I think the problem with cheating is the cheating part. You and your husband made an agreement, presumably in good faith, that you would not do the very thing he did. I doubt if at the time he stipulated that he might have "merely sex," but would abstain from sex + love. So...he violated your agreement, and this gives you a reason to regard him as in the wrong. Period. As to whether his violation is forgivable, I suppose it is. But that is entirely up to you--not up to him. He doesn't get to tell you that he deserves forgiveness--that adds presumption as an additional violation to the one he already committed. So the issue of forgiveness is yours to decide. He may ask for it; he may beg for it. But it is your decision entirely. I can see how loving the other woman might have added to the offense (though I don't see how the addition would convert a "forgivable" offense into one that is unforgivable--because even had he loved her, you might reasonably determine that it was...

Nothing is easy in this subject! I think most people find the promises inherent to monogamy to be moral ones--though some philosophers have questioned whether promising to another exclusive access to one's own body is one that actually can be morally made. The tricky part lies in finding (and then explaining the morality of) the correct position between extremes that do not look correct to most people. At one extreme, most of us do not think that even an uncoerced agreement to become another's personal possession (as a slave, for example) is acceptable. At the other extreme, we do think that refusing to agree to take part in a sexually exclusive relationship with another--monogamy, in other words--on the grounds that no one has a right to expect such exclusivity from us, is also inappropriate. So the general question goes something like this: How much limitation of personal autonomy are we morally prepared to sanction by the agent's own willing forfeit of that autonomy to another's exclusive...

The idea of a "soul mate" probably has its origins in the speech Plato gives to Aristophanes in the Symposium , where originally human beings were combined, but then later separated by Zeus. This is a mythical explanation of how we look for our "other half." My huncch is that much of what counts for someone as an indication of being a "soul mate" will have to do with shared interests and other common points of view, and given how culture-bound much of this sort of thing is, it seems unlikely that a search of the whole world would be very helpful. This is not to say that two people of different cultures cannot fall in love and have strong and lasting relationships (my own marriage of of this sort, in fact). But I think the idea that two people will be just perfect for one another, before they even meet, so that if they do meet, they can recognize this perfection forever after, is certainly a myth. It may be that most people "settle for what is within their reach," as you put it, but this does...

Well, might as well go on to complicate things further. I agree with Alan Soble that an adequate answer to such questions must begin with clear understandings of the relevant terms, and I do not intend to supply anything that complete here. But I will say that I disagree with both of Louise Anthony's answers. I would answer "yes" and "yes" (and, as Soble rightly insists, I'll try to explain my answers at least as I might to a class). First, although I think there are probably many different instantiations of what we might reasonably call "romantic love," I am also inclined to think that these--like instantiations of "human being" might be flawed in certain ways. A flawed human being (morally, physically, aesthetically, or medically) is still a human being. But if one asks, do human beings have two legs, I think the right answer is still "yes" even if not all actual human beings happen to have two legs. That is because when a human being does not have two legs, we do not think of their...

Depends upon what you mean by "love." It is hard to see how one could romantically love someone they didn't know. But if by "love" you mean something like "respect for the lives and interests of another," it seems to me one can do this for perfect strangers. Indeed, it seems to me that good people will habitually have this to offer to everyone they meet (and also to those they never meet).

I guess I want to begin by saying that I deny your premise. I think we actually have very little reason for thinking that our forefathers were more loving, or meant more when they said "I love you" than we do. It may be true that marriages did not as often end in divorce as they do now, but I strongly suspect that the explanations of this fact have very little to do with our ancestors being more loving, or more stable in their loves. In many ways, actually, I am inclined to think that the relevant sorts of relationships in most cultures of earlier times were more exploitative, more limiting, more unequal, and less about "love" (in any form I would be willing to recognize) than relationships are now, at least where women's rights are recognized (if not, alas, always respected). As for your second question, the answer will depend upon what you mean by "love." Certainly most people who love their spouses also love their children, parents, and close friends. But you would no doubt object that...

Not quite sure I get this one: If the relationships you have in mind are not one-sided, then neither description you have provided is entirely accurate...right? So it is difficult to pin down here exactly what you are asking. Is the "someone you love" someone who also loves you back--but does not seem to love you as much as the "someone who love you a lot"? And on the basis of exactly what do you determine that one loves you less, and one loves you more? As much as I might wish to urge you most of all to choose to love--to love as much and as completely as you can--on the ground that loving grounds greatness in one's life far more than does being loved, I am also inclined to a degree of caution here. Loving another who is incapable of loving in return will not bring greatness to one's life; it will bring only misery. Loving another who merely "likes" one in return is barely better. Your specific circumstances in life are also significant--is the love you are talking about also connected...

I assume Alan Soble's response is at least partly tongue-in-cheek: Anyone who calls Aristotle a "pinhead" is surely either joking or provides a decisive example of that disability. I rather suspect that most of us who have actually managed (at least sometimes!) to have loved and been loved in return would prefer this condition to the alternatives. A good life may be possible without love, but anyone who says that it is not important is surely a pinhead!

Your question seems to presuppose that love is the only reason to be in a marriage. It may be the main reason that one gets married, but I think that the kind of companionship and interconnection that married couples can generate, as a result of living together and sharing lives for so long, can become very important (not to mention the family relations that entangle, as well--for example, with children and in-laws). Perhaps what I am trying to say might be put another way: I think that "love" comes in many "flavors," and it is certainly conceivable that the "flavor" that led a couple to get married might fade completely, while being replaced by one or more other "flavors" that serve equally well to preserve the relationship in a valuable way. If a couple finds that there comes to be no love of any kind--or worse--then I can certainly see why it would make good sense for them to divorce. Given the social and economic realities of our world, other considerations apply here, as...