Is cheating natural?

Survival and cheating go hand-in-hand.

It's morality and common sense that tell us it's wrong.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: American-philosopher

Does not cheating imply an agreed upon set of rules? I do not think that one bird agreed with another bird,"hey, lets not take one another's nests."
To my mind, cheating and hypocrisy go hand in hand. A mate who promises fidelity and then dallies with another is a "cheater". A person who sits at a poker table with an established gentlemans set of rules of the game and then pulls an ace from his cuff is a cheater.

To say that cheating is part of human nature I think is short of the point. Do children agree to rules willingly? I think not so much. They have always seemed to me to be rather free agents until they are inculcated with the working rules of their society. When, at an age that they agree with moving forward with their lives with those rules taken axiomatically and they then or later violate those rules, it is not that they are cheating someone else, or the system, but rather that they are violating the creation of themselves which in part was an agreement to those rules.

in total agreement with that.

I have a friend who believes whole-heartedly that men are not capable of being faithful in a relationship. I always make a point to tell him that he may be incapable but that doesn't mean everyone else is too. He refutes that by saying I am in denial.

I have never cheated in a relationship. It wasn't for lack of opportunity. It just want something I ever felt a need to do. I think it depends on what you are expecting from the relationship. If all you want is sex and someone to party with then I would tend to believe that cheating might be something you would consider. If you are looking for serious commitment and a meaningful long-term relationship, I would tend to believe that cheating would never enter your mind. You would be undermining the purpose of the relationship, sabotaging your own efforts to sustain a meaningful adult relationship that involves more than just 'the moment'.

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha
...To cheat is to have an unfair advantage that one would not normally have in a given situation for gain. (my on-the-fly definition for the sake of this thread.)

...Especially in the animal kingdom, different animals are equipped to employ certain techniques for survival.

...I think that's very different than human cheating because it's not like I was born with answers to next week's history test, you know?

Thanks, NarcolepticBuddha
You could be right.
Seems, though, that one needs to define a different set of rules to accommodate your take.
If a near-starving lion is fortunate enough to take down a wildebeest...only to be beset by a pack of hyenas...who steal the lion's 'work' - said lion might end up starving. To my eye - the hyenas had an unfair advantage over the lone lion, and used said advantage to the detriment (demise?) of the lion...
Is that cheating? It is to me.
We can say - "that's life (&/or death)", but how is that different from a small man employing deceptive practices to survive or thrive as well as a super-stud/jock (in some books, an 'unfair advantage' over the smaller man)?
Not saying I'm right and you're wrong... But - I am apparently not seeing the distinction you seem to see.

a reply to: WanDash

If the hyenas had lasers and battle armor, I would call that cheating. Otherwise they're just doing what all other hyenas would do. See, they have no advantage over any other hyenas. Now, the lion v. hyena..that's apples and oranges. Hyenas and lions have different capabilities and adaptations for survival. They're going to be in competition anyway. But lions competing with other lions, or hyenas with other hyenas generally don't have any advantage (aside from the smallest and weakest not being able to fare.)

That pretty much sums up where I'm coming from

I'm not saying I'm correct by any means. Just sharing my opinion on what cheating is, and isn't.

This conversation leads me to a stance on anarchy. Someone mentioned something about rules. I think people want anarchy and are proponents for it because they basically want a reset. Kind.
of like when people file for bankruptcy. They want to make new rules because the ones that they played by didn't work for them.

(oh boy that can be kind of controversial on here., hahha)

a reply to: American-philosopher

Our word is supposed to be our bond, or at least that is the premise that this entire cosmos is predicated upon; however, I believe that certain rights and aspects of being are and should be inalienable, and not in the twisted definition as used by our modern masters, but as T.J. intended when he penned the phrase. In-a-lien-able, meaning that something cannot even be transferred or given away no matter how badly you might desire to.

I believe that this should be the only hard limit on our liberty. God should not be permitted to create a stone that is too heavy for himself to move, because this diminishes his own authority and changes his relationship with the universe such that he is trasmuted into a substance that is no longer godly.

If you desire to be a slave, then you are inherently flawed to the point that you should not be permitted to condemn yourself to your own undoing. You should be cared for until the illness passes so that you may then rejoin society as a free being. You might hate liberty, you might fight against it with everything in you, but once you finally take the imperfect canvas that is your life and write upon it the story you have to tell, you will be grateful for all of the anguish that led up to your self-discovery, as am I.

a reply to: Nechash

well again natural law and in alienable rights kind of along the same lines right. I as well believe in alienable rights and natural law. that there are some things that are just given and like you say cannot be taken away

I'd ask: "Is monogamy natural in the human species?" I'd say NO. If you're talking about that kind of cheating.

If you're talking about opportunist cheating, I'd say humans are naturally opportunists.

originally posted by: Annee
I'd ask: "Is monogamy natural in the human species?"

I'd say NO.

I think the divorce statistics agree.

www.divorcemag.com...

originally posted by: Answer
Survival and cheating go hand-in-hand.

It's morality and common sense that tell us it's wrong.

Yes, this exactly. Cheating is survival of the fittest in action--absolutely natural.

And in our current stage of human evolution I'd go so far as to say
that cheating isn't even abnormal.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Annee
I'd ask: "Is monogamy natural in the human species?"

I'd say NO.

I think the divorce statistics agree.

Personally I'd say polygamy or even polyamory is more natural to the human species.

Monogamy is man made. It might be for a good reason, such as prevention of spreading sexual diseases. Sanitation in early days was a problem. There's also the religious aspect. And blood lines.

a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

So, maybe having rules is not natural

Ah there,,, Now we are down to it. What is natural and what is not. And how much is natural to this physical world in which we live and how much might be natural to a grander scheme of things. We easily set a line between these two. But for now my wife has a rule that when she is ready to leave for town, I need to be ready to so, maybe we can take this up later.
Adios.

a reply to: Annee

If a trait is beneficial for survival, it can be preserved systematically without the need for overtly established pedigrees. Reassortment of genes can enable the assembly of a target organism long after its genes have been dispersed laterally across a population, especially if certain markers have been hard coded into exomes that are unlikely to suffer from a great deal of genetic drift. To verify that the original gene is accurate transcribed, you can either create a concensus strain from all living cousins available or you can use some type of ancestral record to engineer the gene synthetically.

We have technologically transcended the need for patriarchy. Clinging onto it now is a symptom of superstitious traditionalism. Personally, I don't think we'll really need to intervene to destroy the institution of marriage. We are already seeing natural matriarchies arising with multiple-female lead households emerging as adults cohabitate to pool resources. People being anxious creatures who like everything to be written down in stone, I can see the eventual emergence of cooperative households where unrelated adults agree to work together for their mutual economic advantage while maintaining a state of sexual independence.

originally posted by: American-philosopher
...okay but for animals when you say there cheating to get spoils or food I think there just doing what's natural to eat. Because Iike you say some animals may be predators.

...

I am guessing that you are applying a different standard to "animals" (and/or even different kinds of animals) than to "humans".
That's fine. I will not argue the point, as - I simply don't Know.
I thought, however, the conversation that was the impetus for the thread topic had to do with "Nature" &/or "what is Natural"...
Everyone can write their own set/s of rules, and create their own lens to view the question through - I was attempting to view it with the same rules applied to all creatures. Might have failed in said attempt - but, it was an honest try.

a reply to: Nechash

If it were me, I'd design society using elephants as my guideline.

While I do not believe cheating to be good.. I do believe it is necessary for the full development of Male/Female energy. It is a very important element within the play and interplay of the male/female relationships upon the earth. The importance of faithfulness should go without saying...( I doubt societal stability would exist apart from it ). Nations could not have been built without a strong family unit ( at least from my current perspective ). Cheating provides the oppurtunity to forgive/accept/adapt on a very high level. It prods envy and jealousy to their heights and reveals parts of our core character that could not be dredged out by any other means.
It also provides an oppurtunity to study the dynamics of the male/female relationship from a unique and powerful perspective. The Bible essentially centers around the theme of unfaithfulness... and yet in the end it will bring about the highest degree of love and beauty. I think we need to ponder the possibility that the one's being cheated on need to learn lessons that those in the "role" of cheater may already know. And vice versa as well. So whether we see ourselves as teacher or student let us profit from the current state of affairs.

a reply to: American-philosopher

I was saying it is natural but as we grow up we start having rules in classrooms which tell us not to do it so it becomes taboo

a reply to: American-philosopher

I've never had the urge to cheat at something. If I have, it's usually justified to the point where I don't even consider it cheating (like looking at answers in the back of a book after you have already given up). To me, cheating just takes the fun out of everything. Even in games with cheat codes in them, I avoid them because it nulls anything I accomplish when I use them. Heck, I can't even play Minecraft on "creative" mode because it feels like cheating.

I think "cheating" is also a transient term subject to the perspective of the beholder. It all depends on what is at stake as well as what is right. If I were a hacker and somebody stole my wallet and the cops didn't do anything about it, would it be cheating if I hacked that person and stole my money back? There are all sorts of cases where "cheating" can right a wrong but I wouldn't actually call that cheating.

a reply to: HarryJoy
That was an interesting and thoughtful take on the subject.
Jealousy, betrayal, guilt, revenge, etc... - some pretty intense emotions called to center-stage.