- Joined
- Mar 27, 2017
It is not a matter of subjective basis which determines whether it is justified or not. Whoever anyone is they must try to abide by objective basis of morality. but of course, until/unless there is an objective judgment which is known to all some day, the objective basis will always be disagreed on. However, if closeness is a basis for justification of certain behaviors that I have engaged in, certainly less close relationship would not be more justified than a close relationship. Thus with Greer, he literally did not have any intimate relationships with these people. Whereas with me, I had close romantic relationships with them. With Lyndsey, we called ourselves married for the duration of 2 months out of our 3 month relationship and we regularly engaged in sexual activity in a close intimate relationship. Former friend, we were very close friends, practically best friends, and we strongly considered marriage and had great romantic interest in one another, but it never went anywhere due to disagreement of beliefs. And finally my ex girlfriend, whom I had a 15 month long relationship, and in which we regularly engaged in intimate sensual affection and which we had hopes that we would be married someday. But she decided to dump me due to differences of belief. At any rate, you cannot compare Greers nonrelationship to personal intimate relationships. If my behavior is unjustified then Greer's certainly is, whereas if his is unjustified, mine still might be justified. There are ethical principles which when followed, it is a guide to the proper truth of things. Now, there is a good argument/basis to make that I am in the wrong for trying to force my ex girlfriend to let me be in her life. This much I acknowledge it is possible I am in error on this ethical issue. However, it is absolutely certain to me, without a shadow of a doubt, that I am right regarding my ex girlfriend being in the wrong and depriving me of what I deserved. I am absolutely certain divorce and dumping is immoral except in very few cases. But they are two separate issues. Whether the person is justified for breaking up, and whether the person is justified in how they react to being dumped. Certainly I can be unjustified for how I reacted to being dumped while she also is unjustified in dumping me for the reasons she did. I maintain without a shadow of a doubt that she is morally in the wrong and had no right to dump me for the reasons she did. but like i said, its debatable about the ethics of my reactionary behavior. i acknowledge that.
"Because if the determining factor as to where the line is drawn is solely based on previous levels of perceived intimacy" its not perceive intimacy but actual intimacy, and it is not a matter of subjectivity of debate the nature of the intimacy of my prior relationships. it is not something of an opinion but what happened in my relationships did in fact happen. The only way one could regard it is as perceived intimacy is if one accuses me of being a liar, which is easily refuted by the available evidence and witnesses. My family regularly observed my interactions with me and my ex girlfriend, and i have plenty of emails and facebook messages and text messages. Its all there which shows the extent of our intimacy.
As for stalking behavior, I do not think that my behavior logically leads to suicidal desire. There are different types of stalking and mine is the least compatible with suicidal desire. Someone doesn't want to kill themselves because someone wants to be their friend and cares about them so much. Someone would want to kill themselves only if the person was making their life a living hell and full of fear terror horror and unbearable pain. someone who is unwilling to negotiate. None of which apply to my situation and what I'm doing. Lets see from her perspective: "Oh no, my ex still loves me and wants to be my friend and keeps trying to talk with me about the past that I just want to move on from. Wah scary! So horrible! if only there was some way he would leave me alone (there is; its called giving me closure)." Ok so in this case she has fear but it is not unbearable. It is minor. She might be freaking out, but in the same way someone freaks out seeing a spider. In the same way someone freaks out when they are nervous on a first date, or when they are nervous in a job interview or when they are nervous before making a big speech. its scary. but not deathly scary. not scary in a way that you want to be dead. the fear is one of experiencing something painful and uncomfortable for you. Not something which is so painful and so scary that you'd rather die than go through it.
The positive thing is restoring our friendship, or giving us both closure where we can go our separate ways without holding bitterness and negativity against each other. also possible restoration of our relationship if we can talk through our issues and come to some sort of understanding that we are both happy about.
like i said, in answer to your question, my answer is " if its something which you should have known better, then you are still at fault ". Thus if intent is grossly misjudged and misperceived as positive when you clearly should have known better, your incompetence is your fault, and therefore you are guilty and morally culpable even if you have a good intention. An example of this would be homosexuals. Homosexuals have a good intention. But its clear by nature homosexuality is wrong, so even if you think its good and not wrong, its perverted and disgusting and highly immoral behavior. another example is justifying murder with a socalled selfdefense approach. In that case, you may think you were innocent, but you should have known your actions were unjustified, so it is immoral regardless of your intent.
so you missed the point of what I was saying. While I might argue separately that some crimes are justified if you are willing to accept the consequences, like say, stealing something, my point had nothing to do with that idea. Rather what I was saying that since it is not 100% certain the ethical validity of my actions, I am taking a risk in doing what I do, knowingly full well that my actions may be damnable. But I was simply saying that it was a risk I am willing to take. Because she's so important to me and I don't want to lose her, and since the ethics of the behavior are not clearly wrong to me, I can justify it, understanding I am taking a risk due to me not having perfect knowledge of the truth. But if I am in the wrong, then I take full responsibility for my actions. This is not saying it makes it ok if i take responsibility. its simply saying I acknoweldge the risk and I'm accepting that risk for myself. its important enough to me that I'm willing to risk my soul over it.
No that's what I wanted to do with you. But with him, I just wanted to be his friend again. I felt close to him as a friend, and so for him to end our friendship was deeply offensive and personal to me. I didn't want to lose such a friendship that was so important to me. But then I changed my entire religious framework and had no desire anymore of him being in my life. Not because I didn't want to be friends anymore, but that me no longer sharing his religion, made it so that his friendship was basically irrelevant for me and I didn't care anymore. Now with my ex girlfriend, she's not my religion, but its still relevant to me, because I love her regardless and due to our former relationship I feel morally obligated to try and reconcile with her at least as friend's if not more.
