd all be better off if the taboo against them went away, but there is definitely something wrong with making a promise to someone you love about something that matters to them and then breaking it behind their back.