How to Navigate a Polyamorous Partner's Bad Behavior
Ask a Stoic Takes on Age Gaps And Moral Decision Making
Ask a Stoic:
“Margaret” Asks:
I’m in a polyamorous relationship with “Jeff” a thirty-seven-year-old man who recently made a bad decision: He cuddled/engaged in some borderline sexual fondling with a 19-year-old woman who was previously sexually abused. He had no prior romantic or sexual interactions with her before last week.
The woman initially invited the cuddling but felt things went too far, and Jeff wasn’t quick enough to disengage when she asked him to. Jeff admits that he erred, but only because the outcome was poor. He insists his intent was good. He wanted to prove to the woman that not all men are abusive assholes. That’s the important thing, he insists. He wishes things turned out differently, but doesn’t think he did anything wrong. This makes me question Jeff’s morality, but I’m not sure how to explore this with him in a helpful way
How would a Stoic approach this?
Andrew’s Answer:
A question for you and Jeff: Do the ends justify the means?
The answers you give will determine the course of your conversation.
Stoics take issue with the “you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs,” approach to moral reasoning. This view boils down to believing outcomes are what matter: everything leading to the outcome is justified if the results are good.
Let’s explore that.
Three Moral Questions:
Is it right for Robin Hood to rob the nobility and redistribute their money to Sherwood’s poor?
Is it right for a politician to rig an election so he can right a great moral wrong in office?
Is it right to murder one healthy man so his organs can be used to save the lives of five dying ones?
Stoics think these are the wrong questions. The suggested “good” results may never materialize. Outcomes are morally neutral because they’re outside our control and uncertain, but thoughts, words, and deeds have moral weight because we control them.
For a Stoic, the better questions are:
Is it right for Robin Hood to rob the nobility
and redistribute their money to Sherwood’s poor?Is it right for a politician to rig an election
so he can right a great moral wrong in office?Is it right to murder one healthy man
so his organs can be used to save the lives of five others?
Jeff’s insistence that the only problem with his encounter was its failure to achieve his desired outcome suggests he might not agree with the Stoic view, which is useful for you to know. You should ask him to clarify.
For the purpose of your discussion, it might be helpful to think about two framings.
Is it right for Jeff to cuddle/fondle a sexually-abused 19-year-old to prove to her that not all men are abusive assholes?
Jeff just found that intentions don’t equal outcomes. Only the woman will decide what opinions she holds about men. So what are we left with?
Is it right for Jeff to cuddle/fondle a sexually-abused 19-year-old?
Only Jeff can determine the answer to this question. How should he figure that out?
Reasoning Through Virtue:
“Just that you do the right thing. The rest doesn’t matter.”
— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 6.2
Stoicism’s virtue ethics are appealing because they don’t require belief in the objective moral truths Kant and other philosophers suggest we discover and live by.
Life is messy, and Stoics use virtue to reason out what they should do in particular circumstances. Ethical decision-making, then, is the circumstantial application of virtue.
To keep things simple, I’m going to define virtue as “excellence.”
Stoics think virtue consists of four parts:
Wisdom: Casting aside prejudice and bias to see ourselves, the world, and all its people with clear eyes. Knowledge of what should be done.
Justice: Harmonizing our actions with the common good and treating others with respect and fairness. Knowledge of what is fair.
Courage: Doing the right thing in the face of external pressure. Knowledge of what should be endured.
Moderation: Exercising self-restraint against excess. Knowledge of what is choiceworthy.
We’ll all have differing ideas about what virtue demands in a situation, but it’s a framework we can apply to anything: “What is the virtuous thing to do here?”
It’s not about prudishness. It’s not about being a good little boy or girl. It’s about living up to the values we hold.
So in every situation, we ask, what is the wise, just, courageous, and moderate thing to do? Stoics think some things are “indifferent” to virtue, but most of our choices aren’t.
Don’t rely on emotional reasoning. Don’t rely on truisms; you’re both polyamorous and might not agree with traditional relationship values anyway. I suggest you talk through Jeff’s intentions and actions, piece by piece, and discuss how they live up to the standards of virtue you both hold.
Inviting him to discuss this with you nonjudgmentally will likely bring both of you clarity.
Questions to Get You Started:
Is it virtuous for a 37-year-old man to cuddle/fondle a 19-year-old? Consider experience vs inexperience and the role of having fully developed cognition after roughly age 25.
Is it virtuous to cuddle/fondle a woman who’s been sexually abused after only knowing them a few days? How much time would be reasonable? How should the woman’s unique past affect Jeff’s approach? If trauma is present, how does that enter the mix?
To what extent should willingness/interest on the part of the woman be counterbalanced by Jeff’s knowledge of appropriate action/virtue? Is the 19-year-old’s willingness good enough, or should Jeff hold himself to another standard? If so, what should inform that standard?
Did Jeff cuddle/fondle the woman altruistically, as suggested by his stated desired outcome, or was desire spurring him on? If so, what’s the interplay between desire and altruistic intent?
To what extent should an “exit strategy,” play into the decision-making process? Do the woman’s age and history obligate Jeff to change his expectations for the relationship beyond what’s normal in polyamory? What would Jeff do if the woman became emotionally attached to him? What, if anything, would he owe to the woman after an intimate encounter?
Jeff has to reason these questions out for himself, but you’re in a relationship with him, and you get to decide if his reasoning/values align with what you want in a partner.
If nothing else it should be a clarifying conversation.
Good luck!