SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

I really don't want to get into the whole Plato v Glaucon argument about justice. Or really the fundamental philosophical debate about justice. Despite what I just said, I'm going to wade into this, just a tiny bit anyway.

Restorative justice, is the idea that the most just thing to do is to bring recompense to those harmed and have the offender accept responsibility for their actions, understand the harm they have cause, and teach them how to improve.

The idea of "earned forgiveness" is pretty key here as well. I've mentioned Janice Spring's book "How Can I Forgive You" as having some really great key concepts around this. The offender must take action to earn forgiveness, rather than thinking it as something offered by the victim.

Under this concept, for R we can ask some questions. What has the WS done to provide recompense for the injuries? What have they changed to become a safe partner? Have they demonstrated adequate understanding of the harm? Can that alone not be justice?

Justice need not be punitive or retributive.

Leaving or staying could both be justice in its own way for a whole lot of people. I respect your individual choice of what’s right for you. But I don’t think that you can speak for whether my husband feels justice in it. It’s all very individual.

We are entirely aligned, it's absolutely individual. I can only speak to my sense of what justice is. Perhaps for my understanding you could ask him to explain how...:

Seeing that your ws has turned themselves inside out to figure out thier issues and seeing big changes in that person, them revealing all they learned about how they have conducted themselves over the years and how those ways were wrong. Getting deep apologies for all of it along the way- not just the affair but for all the things they couldn’t see. And then truly trying to make amends for it, not just today but for the rest of their life-

...Is justice. Is the apologies or the acting like the worthy partner they ways should have to begin with? Perhaps it's the making amends, how does one make amends in such circumstances? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely struggling to see the perspective

Late to the party, thought I would add my 2 cents on the latest comments.

I think anyone will agree that infidelity destroys something that can’t ever be fully restored. However, I think what matters here is what you do with that reality and whether every outcome besides divorce can be labeled "injustice."

To me, the "justice = divorce" equation oversimplifies something that’s deeply personal and situational. Not everyone gets a "net gain" just because their spouse stayed. If anything, a remorseful WS often lives with the long-term consequences every single day—loss of trust, loss of respect, restricted access, ongoing accountability, transparency, therapy, and the reality that the relationship will never be what it once was. It’s a permanent downgrade of their own self-worth. This doesn’t sound like much of a reward to me.

The BS staying isn’t some cushy "comfort and security" situation. Staying after infidelity is often the harder path. It means years of trauma processing, vulnerability, boundary-setting, and relearning how to emotionally coexist with someone who hurt you.

DR.SOOLERS, your "bad choices deserve bad outcomes" line reads more like a punishment philosophy than a justice philosophy. Justice isn’t always about inflicting maximum pain; sometimes it’s about creating a life you actually want to live. For some, that’s leaving. For others, that’s rebuilding something on their own terms.

And the idea of "cutting off your nose to spite your face"… divorce isn’t inherently justice. For some it is. For others, it’s just another painful outcome. Choosing not to amputate your entire life because your partner blew up the M isn’t weakness or lack of self-respect. It’s making a decision based on what serves your future, not your anger.

Divorce is a consequence. Rebuilding with strict boundaries, conditions, and accountability is also a consequence. Neither cancels out the damage or restores the original "house." They’re just different paths forward.

Divorce is a consequence. Rebuilding with strict boundaries, conditions, and accountability is also a consequence. Neither cancels out the damage or restores the original "house." They’re just different paths forward.

I agree 100%.

This is real life w/ kids and families. This isn’t some movie where the betrayed exacts revenge to the Nth degree. While many BS choose to D, others have no choice but to D. Reconciliation is not an option unfortunately.

While some have to resort to some pretty terrible things to keep their sanity and get the cheater to move out or leave, luckily it’s not the norm.

Though I do like hearing about a good revenge story from a BS

One issue which is immensely relevant to all of us impacted by infidelity is that we cannot get away from the fact that the BSes WERE betrayed, and WSes did the betrayal. There is nothing one can do to get away from those facts. IMO, it's better to start our healing by embracing those facts.

R almost forces the BS to deal with the anger, grief, fear, and shame of being betrayed. Also, we BSes who want to heal all have to deal with our preconceptions and self-talk. If a BS goes into d-day with contempt for BSes, or if they think As are glamorous and mind-blowing sexually, or that WSes are branded as sub-human forever, they have to examine their beliefs carefully and discard the ones that don't apply, whether they D or R.

Cutting off the WS is only a small step in healing at best - and the fact that so many of us stop there is unfortunate in the extreme, at least IMO.

BSes are best advised, IMO, to deal with our betrayal trauma before it screws up other relationships - and not healing may affect every other relationship, romantic or not, IMO. We need to take responsibility for the effects of being betrayed on us, even though someone else did the betrayal.

IMO, WSes have a similar problem - they need to take responsibility for themselves and figure how to keep doing the next right things, even though they did others tremendously hurtful things. Guilt and shame are not excuses for continuing to hurt people; a WS who excuses themself with 'hurt people hurt people' is not a great candidate for R.

*****

For ALL of us, change in this life is unavoidable and largely unpredictable. Life can be said to betray each of us - and even if it doesn't, one has to prepare themself for change anyway. And no matter what, change can take away, and it also can give.

*****

I watch a lot of home improvement shows on TV, and I come from an old city. My first apartment was the 3rd floor of a house built in 1809, and one of my teachers lived right across the street in a house built right after the revolution.

The shows make it clear that an old house can be made better than new. Sagging floors can be strengthened. Inefficient or non-existent HVAC can be renewed to be both much more effective and much more efficient, as can plumbing and electricity. Houses can be rebuilt after being burned to the ground.

So I'm OK with the analogy between houses and Ms.

[This message edited by SI Staff at 10:07 PM, Tuesday, November 25th]

Schooler- you asked me to ask my husband about justice, so I had the opportunity to last night.

He told me he never really thought about it in those terms. But after sort of going at in a few different ways he said that for him reconciliation came in stages. Starting with assuming what he should do, then realizing he could respond however he wanted- he pointed at asking me for a divorce and then his subsequent affair. He and I both have said for a long time that the highest form of love is consideration, and I didn’t consider him so he stopped considering me. Then it came down to what did he really want and realigning himself with the behaviors and decisions that allowed him to have that. Justice really wasn’t a factor because he thinks that having true justice is a rare thing.

Then he sort of went into when he thinks of justice it’s more about legal cases. He said let’s say someone killed your loved one. My justice might be to see the death penalty but it doesn’t bring back the person you lost. However, some people would rather see life in prison- either because they don’t believe in the death penalty or because they think they will suffer more in prison. Others will correspond with the murderer because to cope with what has happened they want to understand it, and some will actually make peace with the murderer because letting all those feelings of hatred brings them peace. And others will never feel strongly about the punishment- they never make it past the feelings of loss. But no matter what outcome it has there is nothing that brings the loved one back so there is no such thing as true restorative justice.

He said yes he could have divorced me, and he would have been able to find someone else. But that would not have been justice to him, it was simply a route he could have taken. He said sure, we could both go on and find other lives and be amicable for the kids. But his experience of divorce (he had been married twice before me) is that you go through a sucky year or two and then you kind of rebuild a new life and move on. He just simply didn’t see why he couldn’t skip that, as he saw things from me he never thought he would see. He wanted to explore what life was with that woman.

I asked him if he felt justice because he had an affair and so that made us even. He said no, even in that scenario he’d lowered himself to my level (quickly saying then not now) not creating a position of power. Justice should be restorative and there is no such thing. There is only loss and how you find a way to deal with it. I asked him what about if you have principles against infidelity and high self esteem? He said he feels most married people do have principles against infidelity, and he didn’t think he had ever had a longstanding issue with self esteem. He got so annoyed with that question that I ended up explaining this was a forum discussion and he felt irritated that I would take anything that obtuse to heart, and that he thought I had grown stronger than that. I told him it was more of a philosophical discussion and I don’t feel like I take that to heart at all.

So I guess he has as much trouble understanding your concept as you may his.

[This message edited by hikingout at 5:57 PM, Wednesday, November 26th]

​I thank you for this and found your husbands response to be genuinely eye-opening, as it crystallized a difference in worldviews that is crucial to this discussion.

My question was regarding if he viewed your actions post reconciliation as justice, it isn't clear to me he does.

​I completely understand his position generally. He outlined quite strongly that he does not prioritize or operate with strong principles regarding justice, even explicitly stating he hadn't considered the situation from that perspective. From his responses, it is clear that justice is not a particularly high item on his agenda.

​It's important to recall the specific parameters I initially set: My argument only applies to a betrayed spouse who has high self-esteem AND strong principles regarding justice. Whilst I accept theirs wider discussions to be had on the nature of justice, we will never get to he bottom of that here. Since he clearly states he does not view things this way, his experience is, by definition, an in-applicable use case for my premise.

​For me, injustice is a terrible vice that genuinely causes me stress. I have personally lost sleep over it; I even left a comfortable, well-paid job because of the disgusting levels of favoritism, even though the issue wasn't directly affecting my career.

​My core point stands: Someone with my deep need for justice and my high level of self-esteem could not, in good faith, live with their betrayer.

​Ultimately, there are no right or wrong answers here—I am simply explaining my personal world view and drawing boundaries on when my perspective is relevant. I know I am not an anomaly, as other users have noted they relate to this strong connection between self-esteem and the need for justice

anyone else find it problematic that conversations on other people's threads end up revolving around DRS's opinion and DRS is constantly lording these "rules" of discussion when it's not even their thread? We get it, you don't understand how people don't leave right away and you imply it must be due to some deficit of personal values compared to yours. That's not even what the original title question is about.

Torso1500, thank you for your feedback on the discussion's direction.

My intention has been to follow the logical development of the initial topic, exploring the underlying concepts and implications that naturally arise in a thread like this.

It's clear from you summary that you have not followed the points I was making, I am happy to elaborate but doing so is exactly what got us into this drift.

As for the rules, I believe the discussion is still pertinent to the overall theme, but I respect your concern. If you feel it has crossed the line into threadjacking, please feel free to report it to a moderator.

I hear you, torso, and I've honestly had some of the same feelings from time to time. In this case, since the OP asked whether some types of infidelity are worse than others, I think it makes sense to discuss whether the priorities and goals of the BS, in conjunction with the specific offense of the WS, influence that evaluation. What I'm not buying, and never have, is the argument that such decisions are typically based on principle and philosophy rather than emotion and practicality.

Take an example that removes infidelity from the discussion of justice. If a drunk driver kills someone I love, then honestly, I don't think I'll give a tinkers damn about self-esteem or philosophy. I'll want them to suffer. I'm not going to assign higher motivations to that. Nothing will bring my loved one back to me, so in the absence of restorative justice, I would want revenge.

Once I establish that as my motivation, then other factors might harden or soften it. Would I feel differently about the punishment if the kid in the driver's seat was the underage child of a long time family friend vs a fourth time offender operating the car with a suspended license? If my family member's injury was minor, would I be less eager to see the offender suffer, even though the action of getting behind the wheel while intoxicated was identical regardless of the outcome?

Would my view of abstract justice vary if the person I loved was the offender rather than the victim? If my kid ran me over, would I react the same way as I would if a stranger did it? Would my thirst to hurt them be partially slaked by compassion? What about my own self-interest, the consideration of how different my life would be if they were incarcerated instead of coming back home?

If, God forbid, I'm ever in those shoes, I don't believe that self esteem and justice are going to be the deciding factors in how I react. Shock, grief, rage, helplessness, exhaustion, despair, bargaining, and eventually, an evaluation of how I can best rebuild my life, and show up for other people who rely on me, are going to be my priorities.

I understand that it's simpler for some folks. They can cut ties without a backward glance. I've seen it done in my own family, in a scenario that's much closer to my hypothetical than it is to infidelity. But neither my spouse nor I wanted to do that, and our choice to work it out was not influenced by self esteem, abstract concepts of justice, or belief in an obligation to forgive. We just wanted the things we could salvage and rebuild in our marriage more than we wanted the benefits of breaking up. I don't believe that decision requires justification, and I rarely engage in discussions with people who do.

[This message edited by BraveSirRobin at 9:35 PM, Thursday, November 27th]

BraveSirRobin, that's a great discussion to have and I appreciate your sharing on this topic of justice, but I fear it just feeds the problem without calling out the behavior that disrupts that great discussion. I understand DRS is talking about the concept of justice, but my issue is they are constantly steering the conversation to comparing anything we say to whether it satisfies their personal perspective. Notice how earlier, when the conversation would have become broader, DRS brands the broadening language as irrelevant to THEIR point. So what are we doing here, discussing concepts or discussing how right DRS' point is? This also centers the conversation around DRS instead of allowing community discussion with a variety of voices and points to flow.

And when posters directly disagree with or criticize DRS' beliefs, we are told we simply don't understand their point. This happens over and over, including just earlier in response to me! It happens so consistently that it's difficult not to infer that DRS not only believes they are right, but that anyone who doesn't see it how they do is intellectually inferior.

Frankly I cannot figure out how to report to mods, I will respect their decisions here. I will offer that this type of behavior is best cured by laying it all out.

torso1500, if you want to bring up an issue with the staff start a new thread with the title: "mod please." Do not describe your concerns or questions publicly. A moderator will contact you via private message.

but my issue is they are constantly steering the conversation to comparing anything we say to whether it satisfies their personal perspective

Just to be clear on my approach: When I talk about philosophy, I am only ever discussing my personal perspective. I don't believe in objective philosophical truth, so I always respect contradictory opinions.
​Therefore, if someone says, "To me, justice is making amends," I can't call that "wrong." Instead, I'll state my own opinion and explain why I hold a different view.

DRS brands the broadening language as irrelevant to THEIR point

HikingOut was responding directly to a question I asked her. The parameters of the question she was directly answering is fairly important.
​
​I genuinely want to know: how would you prefer I engage in this conversation?

I state my opinion, someone offers a rebuttal then I shouldn't further the conversation by continuing the discussion? Why? What's upsetting you about debating opinions? Or I should only speak in terms of absolute truths which I don't even believe in?

difficult not to infer that DRS not only believes they are right, but that anyone who doesn't see it how they do is intellectually inferior.

I'll grant you are half right. I do think I'm right hence why I believe what I believe. Difficult to hold believes if you don't think they are right. I can definitely state to you I do not think I'm intellectually superior to other posters though. Sisoon. HikingOut and countless others have run rings around me on many topics for the whole forum to see.

​I think this recent exchange is a much clearer example of "thread-jacking" than what happened previously.

Again, the above is just my opinion. Sorry for sharing another. I know you seem to dislike it, yet strangely it seems like you have no problem posting your own.

I still do not see how any high self-esteem individual would think he has to D a cheating partner. That implies the high SE person has no control, no power other than to pull himself out of the sitch he is in.

I think my SE was high on d-day, and I knew I had a lot of power. I exercised it in what I thought was my own self-interest (no child at home). I think my awareness of options is proof of my high SE. If it's not, I can guarantee that seeing only one option would very likely have been a sign of low SE. So is having to split up because the supposed high SE individual can't tolerate being with the person who betrayed him. Of course, it's eminently possible to mistake low SE for high.

DRS rejects anything that doesn't fit into his worldview. One might wish him to address the flaws in his logic that have been pointed out by responders, but not doing so is not a guideline violation. Neither is trying to monopolize a conversation - that happens only because people respond. Stubbornness, bad logic, projection, mistaking high self-esteem for low - all are permitted by guidelines.

To be explicit and to forestall an objection: the fact that a high SE individual knows he has options means that person isn't forced by logic to choose D, or R, or to take lots of time or no time to decide. Circumstances may dictate a resolution, as when a WS walks out to join their ap, but even then the BS has options.

[This message edited by SI Staff at 3:54 PM, Friday, November 28th]