Preaching Family Values while Paying for Ashley Madison

Today Kara Vallow ‏@teenagesleuth tweeted: Can someone please hack Grindr so we can get rid of the Family Research Council once and for all?

And I think the ancient Stoic ethicists were expressing a similar idea here:

Never call yourself a philosopher, nor talk a great deal among the unlearned about theorems, but act conformably to them. Thus, at an entertainment, don't talk how persons ought to eat, but eat as you ought. For remember that in this manner Socrates also universally avoided all ostentation. And when persons came to him and desired to be recommended by him to philosophers, he took and- recommended them, so well did he bear being overlooked. So that if ever any talk should happen among the unlearned concerning philosophic theorems, be you, for the most part, silent.

For there is great danger in immediately throwing out what you have not digested. And, if anyone tells you that you know nothing, and you are not nettled at it, then you may be sure that you have begun your business. For sheep don't throw up the grass to show the shepherds how much they have eaten; but, inwardly digesting their food, they outwardly produce wool and milk. Thus, therefore, do you likewise not show theorems to the unlearned, but the actions produced by them after they have been digested.

It is rather astounding that people (like faculty at Liberty University or Christian vloggers recently in the news) would preach ‘family values’ while trying to secretly cheat on a spouse. These Christian vloggers have video after video on what to do to have a life like theirs. As common as cheating might be, it seems unusually audacious to give advice to others while you are paying for an Ashley Madison account.

But I am wondering if the (by now) predictable scandal of a person who insists on telling others how to live having a dark secret tells us something about the very nature of those who position themselves as authorities on life.

I'd have to make one quick distinction: we all give (and need) advice from our friends and loved ones. So by "general advice-givers" I mean those who position themselves as having advice for us all.

But my goal is to make this larger distinction: ethical recommendations are not the same as advice.There is general life-advice that is prudential in nature (have a date night like we do!) and then there is ethics. I want us to keep recommending ethics, even if general life-advice can be a bit suspect.

Of course prudential advice can include ethical advice, which makes this issue rather confusing. But let me try to explain what worries me: it's the assumptions general advice-givers must make. If we think about these assumptions they might give us pause, even before we decide there is any hypocrisy going on.

One of them? General prudential advice comes from someone who assumes they have the relevant experience. Advice-givers often assume wrong. It’s become a joke, because it’s so common: people without children are very judgmental about how to raise children.

Another? General prudential advice depends on the expectation that we want to be just like the advice-giver. Maybe in the right context, a very fit person knows everyone she is addressing is interested in her same goals. But advice-giving, when more general (for example if it comes to marriage) depends on us wanting a marriage like the advice-giver has. This would encourage the invested advice-givers to fudge their public image.

And third, prudential advice can sure seem to be emphasized more by people who have trouble following it themselves. This might seem fine, but if some behavior is very difficult to resist (say, not “acting out” on interest in the same sex), do we not over-emphasize the significance of this behavior?

People who need to make whatever rule a very big deal in order to motivate themselves might be the ones so invested in doling out prudential advice. This would seem to fit with theories of motivation in behavioral science.

And finally is it possible that advice-giving can be little more than disguised self-compliment?. Can it be a way to emphasize to yourself that you’ve done well (by, for example, sacrificing in some sense when you breastfeed-- no one is passionate about child care that is more routine)? If this is so, if you need even more acknowledgement than your achievement brings, are you so successful after all?

Ethical Claims

When it comes to ethics, it should not matter who is giving the advice. Ethics can be thought of as a matter of simple claims that we then have to adjust to our own circumstances and test out, by trying to live the claims and by fitting the claims with everything else we consider good.

When it comes to ethics, an ethical claim about Ashley Madison would be, very simply: it is wrong to actively seek out opportunities to cheat (while hiding this from a spouse). It is lying, it hides opportunities from your partner, puts a partner at various types of risk, and is not treating your partner fairly.

Ethics and Morality Essential Reads

Do People Everywhere Cheat?

Maybe We Need to Say Less About Ethics

There isn’t much exciting, I guess, in an ethical claim. But in contrast to prudential advice, ethical recommendations have certain safeguards in place. For example, ethical claims apply to all of us, no exceptions for the advice-giver. They do not depend on a troubled person’s emphasis or on the idea that any of us is really an expert on all of our lives.