Cheating vs. Rights

[Capitalism Forever]

Should cheating on your girlfriend be legal? Yes. But is it justified? No.

Actually, that's not a good example. By cheating, you are violating an implicit contract, so it's a form of force. (Obviously, some contracts are more easily enforceable than others and this one clearly belongs in the latter category, but still, a cheater is not within his rights.)

But suppose that the girlfriend agrees that you can "meet" other women, so that you're not cheating on her, just doing something she knows of and is fine with. It is clear that this is 100% legal--but whether it's a virtuous thing to do (or whatever "justifiable" is supposed to mean) is highly questionable.

[DavidOdden]

Actually, that's not a good example. By cheating, you are violating an implicit contract, so it's a form of force. (Obviously, some contracts are more easily enforceable than others and this one clearly belongs in the latter category, but still, a cheater is not within his rights.)

No, I don't see how being in a girlfriend / boyfriend arrangement constitutes a contract. A contract is something much more specific, it is a particular exchange of known values which can be legally enforced by a court of law. A promise such as "I'll be your boyfriend if you'll be my girlfriend" does not carry with it a specific promise to be exclusive, to have sex, to deal with your SO's mother, or anything else. A contract has a specific meaning, and the BF/GF relationship is outside of that meaning. This is an area where the force of government should not be used to enforce a moral code.

[Jake_Ellison]

By cheating, you are violating an implicit contract, so it's a form of force. (Obviously, some contracts are more easily enforceable than others and this one clearly belongs in the latter category, but still, a cheater is not within his rights.)

Force should only be used to enforce specific contracts, not vague promises or some implications of a wide arrangements. If a marriage or GF/BF arrangement, with all it's implications would be considered a contract, it would be an extremely binding one, with huge implications to every aspect of your life.

It's bad enough that judges assume a marriage implies that half your property belongs to the other person once you want a divorce after a few years(even though that's not an option you can just cross out if you want on the "contract", before you "sign" it).

Do we really want the government to start asking questions such as:

Did you cheat?

Did you satisfy your partner sexually? What drove him/her to cheating?

Did you pay attention to his/her emotional needs? etc.etc.

You commit to a lot of things when you enter a relationship, but there isn't a specific list that can be inferred from it. It's different every time, and when your partner feels that you're not holding up your end of the bargain, they can simply end the relationship, and that's that: end of marriage, eng of bf/gf arrangement.

Why would someone be entitled to more than the right to leave the relationship (like some king of justice or retribution, or money in case of a marriage). Is that also implied in this imaginary contract?

[Capitalism Forever]

A promise such as "I'll be your boyfriend if you'll be my girlfriend" does not carry with it a specific promise to be exclusive, to have sex, to deal with your SO's mother, or anything else.

In other words, saying that you're somebody's boyfriend means ... precisely nothing?

Now, if you think about how it works in an actual relationship, the guy's not going to be likely to say "I'll be your boyfriend" to her anyway. It's more likely something like "I love you" or "I'll be yours forever" etc. Even if he happens to put it into writing (say, on a greeting card), the boy's lawyer may argue that, as a reasonable person, the girl could have known that he did not mean it literally and that it was her responsibility to judge his character before entering a relationship. So don't worry, if I get to call the shots in a capitalist society, you won't be seeing many courts awarding damages to cheated girlfriends.

But, after you've stopped worrying, I simply want to make the point that a cheater, i.e. someone who breaks a promise--explicit or implied, but one he knew well he was implying--is not within his rights, even if he won't get into legal trouble for it.

[Jake_Ellison]

In other words, saying that you're somebody's boyfriend means ... precisely nothing?

Now, if you think about how it works in an actual relationship, the guy's not going to be likely to say "I'll be your boyfriend" to her anyway. It's more likely something like "I love you" or "I'll be yours forever" etc. Even if he happens to put it into writing (say, on a greeting card), the boy's lawyer may argue that, as a reasonable person, the girl could have known that he did not mean it literally and that it was her responsibility to judge his character before entering a relationship. So don't worry, if I get to call the shots in a capitalist society, you won't be seeing many courts awarding damages to cheated girlfriends.

But, after you've stopped worrying, I simply want to make the point that a cheater, i.e. someone who breaks a promise--explicit or implied, but one he knew well he was implying--is not within his rights, even if he won't get into legal trouble for it.

Elaborate on "within his rights", please.

Are you suggesting that: (1.)it would be immoral for him to cheat, or (2.) that a society has the moral right to punish him for doing so (but that's inpractical, so we shouldn't after all)

Edited October 16, 2008 by Jake_Ellison

[Capitalism Forever]

Elaborate on "within his rights", please.

Are you suggesting that: (1.)it would be immoral for him to cheat

No, I'm not talking morality here.

or (2.) that a society has the moral right to punish him for doing so (but that's inpractical, so we shouldn't after all)

"A society" as such can have no rights.

The government can have the power to punish people for things, but it ought to reserve the use of that power for serious crimes where guilt can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. (While one might well argue "serious" with regard to betraying your lover, the exact nature of the understanding between the partners on the nature of the relationship is, as I wrote, difficult to establish, so it cannot really be a criminal matter.)

The girlfriend might demand restitution in a civil case, and although she doesn't have a good chance of getting it, she has a moral right to do so. This is what I mean by the boy not being within his rights: That he has violated the rights of his girlfriend by entering into a trade with her but then failing to deliver his part.

[bluey]

The girlfriend might demand restitution in a civil case, and although she doesn't have a good chance of getting it, she has a moral right to do so. This is what I mean by the boy not being within his rights: That he has violated the rights of his girlfriend by entering into a trade with her but then failing to deliver his part.

What is it exactly that the boyfriend has contracted to trade with her? If there is a contract between boyfriend/girlfriend, wouldn't it be the sort of thing where either "party" could terminate the contract at any time, for any reason - a really informal and loose contract? Are the terms that neither will have sex with anyone else until such time as the contract is "officially" terminated?

Cheating is dishonest, usually, but I don't think it extends as far as a violation of the girlfriend's rights. If you cheat on her, she'll just dump you and find someone else to get whatever benefits of a relationship from. I'm not sure exactly what the value or consideration would be that would make it a contract. Dating is more of a "research period" based on which you can choose to enter a contract (marriage) or not.

Other than getting his ass dumped and his reputation damaged, I don't see why or how a boyfriend would need to be punished for cheating or how a girlfriend would have anything to take to court.

[Jake_Ellison]

"A society" as such can have no rights.

The government can have the power to punish people for things, but it ought to reserve the use of that power for serious crimes where guilt can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. (While one might well argue "serious" with regard to betraying your lover, the exact nature of the understanding between the partners on the nature of the relationship is, as I wrote, difficult to establish, so it cannot really be a criminal matter.)

Although I'm pretty happy with my original phrasing of a society's moral right, let me put it a little differently:

By what code of ethics should government oficials conduct themselves when deciding if they are or not (a.) within their rights to intervene and (b.) morally obligated to intervene in a case like this. I think you would agree with me that "it ought to reserve the use of that power for serious crimes where guilt can be proven beyond reasonable doubt" is not really fit to be a code of ethics for any person (except maybe a pragmatist).

The girlfriend might demand restitution in a civil case, and although she doesn't have a good chance of getting it, she has a moral right to do so. This is what I mean by the boy not being within his rights: That he has violated the rights of his girlfriend by entering into a trade with her but then failing to deliver his part.

I look at a relationship of this type(ifaithful, romantic) as a system formed by two (or more) people, in which having you partner( or partners) not cheat has a value to you in the context of your relationship. Why would a cheating boyfriend entitle you to anything other than the right to cheat yourself or the right to end the relationship?

What value have you lost (that he took from you) from this supposed "trade" (I don't believe it is a trade at all) ?

I believe it wasn't a contract at all: it was a temporary arrangement, in which two people were kind to each other, hoping to fall in love, or, if they did fall in love, hoping to stay in love. However being kind to someone, and choosing not to hurt them by cheating on them does not really hold you to some kind of contract.

[JMeganSnow]

The girlfriend might demand restitution in a civil case, and although she doesn't have a good chance of getting it, she has a moral right to do so.

Restitution for *what*? What is she *entitled to* by her "girlfriend" status that can and should be *legally* recognized? Rights are a bridge between ethics and *politics*. There's no such thing as an exclusively "moral" right--rights, by their very nature, imply and require some sort of GOVERNMENT RECOGNITION. So this entire construct is an equivocation at best.

There are a lot of social statuses that are not recognized by the government because there's no contract involved--if one party decides to stop engaging in some aspect of association then the other party IS NOT INJURED. Are you going to start arguing that you can sue your aunts and uncles if they don't send you Christmas presents or your friends if they refuse to help you move? It's the same thing.

In all honesty, I can't even see there being a case for you to sue them if they give you an STD: did they ever *guarantee* that they were disease-free? Caveat emptor.

[DavidOdden]

In other words, saying that you're somebody's boyfriend means ... precisely nothing?

No, it has no legally enforceable obligations. You can explicitly create any kind of obligation you want and can get someone else to accept, but being a boyfriend does not intrinsically entail exclusivity in sexual relations or an obligation to reveal personal facts. Whether or not those are important aspects of a relation is something that you have to work out with your SO. If you have an actual contractual arrangement with a woman, and you violate the terms of the contract, then of course you can be made to perform or otherwise compensate her in a court of law. Barring such an explicit arrangement with an exchange of property, you have the right to engage in any act that you want to, and having secret sex with another person is not the initiation of force. And let me emphasize my objection to claiming that there is any substance to an implicit BF-GF contractual relationship. An explicit agreement to do X or not do X is a separate matter.

Your SO does not have the right to prevent you from doing so, and her lack of happiness is not a wrongful deprivation of her property by you, so there is no basis for restitution. There is enough basis for terminating the relationship, which she should do if she feels irreparably aggrieved, and that is as far as it goes. Personal relations are at will, like employment, and no court of law has any business forcing such a relationship to continue. There is a reason why the separate legal institution of marriage was created, so that there can be an enforceable obligation. "BF" is not such a relationship.

Remember, force is physical force, not the kind of "force" that people complain about in saying "I was forced to shop at 3 different stores before finding a loaf of bread for a price I wanted to pay".

[Capitalism Forever]

Are the terms that neither will have sex with anyone else until such time as the contract is "officially" terminated?

That is how most girls tend to see it.

Cheating is dishonest, usually, but I don't think it extends as far as a violation of the girlfriend's rights.

Then why do we call it cheating?

If you cheat on her, she'll just dump you and find someone else to get whatever benefits of a relationship from.

She won't be angry? She won't be disappointed? She won't be hurt? She'll just calmly dump you and move on, like that is the most natural thing in the world?

get whatever benefits of a relationship

You don't know what the benefits of a relationship are??

Dating is more of a "research period" based on which you can choose to enter a contract (marriage) or not.

But first you choose whether you want to enter a relationship or not. You can have a committed relationship without being officially married. The contract is entered when you make the commitment to each other; marriage is more like a public announcement of a contract that has already been made. As soon as you knowingly make your girlfriend think that she's your only one, having another one is cheating, and thus an infringement of her rights.

Perhaps it's a terminological misunderstanding we have here. If by "girlfriend," you mean "one of the broads I occasionally sleep with"--and she is aware of her status as such--then of course there is nothing unrightful about having another "broad you occasionally sleep with," or two other ones, or ten, or a thousand, or as many as you can handle. But then there is nothing to call cheating. The use of the verb cheat implies that there is a mutual understanding that you are violating, a promise you are breaking, a trust that you are betraying--in other words, that there is some sort of contract.

[Capitalism Forever]

Although I'm pretty happy with my original phrasing of a society's moral right

A good example of how happiness does not always coincide with being right.

By what code of ethics should government oficials conduct themselves

By the Objectivist code of ethics, of course.

But I think that is not what you mean. Is it rather: "What is it about Objectivist ethics that (a.) justifies or (b.) requires government action to protect the girl's rights?"

If that is what you mean, the answer is pretty obvious. The question is rather whether or not the girl indeed has her rights infringed in this case, and the answer on that depends on whether there has been a contract. So I think that is what we need to resolve.

I think you would agree with me that "it ought to reserve the use of that power for serious crimes where guilt can be proven beyond reasonable doubt" is not really fit to be a code of ethics for any person (except maybe a pragmatist).

Taking practical considerations into account does not necessarily make you a pragmatist. The police has limited resources and it ought to utilize them so as to get the best results out of them. The standard by which to judge the quality of the results of prosecution consists of the number of criminals successfully convicted and the seriousness of their crimes. When deciding between spending your donors' money on pursuing a hopeless case versus a case where you have a good chance of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, it does not take a pragmatist to opt for the latter. All it takes is rationality--which is the most basic virtue in Objectivist ethics.

I look at a relationship of this type(ifaithful, romantic) as a system formed by two (or more) people, in which having you partner( or partners) not cheat has a value to you in the context of your relationship. Why would a cheating boyfriend entitle you to anything other than the right to cheat yourself or the right to end the relationship?

Go back one sentence in your own post to find the answer. If having the other one not cheat is a value to you, and he has given you to understand that he intends to deliver that value if you enter a relationship, and you enter the relationship in order to get that value, and you would not have entered it if the other one had not made such a promise--then your relationship is every bit a trade, and by failing to deliver his part, the other one is defrauding you.

Suppose that there is an ice cream stand in your street and it says on it, "Ice cream, $1." Every afternoon, you walk by, reach into your pocket, and place a $1 coin(*) into the palm of the guy behind the stand, without saying a word. He then puts a cone of ice cream into your hand, also without saying a word.--Now, suppose that one day, you walk up to the stand and do your part, but the guy simply pockets the coin and does nothing. Have you been cheated? I think most of you will agree that you have, since the use of the verb "cheat" has not been controversial. But now let me mention a word that starts with an R ... What do you guys think? After what has been written on this thread, I am honestly not sure. Has there been a contract? After all, neither of you ever signed anything, nor even spoken a word, for that matter. Sure, there has been an implied understanding, but implied understandings are--I get the impression some of you think--not only unenforceable, but also not binding. And, to paraphrase Jake, "I look at a relationship of this type (streetly, gastronomical) as a system formed by two (or more) people, in which having your partner (or partners) not cheat has a value to you in the context of your relationship. Why would a cheating ice cream salesman entitle you to anything other than the right to cheat yourself or the right to end the relationship? What value have you lost (that he took from you) from this supposed 'trade' (I don't believe it is a trade at all) ?"

Sure, it is not likely to become a criminal case, and given that you haven't got a single shred of evidence against him, not even a civil one, so it is practically completely outside of the domain of government action. But would I use it as an example of "legal to cheat, but not justifiable" ? No, because even though the guy can be sure not to get any trouble from the government, he was not within his rights when he cheated you. The difference is that there is a law against this and the government has a name for it ("petty theft"), but that is all the difference, and it does not alter the facts with regard to the rights.

And, "the right to cheat yourself" ??!

----

(*) A gold coin, of course!

[Capitalism Forever]

Restitution for *what*? What is she *entitled to* by her "girlfriend" status that can and should be *legally* recognized?

Well, in my country, when someone makes you a promise, it is commonly held that you are entitled to the thing that has been promised. If you weren't, we wouldn't call it a promise.

Rights are a bridge between ethics and *politics*. There's no such thing as an exclusively "moral" right--rights, by their very nature, imply and require some sort of GOVERNMENT RECOGNITION.

Suppose that you have signed some written contract (about a service completely unrelated to sex, say the delivery of some furniture ... some furniture other than beds, so that we steer as clear of the incendious subject as possible!) but the other party is not delivering and you have lost your copy of the contract. This means that your right to the service is not enforceable--you cannot make the government recognize it, since there is no basis on which to recognize it--but you still have a moral right to it, don't you? The other party is not acting legally by cheating you out of it, is it?

Are you going to start arguing that you can sue your aunts and uncles if they don't send you Christmas presents or your friends if they refuse to help you move? It's the same thing.

In all honesty, I can't even see there being a case for you to sue them if they give you an STD: did they ever *guarantee* that they were disease-free?

Please.

[Capitalism Forever]

her lack of happiness is not a wrongful deprivation of her property by you [....] no court of law has any business forcing such a relationship to continue

Professor Odden, have you got a strawman fetish, or do you honestly believe that the position I have argued involves restitution based on "lack of happiness" and "forcing the relationship to continue" ? The only time I brought up happiness was in response to Jake saying he was happy with assigning rights to society (and that was after your above post) and the word "continue" does not appear in the thread until you mention it.

The idea of forcing a sexual relationship to continue is so ridiculous that I am at a loss to think of what kind of beverage you must have been consuming to get you to even think of it, let alone to ascribe it to me as something I have been seriously advocating. It is said that you cannot force a man's mind, and it is no less true that you cannot force a man's penis. A sexual relationship won't continue unless the man gets aroused in the presence of the lady, and if he loses his interest in her, dragging him to court is hardly the way of rekindling it. An erection by court order is something whose impossibility even the people with the worst autocratic tendencies will readily recognize, so I am not exactly flattered by your concluding (from what statement of mine, I still have no idea) that it is a part of my idea of a just, capitalist government.

I'll be glad to argue my position with you, but in order to do that, you first need to get back to arguing my position.

[JMeganSnow]

You still haven't said what you think she IS entitled to that she's going to regain by prosecution. What difference does it make if she's hurt or unhappy? Once you start prosecuting people because they've hurt someone's feelings by making false representations of relationship, you open the door to an amazing amount of B.S. There is no difference between the "implied" contractual agreement of bf/gf and the "implied" contractual agreement you have with *any other type of associate*. Friends, neighbors, relatives--it's the same type of relationship.

The reason marriage *exists* is to put a formal seal on the relationship--that's the *point* of announcing it.

[Jake_Ellison]

Taking practical considerations into account does not necessarily make you a pragmatist. The police has limited resources and it ought to utilize them so as to get the best results out of them.

Not to brush practical considerations aside, but the police, and more importantly the judge, ought to act on principle. Describe this principle, please.

You still haven't said what you think she IS entitled to that she's going to regain by prosecution. What difference does it make if she's hurt or unhappy? Once you start prosecuting people because they've hurt someone's feelings by making false representations of relationship, you open the door to an amazing amount of B.S. There is no difference between the "implied" contractual agreement of bf/gf and the "implied" contractual agreement you have with *any other type of associate*. Friends, neighbors, relatives--it's the same type of relationship.

The reason marriage *exists* is to put a formal seal on the relationship--that's the *point* of announcing it.

On the subject of marriage:

In many states (definitely NY) divorce courts do not take cheating into account. Do you believe they should?

Edited October 18, 2008 by Jake_Ellison

[RationalBiker]

Not to brush practical considerations aside, but the police, and more importantly the judge, ought to act on principle. Describe this principle, please.

The police are already required to act within accordance to the law that establishes their power and their limitations. Those are their 'principles' (which should ideally be objectively derived and defined). Within that framework, they should utilize their resources towards the best results. To me this would indicate prioritizing the pursuit of more serious offenses before those of lesser offenses when their resources do not afford opportunities to pursue both equally.

[Jake_Ellison]

The police are already required to act within accordance to the law that establishes their power and their limitations. Those are their 'principles' (which should ideally be objectively derived and defined). Within that framework, they should utilize their resources towards the best results. To me this would indicate prioritizing the pursuit of more serious offenses before those of lesser offenses when their resources do not afford opportunities to pursue both equally.

Laws are written by people, so what are the principles behing writing the laws/setting the precedents on BF/GF relationship cheating? Somewhere, deep inside the system, someone has to be acting on principle, rather than pragmatically. Please, describe that principle, or any principle related to the subject of cops arresting cheaters, judges sentencing cheaters( or ruling against them in civil court).

Let me put it this way: You are saying cops act in accordance with the law, which constitutes their "principles", and those principles should be objectively derived and defined. Define them, please.

[DavidOdden]

Professor Odden, have you got a strawman fetish, or do you honestly believe that the position I have argued involves restitution based on "lack of happiness" and "forcing the relationship to continue" ?

You began your argument here in post #1 by claiming that the hypothetical BF is violating an implicit contract, making it a form of force. This is plainly false, as has been demonstrated. You also raised the spectre of enforcing such a "contract" and claimed that the BF has no right to his actions. In post #4 you repeat the falsehood that there is an implied promise (without even identifying what you think that promise is), and again deny that he has a right to this action. In post #6 you state that the girlfriend might demand restitution in a civil case -- as I pointed out, this is false because there is no restitution to be had. No property to be returned, no contractual obligation to be enforced. Indeed, for her to abuse the legal process in that fashion would be an initiation of actual force, and she would have no moral right to initiate force against her boyfriend in that way. You end that post by asserting that the BF has violated her rights by entering into a "trade" with her and failing to make good on his obligation. As I have again pointed out, there is no agreement, no obligation and no violation of her rights. She does not have a right to his affection or sexual performance.

The idea of forcing a sexual relationship to continue is so ridiculous that I am at a loss to think of what kind of beverage you must have been consuming to get you to even think of it, let alone to ascribe it to me as something I have been seriously advocating.

It is entirely inappropriate of you to imply that I am drunk, and I am frankly appalled that you would do so.

Please review what you have actually said in this thread regarding contracts, force, obligations, rights, promises, enforcement and restitution. You should conclude that your initial claim was in error, and that as I said the BF's action is not justified but it is definitively not a violation of anyone's rights.

[Grames]

Actually, that's not a good example. By cheating, you are violating an implicit contract, so it's a form of force.

Implicit Contract

Nonbinding commitment, such as an employer's offer of continuity of employment, wages, and working conditions in the expectation of the employee being sincere in his or her duties and in not looking for alternate employment.

Implied Contract(see also implied-in-fact contract)

Legally enforceable agreement that arises from the conduct, assumed intentions, some relationship among the immediate parties, or due to the application of the legal principle of equity. For example, a contract is implied when a party knowingly accepts a benefit from another party in circumstances where the benefit cannot be considered a gift. Therefore, the party accepting the benefit is under a legal obligation to give fair value for the benefit received. Opposite of express contract. See also implied in fact contract and implied in law contract.

BF-GF is an implicit contract (nonbinding), but you carry on your argument as if it were an implied contract (binding). You lose.

Edited October 18, 2008 by Grames

[softwareNerd]

BF-GF is an implicit contract (nonbinding), ...

I think the BF-GF thing is an agreement rather than a contract. Not sure how it is in U.S. law, but 1870's Indian Law (probably copied from British Law) said that a contract is an agreement that is enforceable by law. Edited October 18, 2008 by softwareNerd

[Grames]

I think the BF-GF thing is an agreement rather than a contract. Not sure how it is in U.S. law, but 1870's Indian Law (probably copied from British Law) said that a contract is an agreement that is enforceable by law.

Indeed. If some contracts are binding and some are not, some are written and explicit and some are not, then what the hell is a contract anyway?

[Capitalism Forever]

You still haven't said what you think she IS entitled to that she's going to regain by prosecution.

Prosecution is when you pursue criminal charges against someone in order to get him punished, not in order to gain restitution. This is typically done by the police, and has a high burden of proof (guilt beyond reasonable doubt). I wrote that I do not think the police would be prosecuting cheating boyfriends in an ideal society.

A civil lawsuit filed in order to gain restitution is called litigation. The purpose of restitution is not to give back the exact thing that was lost (since that is nearly always impossible), but to provide as close a replacement as possible. Often, this takes the form of monetary damages. A litigious girlfriend could sue for an amount of money as a restitution for the resources she invested into the relationship--but, as I said, her chances of winning even a civil case would be close to zero, so I'm not sure what kind of a case your question pertains to.

What difference does it make if she's hurt or unhappy?

Please quote me where I said that her being unhappy made a difference. The forum's quote feature will allow you to point out the exact post where I said so, if I ever did say so.

[Capitalism Forever]

You began your argument here in post #1 by claiming that the hypothetical BF is violating an implicit contract, making it a form of force. This is plainly false, as has been demonstrated. You also raised the spectre of enforcing such a "contract" and claimed that the BF has no right to his actions. In post #4 you repeat the falsehood that there is an implied promise (without even identifying what you think that promise is), and again deny that he has a right to this action. In post #6 you state that the girlfriend might demand restitution in a civil case -- as I pointed out, this is false because there is no restitution to be had. No property to be returned, no contractual obligation to be enforced. Indeed, for her to abuse the legal process in that fashion would be an initiation of actual force, and she would have no moral right to initiate force against her boyfriend in that way. You end that post by asserting that the BF has violated her rights by entering into a "trade" with her and failing to make good on his obligation. As I have again pointed out, there is no agreement, no obligation and no violation of her rights. She does not have a right to his affection or sexual performance.

It is entirely inappropriate of you to imply that I am drunk, and I am frankly appalled that you would do so.

Please review what you have actually said in this thread regarding contracts, force, obligations, rights, promises, enforcement and restitution. You should conclude that your initial claim was in error, and that as I said the BF's action is not justified but it is definitively not a violation of anyone's rights.

Since you make no new argument here which I could address, I'll just remark that 1) much of what you write above is either not true or debateable or simply a reassertion of your previous points, which I have already responded to; and that 2) you have not addressed my post.

[Capitalism Forever]

Implicit Contract

Implied Contract(see also implied-in-fact contract)

Thanks for those links. I'm not sure I agree with their terminology, though; if you're going to call something a contract, then by the nature of that fact it is going to be binding. I think a "non-binding contract" is a contradiction in terms. What I would call the "employer's offer of continuity ... [etc.]" is simply a statement of intent. You can express to anyone what you think you intend to do based on your situation at the moment, but as your situation changes, you may change your mind. But as soon as you've made a binding representation (i.e. a promise) on what you're going to do, you have no right to go back on it.

BF-GF is an implicit contract (nonbinding)

Well, this is what the debate is on. (Or would be, if they weren't debating with strawmen.) Certainly, there are sexual relationships where fidelity is not implied. But there are also some very serious relationships where, although the couple are not married, they almost see themselves as if they were, or are even on the verge of considering marriage. Would you agree at least with the possibility that both parties may see an implied promise of fidelity in that kind of a relationship?

Or, better still, to eliminate the confusion caused by the promise being merely implied, suppose that there is a specific couple that I know. I sit down with them and ask both, "Would you say that your relationship is an exclusive one?" The girl says, "Why yes, absolutely, Steve is the only man in my life." Then I look at Steve and he says, "Sure, although we're not yet sure we want to marry, I wouldn't date anyone else without talking it over with Laura first. I owe that to her." Suppose even that Laura asks Steve, "Is that a promise?" and he says "Yes." So, in this admittedly rather manufactured scenario, we have an explicit promise of fidelity for the duration of the relationship. (Note that we have no promise whatsoever of the continuation of the relationship--that is something entirely different from fidelity.)

My position is that in this scenario,

1. Steve has not made an enforceable promise;

2. therefore, Laura has no basis on which to seek legal restitution if Steve breaks his promise;

3. nonetheless, Steve has made a binding representation (since all promises are by their nature binding);

4. therefore, if Steve dates someone else without talking to Laura first, he is cheating ; and that

5. Steve has no moral right to do so, as no one ever has a moral right to cheat innocent people.