solve this: find a distinction

[ruminator]

There is a situation where I have a gut feeling that it is morally wrong, but I cannot explain why it is wrong. It basically feels like a person is using another person/taking advantage of them.

But I cannot explain the difference between using someone, and changing your mind about someone.

Situation:

Bob and Nancy broke up and stopped talking. Nancy started to move on, Bob got upset/depressed and tried to win her back convincing her he changed etc. Nancy believed him. After Nancy fell in love with Bob again, he felt satisfied. Now, he has her in his pocket, and can still enjoy the single life (best of both worlds). He got what he wanted and doesn't need her anymore. So, he stops talking to her.

Why is this wrong?

We generally agree that it is okay and natural to change your mind about things, feelings change. It is natural to want what you cannot have.

But then where do we draw the line between changing your mind and using someone? Are they the same thing?

Basically, why does it feel wrong to use Nancy like this if people are technically allowed to change their minds?

 

[PaulMaster]

Its an ego thing. It wants to compete, win. Probably linked to social hierarchy instincts. Dishonesty.

vs

Genuine attraction. Honesty.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

I don't understand situation 2
Do you mean bob(lol) manages to convince Nancy to get back together...but then realises he was only driven by something like jealousy or maybe yhe sheer conveniency of familiarity to get her back, and so comes to the conclusion that, putting that stuff aside, they don't work for each other after all?
How is this any different from the first situation...i dont get it

 

[ruminator]

I don't understand situation 2
Do you mean bob(lol) manages to convince Nancy to get back together...but then realises he was only driven by something like jealousy or maybe yhe sheer conveniency of familiarity to get her back, and so comes to the conclusion that, putting that stuff aside, they don't work for each other after all?
How is this any different from the first situation...i dont get it

Think of situation 2 as an overarching category of "changing your mind about something". There can be many different ways of changing your mind, and they all can be dumped in situation 2. So either

1 is a subset of 2
1 is independent of 2
1 is equal to 2
2 is a subset of 1

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

I don't know i still feel like the same intentions motived both scenarios. ..a combination of jealousy and nostalgia, but in different proportions maybe. i guess the first one was more motivated by jealousy that arises due to his fading impact on her present life, and the second was more motivated by hesitance to put an end to the intimacy he spent time and effort to sustain

 

[ruminator]

I don't know i still feel like the same intentions motived both scenarios. ..a combination of jealousy and nostalgia, but in different proportions maybe. i guess the first one was more motivated by jealousy that arises due to his fading impact on her present life, and the second was more motivated by hesitance to put an end to the intimacy he spent time and effort to sustain

Okay I changed my OP to make it simpler. Basically,

1) do you think what Bob did is okay or wrong?

2) if you think it is wrong, are you saying people are never allowed to change their minds?

3) if you think people are allowed to change their minds in some situations, then what makes Bob's situation wrong, where other situations of changing your mind is okay? When is it okay to change your mind and when is it wrong ..

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

The way you word it "has in pocket" makes it seem like Bob is the manipulative person.

What caused them to break up in the first place? Maybe in the first situation Nancy had Bob in her pocket and felt satisfied and left him alone, then he won her over and did the same thing.

So assuming this happened there are 2 ethical denominations of moral judgments I see.

First, they were both equally wrong and caused each other the same harm.

Second, Bob is slightly more destructive, since he should have taken the first situation into consideration and should have avoided the mistake that he got to be on the receiving end of once. So Bob was acting with larger premeditation since he knew how it was to be in such a situation, therefore, slightly more wrong than Nancy doing it first to him. Empathy is viewed as ethically valuable in one's morality, premeditation is viewed as ethically negative in one's morality. He ignores his empathy and acts with premeditation, therefore at least one whole point we know of below Nancy (assuming we can assign points ).

However this is not the end. Now we've basically entered a primitive karmic circle. Will Nancy harm him again in the future? If so, he becomes the morally superior person. Whoever ends the circle of hatred gets to become the morally superior person.

 

[ruminator]

The way you word it "has in pocket" makes it seem like Bob is the manipulative person.

What caused them to break up in the first place? Maybe in the first situation Nancy had Bob in her pocket and felt satisfied and left him alone, then he won her over and did the same thing.

So assuming this happened there are 2 ethical denominations of moral judgments I see.

First, they were both equally wrong and caused each other the same harm.

Second, Bob is slightly more destructive, since he should have taken the first situation into consideration and should have avoided the mistake that he got to experience once. So Bob was acting with larger premeditation since he knew how it was to be in such a situation, therefore, slightly more wrong than Nancy doing it first to him. Empathy is viewed as ethically valuable in one's morality, premeditation is viewed as ethically negative in one's morality. He ignores his empathy and acts with premeditation, therefore at least one whole point we know of below Nancy (assuming we can assign points ).

I think your response is based on the assumption that Nancy did the same thing to Bob. Let's say that is not the case. Let's say the breakup was mutual...think of something neutral, like distance or something.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Was getting her back only to ditch her later on wrong? Idk. It seems to me he wanted to confirm whether his lingering feelings are genuine or that he only misses the attention and love he got from her.
The process of rationalising and making sense of these feelings is difficult and long winded, and he probably felt like his eminence on her present life is probably fading the more time passes post-separation. so he resorted to acting the way he did(reviving their relationship)

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I think your response is based on the assumption that Nancy did the same thing to Bob. Let's say that is not the case. Let's say the breakup was mutual...think of something neutral, like distance or something.

Most perceptive, yes it's based on that assumption, I have said it myself in my previous post.

If the first interaction was sum 0 and the second interaction was Bob's initiative to harm Nancy, then he's acting wrong.

If the first interaction was sum 0 and in the second try Bob and Nancy break up due to equally neutral circumstances as in interaction 1, then the sum remains 0 and both aren't in the wrong, or both are in the wrong depending on the background one prefers to set.

So the end result of all possible scenarios is:
Bob's moral compass is equal or below 0.

In many moral systems acting symmetrically or reciprocally while knowingly not improving one's moral score is already wrong, so based on many systems of morality it can be said Bob is doing the wrong thing by not being a better person than he already is, or by not trying to act in a better way than Nancy did.

 

[ruminator]

Most perceptive, yes it's based on that assumption, I have said it myself in my previous post.

If the first interaction was sum 0 and the second interaction was Bob's initiative to harm Nancy, then he's acting wrong.

If the first interaction was sum 0 and in the second try Bob and Nancy break up due to equally neutral circumstances as in interaction 1, then the sum remains 0 and both aren't in the wrong, or both are in the wrong depending on the background one prefers to set.

So the end result of all possible scenarios is:
Bob's moral compass is equal or below 0.

In many moral systems acting symmetrically or reciprocally while knowingly not improving one's moral score is already wrong, so based on many systems of morality it can be said Bob is doing the wrong thing by not being a better person than he already is, or by not trying to act in a better way than Nancy did.

So I guess that's what I'm trying to figure out. The first interaction was sum 0, and the second interaction was Bob either losing points, or staying at 0. Doesn't that depend on whether what Bob did should be considered immoral? (if immoral, he loses points and drops to negative, and if not immoral he stays at 0)?

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly, but I'm still stuck at the initial question of whether Bob's specific actions here are wrong in the first place, rather than on the more advanced question of whether Bob is a moral or immoral person overall.

 

[ruminator]

Was getting her back only to ditch her later on wrong? Idk. It seems to me he wanted to confirm whether his lingering feelings are genuine or that he only misses the attention and love he got from her.
The process of rationalising and making sense of these feelings is difficult and long winded, and he probably felt like his eminence on her present life is probably fading the more time passes post-separation. so he resorted to acting the way he did(reviving their relationship)

So how would you judge his actions? negatively or positively ... messed up or perfectly fine ..

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

So I guess that's what I'm trying to figure out. The first interaction was sum 0, and the second interaction was Bob either losing points, or staying at 0. Doesn't that depend on whether what Bob did should be considered immoral? (if immoral, he loses points and drops to negative, and if not immoral he stays at 0)?

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly, but I'm still stuck at the initial question of whether Bob's specific actions here are wrong in the first place, rather than on the more advanced question of whether Bob is a moral or immoral person overall.

Depends on the scoring system you want to choose. Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Epicureism, Stoicism, Plato's Cardinal Virtues, etc. would tell you that he was wrong. Hedonism, Secular Satanism, Nihilism, Determinism, game theory, Zen Buddhism etc. would tell you that he didn't do wrong or was on 0.

Overall theological, spiritual, egalitarian and communal systems would judge it as wrongdoing while the individualistic, agnostic, utilitarian or analytic systems wouldn't be confident in their judgment, would see it as 0, or could even view it as a positive outcome.

 

[ruminator]

Depends on the scoring system you want to choose. Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Epicureism, Stoicism, Plato's Cardinal Virtues, etc. would tell you that he was wrong. Hedonism, Secular Satanism, Nihilism, Determinism, game theory, Zen Buddhism etc. would tell you that he didn't do wrong or was on 0.

Overall theological, spiritual, egalitarian and communal systems would judge it as wrongdoing while the epistemological, agnostic, utilitarian or analytic systems wouldn't be confident in their judgment, would see it as 0, or could even view it as a positive outcome.

Could you briefly state the former group's reasoning for it being wrong, and the latter group's reasoning for it not being wrong? (briefly)

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

This is by no means comprehensive and all lines after a colon are connected by the inclusive disjunction and all 3 cases are connected by the exclusive disjunction.

He was wrong because:
He should aim to create a better world,
he should aim to become a better self,
he should consider his environment and how his actions affect the people around him
he should avoid conflicts or avoid increasing the suffering
he should foresee certain outcomes
he should adhere to certain ideals
What he did was detrimental to the community or environment or particular individuals around him and as an extension detrimental to himself

He was neutral because:
There is not enough data on this situation,
This situation can't be judged,
The environment is irrelevant and the situation can be simplified, past actions have no bearing on present
He has no agency and this outcome was inevitable
No outcome is any better than any other outcome
If there are no futures where he could lose by this wrongdoing then it didn't matter

He was acting acceptably:
Because he acted in accordance with his will,
He learnt/gained something and therefore increased his value or his potential benefit to the world or people that outweighs the loss of potential value presented to the world by Nancy
Everything is acceptable and there are no rules
Anything successful is a right thing in hindsight
Past and future don't matter, therefore acting in one's best interest now is the wisest
Maybe the objective harm caused by the first breakup was larger than the harm caused by the second

 

[Minuend]

I see a child and decide to run over it with my car.
I don't see the child until it's too late and I run over it.

We usually make a distinction between intended malice and accidental. I'm unsure what part of that wouldn't make sense.

What might make it difficult about the example you provided, is the complicatedness you often find in relationships like that. You don't know who is telling the truth, if any. They might not be honest with themselves either. Regardless, someone ended up hurt, so the result is the same. But usually you are more understanding of someone who didn't do it intentionally. Everyone makes mistakes, that's impossible to avoid. If someone made the mistake intentionally, he might be more prone to make it again or have attitudes that allow for it. If it was unintentionally by someone who is known for being a decent person, then there's less inclination to judge it as harsh as you know it probably wont happen again.

I don't really see things as immoral and moral. I rather see what different outcomes different actions has and make judgements based on what I subjectively value. If I see someone acting like a lil shit, then I'm not going to bestfriend him. But I'm not going to claim he is acting immoral. I don't see the need for that label.

Also, you need to get all these Bobs out of your life, they are only making a mess of it.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I don't really see things as immoral and moral. I rather see what different outcomes different actions has and make judgements based on what I subjectively value.

That's essentially what morality is.

 

[Yellow]

Bob's actions were deliberate, and Nancy is just an easy toy to use until something more entertaining comes along. There was no mind-changing.

 

[ruminator]

Minuend and Yellow,

You both seem to think that the distinction here is whether or not his actions were intentional. So, you think that when Bob asked for another chance, he intended all along to just play around, and was faking it the whole time. & Since it was intentional, that is why it was wrong.

But what if he was not faking it? What if at the time he asked, his feelings were real. He genuinely missed Nancy and wanted her back.

Only AFTER she fell for him again, did he realize he has the best of both worlds, get his ego boost, let it get to his head, and decide he doesn't need her anymore.

Does the intent have to exist at the time of the asking? Can the malicious intent develop later?

 

[PaulMaster]

Minuend and Yellow,

You both seem to think that the distinction here is whether or not his actions were intentional. So, you think that when Bob asked for another chance, he intended all along to just play around, and was faking it the whole time. & Since it was intentional, that is why it was wrong.

But what if he was not faking it? What if at the time he asked, his feelings were real. He genuinely missed Nancy and wanted her back.

Only AFTER she fell for him again, did he realize he has the best of both worlds, get his ego boost, let it get to his head, and decide he doesn't need her anymore.

Does the intent have to exist at the time of the asking? Can the malicious intent develop later?

Leaving someone because you dont need or want them is not malicious.

 

[Yellow]

Minuend and Yellow,

You both seem to think that the distinction here is whether or not his actions were intentional. So, you think that when Bob asked for another chance, he intended all along to just play around, and was faking it the whole time. & Since it was intentional, that is why it was wrong.

But what if he was not faking it? What if at the time he asked, his feelings were real. He genuinely missed Nancy and wanted her back.

Only AFTER she fell for him again, did he realize he has the best of both worlds, get his ego boost, let it get to his head, and decide he doesn't need her anymore.

Does the intent have to exist at the time of the asking? Can the malicious intent develop later?

Oh, I think it's very possible that he genuinely missed Nancy and wanted her back. Predators usually do get upset when they lose a viable victim. Especially when new ones are thin on the ground. What you've described over the last year or so adds up to a toxic relationship in which a predatory person is purposely keeping the victim's sense of self-worth at a minimum by making them feel inadequate and unworthy of the kind of love they seek.

Just the scenario above in isolation is enough to reveal this.

They broke up "mutually", but Nancy clearly needed him to change some behavior. So why didn't Nancy just leave when the relationship clearly didn't meet her needs? Did she need Bob to give her permission? Or did she tell Bob that her needs weren't being met, and Bob chose his behaviors over her companionship? If he isn't willing to try, when she's standing in front of him, then he's not going to change his mind about his behavior in her absence. More like, he wants both, and really doesn't give a damn about Nancy's wellbeing. If he did, he'd simply accept that he made his choice, and that she wasn't happy with him.

Nancy, likewise, is clearly willing to tolerate his behavior, and is willing to hurt in order to be with him. Why else would she be willing to soothe his "suffering" when he made his lack of concern for her abundantly clear?

Nancy either never learned, or has forgotten that relationships don't have to be this way. Healthy, well-balanced relationships (even for those into power-exchange relationships, as Nancy might be) are absolutely possible. Nancy is a person worthy of dignity and respect just like every other person. She is needs to know that she capable of facing the wide world alone until someone worthwhile comes along.

Also, don't let anyone tell Nancy that she has to be "logical" about this, or that having hurt feelings makes her some "crazy woman". It's such an overdone cliche that men will dismiss perfectly reasonable feelings as unimportant because they are "feelings". It's just another manipulation to make you feel like you absolutely must accept their rationalization to save face and appear "rational". Don't let Nancy fall for that gaslighting bullshit, and under no circumstances should you let Nancy internalize it, saving him the trouble. Men are allowed to display emotions without being told they're crazy, so are women. Fuck Bob and/or anyone who started Bob's work for him.

 

[Minuend]

That's essentially what morality is.

Some people use the term moral and immoral like a guiding principle. Instead of saying why killing is evil, they resort to "that's immoral". They become more preoccupied with the categories rather than what is. Some people ask whether something is immoral or not, not considering what the different outcomes of each action is. They focus solely on what is defined as good or bad and thinks this is universal to any situation. That's more what I meant. I might use the terms wrong or right in some situations where it's easier to simplify/ conclude something down to that, rather than start all the way back at the very beginning of ones values. Though, I do tend to try avoid using those terms as well.

But what if he was not faking it? What if at the time he asked, his feelings were real. He genuinely missed Nancy and wanted her back.

Yes, what if? Does it matter? There's not much to do about it. Malicious or not, feelings were hurt and it would be time to move on and learn from it. Sometimes you're wronged and can't do anything about it. Sometimes the person who wronged you will be a bad influence in your life whether he did something intentional or accidental, so you're better off without him.

In Sally's situation she's better off staying away regardless of what he was feeling back then. He has proven himself unreliable and prone to hurt her feelings.

If Bob is feeling very guilty and bad about it, then that wont change what happened in the past. You can only try to learn from your mistakes and try avoid doing the same thing to another person in the future. And at some point, you must forgive yourself and realize everyone makes mistakes, and sometimes we end up hurting the people we are or used to be close with. At the same time, you should respect the person you hurt and leave her alone. Don't try to make the victim carry your guilt by trying to make her forgive you or talk to her hoping she will say something that will make you feel better.

Does the intent have to exist at the time of the asking? Can the malicious intent develop later?

You can't develop a malicious intention in a situation later, however you can think back and think that even if you didn't do it intentional back then, now you think it's good it happened as you don't like Sally anymore and want her to suffer for some reason.

 

[Hadoblado]

Screw morals, think in terms of your relationship to this person knowing this stuff.

Either it was intentional, or it wasn't.

If it was intentional, they are manipulative and heartless to the ones they claim to love. Why would you want to be around a person like that knowing that they may try to manipulate or exploit you?

If it was unintentional, they lack meta-cognition in this area, they are incompetent. If they feel that they need something to happen and ask for your trust, you can't take them at their word, because while they may believe it, their belief is no longer enough.

The difference is in the intentionality, but the result from a social standpoint is similar: you want to avoid this person. Since morality is largely based on exclusion of deviants, and both possibilities warrant exclusion, they are both effectively immoral, even if one of them is ethically far worse. Since in a real situation your comprehension is empirical, and you can't really tell whether it was intentional or not, there's no utility in determining motive. You don't have the information and you'll likely act the same anyway. Actual guilt is an irrelevant technicality in the social hivemind.

On top of which, 'kinda both' is far more likely than a singular conclusion. I doubt its common for people to set up a master plan to control and shame their ex. It's also unlikely that all these continuations of relationships that are set to fail are entirely without jealousy or control elements. In my mind, I kind of just assume that Bob genuinely missed her at the time, and was unable to parse the elements of pettiness from his feelings of want. Emotions are rarely clear cut, each emotional act is more like the outcome of an internal democracy than dictatorship. If jealousy and love and self-esteem and sadness are all yelling real loud to try and get back together, the actions will follow, but an observer will likely attribute the action to just one or two of these elements.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Screw morals, think in terms of your relationship to this person knowing this stuff.

Either it was intentional or it wasn't.

Agreed, if this has anything to do with something irl and you aren't sure what to think about it, considering abstract and alien systems of morality is the last thing you should be focusing on in terms of getting immediate results for the invested thoughts.

It's kind of silly to obfuscate the personal advice question (assuming it was) so much that it becomes a theoretical existential divagation. If it has anything to do with your life then the healthy order of pondering is to focus on its practical aspects, make some basic conclusions and then move on to broader areas of looking at things.

This order of operations is very important if you don't want to lag behind or face consequences of inaction or misdirection. The rest comes after you are safely back in your castle.

 

[ruminator]

Just to clarify, this isn't a personal advice thread. Yes, it is based off a situation in my life, but I already know what to do - go back to ignoring the guy.

The reason for this thread is just to help me make sense of things, not just this particular situation but extrapolating it to human behavior generally. It seems silly, but making sense of things really does make me feel a lot better internally.

Just one day of talking it through with like-minded people on this forum gave me much more peace than I have had all week.

So thanks guys this is really helping.

I'm gonna respond to specific posts after lunch!

 

[Reluctantly]

imo,

Bob doesn't really care about Nancy. He cared about himself, about how she made him feel. Once she made him feel good about himself, that's all he needed. He has no reason to care how he makes her feel or he wouldn't have stopped talking to her. If he just wasn't interested anymore, he could have still kept in contact and made things more interesting or given her some type of closure rather than stopping contact.

This is classic narcissism and it's really better for Nancy to stay away should he ever come back.

 

[charliepoo]

There is a situation where I have a gut feeling that it is morally wrong, but I cannot explain why it is wrong. It basically feels like a person is using another person/taking advantage of them.

But I cannot explain the difference between using someone, and changing your mind about someone.

Situation:

Bob and Nancy broke up and stopped talking. Nancy started to move on, Bob got upset/depressed and tried to win her back convincing her he changed etc. Nancy believed him. After Nancy fell in love with Bob again, he felt satisfied. Now, he has her in his pocket, and can still enjoy the single life (best of both worlds). He got what he wanted and doesn't need her anymore. So, he stops talking to her.

Why is this wrong?


We generally agree that it is okay and natural to change your mind about things, feelings change. It is natural to want what you cannot have.

But then where do we draw the line between changing your mind and using someone? Are they the same thing?

Basically, why does it feel wrong to use Nancy like this if people are technically allowed to change their minds?

it feels wrong because after bob convinced her to take him back, she viewed him as single again? it makes no sense. did they get back together?

it feels wrong because nancy hasn't learned that you are not supposed to listen to what people say. you have to watch what they say, and listen to what they do.

it feels bad and if nancy thinks it feels wrong then she is suffering from a sense of entitlement as if she is exempt from having to go through heart ache which is an experience everyone must go through. it is a part of the human condition.

nancy needs to focus on nancy. not bob. fuck bob. bob's experience in life is his and has nothing to do with nancy.

nancy is also forgetting to think in terms of the reality that she may live to be 80. and how much space is bob taking up in that time? squat. diddly squat.

nancy should just ignore bob and no longer acknowledge his existence as a human being until she has made some distance from the experience. the only one in charge of nancy's happy is nancy (not bob).

 

[ruminator]

Yellow,

First of all thank you for your kind words, it means a lot.

Regarding the situation, you said that predators also can genuinely miss their victims. This means it is theoretically possible for a predatory person to beg for the other person back without faking it or using intentional deceit.

You also said the situation above, in isolation, is enough to identify a predator.

But, if it is true that predators genuinely miss victims and are not faking it, then both, a predatory person and a good-hearted person are technically doing the same exact actions:

a) both are missing the other person/asking for them back without using deceit
b) both are backing out later

... so what differentiates the predator from joe-schmoe? if two people do those two steps, how can one identify who is being predatory and who is the good-hearted person who changed his mind?

To address the thing about Nancy, I was there for him just out of compassion. Even though he had hurt me before, it still, for some strange reason, broke my heart to see him hurt. I don't know how its possible to care about someone that hurt you.

 

[ruminator]

Minuend & Hadoblado,

Both of you had pointed out the intentionality aspect. Minuend, you said that you cannot develop malicious intent later. Hadoblado, you said that the key difference lies within whether it was intentional or ignorant.

I thought about this a lot, and came up with a theory .... let me know what you think:

There are more options than just intentional vs not intentional, because there are two stages in this process. Stage 1 is asking for the second chance, stage 2 is backing out.

Stage 1 could be intentional (faking it/using deceit), or not intentional (he really meant it when he asked, or at least thought he did).

Stage 2 is where it gets tricky.. obviously backing out is an intentional act, but I think it all lies within the reason for backing out. If they backed out because they honestly fell out of love, for example, that would be an honest "change of mind." But if they backed out because they felt like they could now enjoy having the best of both worlds, that would be a tactical power-play.

So, if you split it up into two stages, it is possible for a person to be "taking advantage/using" even though they had originally asked for another chance with good intentions.

 

[Yellow]

ut, if it is true that predators genuinely miss victims and are not faking it, then both, a predatory person and a good-hearted person are technically doing the same exact actions:

a) both are missing the other person/asking for them back without using deceit
b) both are backing out later

... so what differentiates the predator from joe-schmoe? if two people do those two steps, how can one identify who is being predatory and who is the good-hearted person who changed his mind?

I think you misunderstood part of my point. The words "I miss you" may be genuine, but they would be better interpreted as, "I miss using you" or "I feel lonely, and I've grown accustomed to your presence".

Any appearances of change, any new "insights", attitudes, and promises are also, in all probability, complete fabrication.

A good way to tell the difference between trying to change for a loved one, and pretending to change, is in the timing. If the person tries to change right away, and fails/tells you they can't do it, then it might well have been genuine.

Such a person would probably be open to a split too, without strings attached or emotional blackmail to manipulate you into fearing the split.

 

[Sly-fy]

While the initial sympathy I feel is for Nancy, due to having insufficient information on this matter to fully and fairly analyze it, I`d say that depending on the circumstances, Nancy might be the one to blame, if in the period between Bob pleading to her to come back to him and their second breakup, her drastic and fundamental change in behavior or physical appearance was what made Bob lose interest in her, and after repeat warnings by Bob to Nancy that their relationship wouldn`t work out if she still, never the less continued down that path anyway and if that was what led to the ultimate breakup which was fueled by Bob`s growing disinterest in Nancy through a fault of hers (and he had done his part in giving her fair warnings of what might happen if things didn`t improve in a clear and direct way,) then Bob`s not to blame.

Even if this scenario were to play out, it is still possible to argue that Bob should have still somehow "seen in coming," (the potential for Nancy to change) but his inability to foresee such an abrupt and extreme change that is entirely enacted by the other party at the enacting party`s own discretion is not his fault, no more than it is the fault of the whole family if one family member committed a crime, and therefore Nancy doesn`t have much of a case.

If however Nancy stayed the same and consistent throughout this scenario, then Bob is the one who`s at fault for changing his mind despite the circumstances staying the same, thus violating their verbal contract. And, in a decision that affects more people than just the individual, that individual should be fully aware of the potential of such an outcome before venturing into an agreement out of which such an undesirable outcome might arise, without sharing with the other party the thoughts of possibilities that his opinion might be subject to further, unwarranted change. If he had failed to outline such conditions and possibilities in the beginning, during the creation of the verbal contract, he should then own the consequences as the whole weight of the relationship`s failure falls on his shoulders.

Moreover, without some form of reparations to Nancy for her being subjected to suffer emotional distress and lost time, I would say that such a scenario would be unfair to Nancy. If this was a marriage, Nancy should get the house and the dog IMO, but unfortunately with just dating, there are no legal repercussions, so you live and learn (best not to marry a person like that anyway, trust me, I know.) I don`t however wish to recommend public naming and shaming on the internet, as such methods often get overused and misused by vindictive, burned people and that causes all kinds of further problems for all involved.

 

[The Gopher]

Bob's actions were deliberate, and Nancy is just an easy toy to use until something more entertaining comes along. There was no mind-changing.

That's a bold statement when we haven't examined the reliability of the witness. No not in a gas-lighting way, although to go on a side note, gas-lighting only works because half the time it's the perceived truth. Never the actual truth as unless someone is truly mentally ill however since all emotion is rational (not logical, the forum in general is logical not rational... ) without this exception it is only perceived truth from those who don't understand.

Where was I. Oh yes the language used in the OP is very "biased". Now it could be "biased" due to an accurate perception. The witness truly believes her bias is correct so at least we have a start.

The perceived facts are as follows.

Two people enter a relationship. Two people drift apart/relationship ends mutually on a neutral note. However there are not mutual reactions to this mutual neutral note. This is the point we realize we cannot proceed to a conclusion with intellectual honesty.

"1) do you think what Bob did is okay or wrong?"

I do not have the information to answer that

"2) if you think it is wrong, are you saying people are never allowed to change their minds?"

"No, standard morality is comprised of some level of consistency however due to grey areas then as hado and minu(?) said it usually defaults to intent.

"3) if you think people are allowed to change their minds in some situations, then what makes Bob's situation wrong, where other situations of changing your mind is okay? When is it okay to change your mind and when is it wrong .."

I would argue it's never wrong to change your mind. What's conventionally wrong is the action before or after the mind is changed. For example if you promise to be somewhere and then change your mind the reaction to that change is what you can impose morality to.

Another example if you start writing a forum post with the intent to sound pretentious but halfway through have second thoughts about the matter the change of mind isn't wrong what's potentially wrong is being too lazy to edit it at the point you change your mind and instead of deleting it trying to get away with pretending that change isn't linked to action in common vocabulary.

 

[Jennywocky]

Minuend and Yellow,

You both seem to think that the distinction here is whether or not his actions were intentional. So, you think that when Bob asked for another chance, he intended all along to just play around, and was faking it the whole time. & Since it was intentional, that is why it was wrong.

But what if he was not faking it? What if at the time he asked, his feelings were real. He genuinely missed Nancy and wanted her back.

Only AFTER she fell for him again, did he realize he has the best of both worlds, get his ego boost, let it get to his head, and decide he doesn't need her anymore.

Does the intent have to exist at the time of the asking? Can the malicious intent develop later?

The example still is not clear. What do you mean by the ending? Did he just get Nancy to fall in love with him, but they aren't actually back together? (You are saying he got the "best of both worlds.")

Or was it this: Once he had won her back, then he stopped trying to win her back / invest in her and is doing what he did the first time that ended up with her leaving him?

As far as Bob being culpable: You're asking the age-old question of whether someone needs to consciously mean to be abusive or exploitative of another individual for it to count as an immoral act. If a white gang kid steals from hardworking citizens or shoots a cop without consciously trying to be selfish, because he's grown up in a system where those behaviors make sense to him or he "feels" like doing them, does that make him immoral, a pawn of his own internal forces, or the victim of systematic abuses?

Considering most people do things Because Reasons (or Impulses), it's hard to call any act immoral at this stage. Most people doing harmful things feel they have reasons and/or aren't necessarily choosing to do immoral acts.

Bob is manipulating Nancy, that's true regardless. It doesn't matter whether he realizes it or whether his "feelings have changed." He lost her, for whatever reason he wanted her back, and he did what he had to do to get her back. She was only ever an object to meet one of his needs. Maybe we can change our opinion of him based on how conscious he was of this motivation, but it doesn't change that he did something to assuage / benefit himself, without regard for Nancy's best interests. He didn't take into account whether she was better off or happier without him. He was unwilling to endure the pain that is part and parcel of deprivation, which can lead to personal growth and change since it challenges our ideas of "what we need" and what we're willing to do to get it. Ultimately, he doesn't really view Nancy as a person, just as a commodity to serve his ends.

 

[The Gopher]

If that's the definition of manipulation what isn't? Maybe you mean "is influencing"? Assuming we don't know intent.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Yeah I think calling it "manipulation" is a stretch. It's easy to get muddled in all sorts of feelings whilst going through a breakup hangover, and confuse nostalgia and lingering attachments with love. OP says he felt dispirited while they were apart...considering the obvious bias in the OP :P, it sounds like he genuinely thought he likes her and did not intend to manipulate her or jeapordise her feelings

 

[Yellow]

That's a bold statement when we haven't examined the reliability of the witness. No not in a gas-lighting way, although to go on a side note, gas-lighting only works because half the time it's the perceived truth. Never the actual truth as unless someone is truly mentally ill however since all emotion is rational (not logical, the forum in general is logical not rational... ) without this exception it is only perceived truth from those who don't understand.

I am of course, not taking this thread in isolation. It's a part of a series. The fact that Nancy always takes it onto herself to rationalize her own acceptance of behavior she clearly finds uncomfortable (rather than ditching Bob right away and never looking back) is what drove me to my bold conclusions, and allowed me to extrapolate with some degree of comfort.

So it's altogether possible that we aren't being told that Nancy expressed to Bob on more that one occasion that she would adjust to his behaviors, and that he may continue them. Then they grew to bother her too much, she found she couldn't adjust, and she took it back. That's pretty typical in these types of relationships too.

But OP didn't say "Nancy agreed to change to accommodate Bob's behavior", she said he, "...tried to win her back convincing her he changed...".

 

[Sinny91]

Presumably Bob used the word 'love' to win Nancy back.

If Bob done that to me, Bob would have no balls left.

Based on the minimal info I've read.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

nvm my last post, i just skimmed through all the other replies and...

On top of which, 'kinda both' is far more likely than a singular conclusion. I doubt its common for people to set up a master plan to control and shame their ex. It's also unlikely that all these continuations of relationships that are set to fail are entirely without jealousy or control elements. In my mind, I kind of just assume that Bob genuinely missed her at the time, and was unable to parse the elements of pettiness from his feelings of want. Emotions are rarely clear cut, each emotional act is more like the outcome of an internal democracy than dictatorship. If jealousy and love and self-esteem and sadness are all yelling real loud to try and get back together, the actions will follow, but an observer will likely attribute the action to just one or two of these elements.

^^^couldnt have said it better myself

 

[ruminator]

Okay so y'all are being very perceptive in deducing Bob's intentions here, but I think the underlying question I had is kind of getting forgotten.

I'm basically trying to figure out the difference between taking advantage/using and honestly changing your mind. Bob's situation is an example to illustrate the former, to help us in finding a distinction between that, and the latter. However, if you are unsure about whether Bob is a good example of the former, then just ignore it for now.....use any example you want of the former, anything you can come up with that will help us distinguish it from the latter.

I am all for having a discussion about figuring out whether Bob is the former or the latter, but I think First, the most important thing is setting the boundaries that separate the former from the latter. Only AFTER we set those boundaries can we evaluate where this present scenario fits.

So can we please figure out the parameters of what distinguishes using from mind-changing in a more general sense, and just come up with some kind of definition that separates the two?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, please do read my theory (I'm not sure if people read it since it was addressed to two specific users).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To address specific posts regarding the distinction:

Sly-fy, you said that Bob's entering the contract in the first place was wrong, because he didn't consider the fact that he might change? Is it possible for the ENTERING to be valid, while the BREAKING is wrong? or is the breaking ONLY wrong if the entering was wrong too?

Gopher, you said changing your mind in itself is not wrong, but the associated action is. Whose action? In your example of promising to be somewhere, you said the "reaction to that change" is the wrong part. But whose reaction? The victim's reaction? How can you be blamed for someone else's action? I'm just confused of what you are trying to get at.

Jennywocky, that's an interesting way of putting it - that using someone as an object for your needs is manipulation. But then we get back to the question of.....what differentiates this from a regular good-hearted person having an honest change of mind?

Sinny, what do you mean by using the word "love"? You mean saying ily? But maybe he felt that at the time he asked?

 

[ruminator]

My Theory: One proposed definition of "using" in contrast to "mind-changing"


Stage 1 is asking for the second chance, stage 2 is backing out.

Stage 1 could be intentional (faking it/using deceit), or not intentional (he really meant it when he asked, or at least thought he did).

Stage 2 is where it gets tricky.. it all lies within the reason for backing out. If they backed out because they honestly fell out of love, for example, that would be an honest "change of mind." But if they backed out because they felt like they could now enjoy having the best of both worlds, that would be a tactical power-play.

So, if you split it up into two stages, it is possible for a person to be "taking advantage/using" even though they had originally asked for another chance with good intentions.

 

[Sinny91]

Yea, a lot of people use that word without considering or knowing its implications. In regards to the distinction you wish to make - I dont. I see them as one and the same, as far as 'feelings' go.

I've dealt with a few Bobs in my short life.. I've had people tell me that they love me... but within 3 months they love somebody else.

Fuck off.

I've never told anybody that I love them.. I take shit like that seriously, and I dont have much respect for those who don't.. I bet that even Bob couldn't make the distinction, truely, if he dug deep enough down.

Some people are superficial, and always will be.

 

[Sly-fy]

Fuck off.

I love you.

Sly-fy, you said that Bob's entering the contract in the first place was wrong, because he didn't consider the fact that he might change? Is it possible for the ENTERING to be valid, while the BREAKING is wrong? or is the breaking ONLY wrong if the entering was wrong too?

If the breakup was his fault then the sales pitch that he made to her to sell her the idea that he loves her, which sealed the contract was wrong and therefore the "entering" was just false advertising (refund warranted in terms of some compensation by him to her.)

If she however changed after the fact in a way that was radical, and as one such extreme example she started abusing Bob or some such thing, using the leverage of his declared love for her in putting him through cruel and unusual punishment, or if she became extremely different to the way she was at the time of the creation of the verbal agreement (provided that the agreement has no clauses that say that whatever extreme changes on her part are in no way a valid reason for Bob to leave the contract - which would be an idiotic and an impossible deal to keep in reality,) only then is it not Bob`s fault but Nancy`s and he is justified in leaving her IMO.

 

[The Gopher]

I am of course, not taking this thread in isolation. It's a part of a series...

Yes I noticed, but if anything that would have biased me the other way so I only used this thread.

Gopher, you said changing your mind in itself is not wrong, but the associated action is. Whose action? In your example of promising to be somewhere, you said the "reaction to that change" is the wrong part. But whose reaction? The victim's reaction? How can you be blamed for someone else's action? I'm just confused of what you are trying to get at.

No not the victim's reaction why would you ever think that!?

For example you can change your mind about wanting to meet up with someone but you can decide to still meet them if you feel that upholds your word or integrity. Alternatively you can change your mind about wanting to meet up with someone and decided not to meet up with them to hold your personal "integrity".

One of those is morally wrong in regards to others. (The person you ditched) One is morally wrong in regards to yourself. (Fi not being true to yourself INFP nonsense)

Now you could argue there's nothing wrong with either morally depending on where your morals lie. However asking to meet up without intending on meeting is generally considered morally wrong. For example in bob's case it's entirely possible he didn't know what he wanted realised he "lacked something" acted the human equivalent of instinctively then realised he didn't want what he thought he did. It's also entirely possible he's a douche however contrary to my paranoia not many people are intentionally manipulative just thoughtless/as Sinny say's superficial.

Of course you can be a thoughtless douche but that doesn't make you manipulative or necessarily morally wrong. (Insert relevant obi-wan quote) Because if it did then the entire population would be morally wrong and Christianity would reign supreme. (Joke)

Your perceived truth is the most important in the Bob situation of course. I'm just saying I can't know the truth behind it with the information I have but thankfully that doesn't matter.

"I'm basically trying to figure out the difference between taking advantage/using and honestly changing your mind."

This is entirely based on intent in my opinion. Now to you or me or Sinny or Sly-fly then it doesn't matter if it was intentional or not it's bad for us morally as we would be the ones ditched in the aforementioned scenario. In short we want others morality to be focused on others (us) and our own morality is focused on ourselves.

In short the quote about judging others by their actions and ourselves by intent applies here.