As most of my students recall, we discussed a paper by one of my students about the "Lemon Law", only in this case as it applies to dating.
In brief, the idea is that if within the first few minutes of a date, if one party becomes convinced that there is no hope of a second date, then they have the right to end the date at that point, no questions asked.
As we've debated in class, there are all kinds of wide-ranging issues here. Give me your thoughts for or against the moral permisability of such a law.
This blog is dedicated to ethical debates regarding Just War Theory and the Profession of Arms as well as other issues of philosophical and ethical interest. Its primary contributors are future Air Force Officers currently attending the Air Force Academy. The views expressed in this blog are solely the opinions of the individual authors and not of the United States Air Force nor the Department of Defense.
18 comments:
I think it is totally accpetable to pack it in if you are sure there is no possibility of a second date.
If you end it right there, you are benefiting both parties... you stop wasting both their's and your's time. it makes sense. it may not be "socially acceptable" but can you really apply social standards to ethics?
I see nothing ethically wrong with just letting the other party know (nicely) that you just dont think it will work and then take them home.
I do not see how you could ever be absolutely sure you would never want to go on a second date. First impressions aren't everything, in fact, most of the time they mean nothing. A lot of the times I end up becoming good friends with people who I did not like at the beginning. You can never know for sure until you actually get to know someone.
I also don't see how it can be moral to cut a person off five minutes into a date. I know that if someone did that to me I would feel really bad about myself. I don't see how anyone would take it other than as a slap in the face. Since you decided to go on the date in the first place, you owe it to that person to finish the date. It is much easier on the other person to just not go on a second date than to punch out before the date is even over.
I see nothing ethically wrong with just letting the other party know (nicely) that you just dont think it will work and then take them home.
If everyone thought that way, then the entire world would be just as socially challenged as cadets...and you know us cadets are socially challenged. We are missing out on REAL social interaction by living in a zoo, our jokes mean nothing to the outsiders yet we perpetually use them. This too would happen to your date, now she goes home thinking damn I sucked again, but has NO WAY of ever EXPERIENCING any success. This date runs into the same problem over and over again because people are too self-ish to actually hands on help her out.
Why are there things like Date the celebrity fund raisers or Date this really witty, funny, sexy guy, who you know you will never get a hello from again kind of fundraisers. Isn't it for the experience? Maybe for some its the exposer? Or others the bragging rights? But bragging rights for what, "oh I PAID for this once and a life-time date that you will never get" Well if the other person wanted it they would have paid to, so its almost like prostitution?
No, I think its more of the idea that you can say to you friends, "OMG I made Jessica Biel laugh so hard she CRIED" We both know you wont get another Date with that Goddess but you cannot say you did not learn from the date.
Also are you that much of a P.I.M.P. that you have another date set up that you cannot waste your precious little time. Why not use that time to polish up your own dating skills, but then again...and if its about wasting money - then it is your own fault in getting into a date requiring you to spend money on them.
Well there are some issues not addressed in your examination of the issue. Ser Loras you said: This too would happen to your date, now she goes home thinking damn I sucked again, but has NO WAY of ever EXPERIENCING any success. This date runs into the same problem over and over again because people are too self-ish to actually hands on help her out. When did it ever fall on my shoulders to drag someone around so they can experience success. There are things in life that one cannot be tought. I believe matters of the heart are one of them. Am I really being self-fish by letting someone know that I have no interest in them. Should I 'sacrifice' myself so that the date can have some more enjoyment to at the end of it all be told I knew from the beginning this was going no where. Hey I'll even help them achieve more success later not by sacrificing my time but when using the lemon law I'll tell them exactly what 'the defect' was so maybe they can try and change it.
Overall, thought this 'Lemon Law' is in general an idea that perhaps could find its way into social settings. Now obviously it all comes down to personal choices, cause there will be settings that this may not be useable if you will. However, for the typical dinner and movie date I daresay extend the law to cover the entire date not just the first 5 minutes.
On your first date with someone; your thinking of matters from the heart?? If everyone thought that way then sure implement the law, but I am pretty sure matters from the heart take more than one date, and if their was any "love at first sight" you wouldnt want to use the "law."
And yes it is your responsibility to finish the date, you either agreed to go on the date or you asked the person to go on the date - maybe if this was some "blind date" scenario you could just up and leave, but then again who set you up?
I don't think this is a moral issue at all. While I believe cutting off a date from the beginning is selfish and immature, I dont' think it is morally wrong to do so, just stupid. Yeah, cutting it off from the beginning would be a slap in the face, but wouldn't carrying on the date, raising the other person's hopes, and then never contancting him or her again also be a slap in the face, even potentially worse? The other person will be hurt (potentially) regardless of the timing of calling it off. With the hurt inevitable, is it immoral to bring it at the beginning of the date instead of the end. I say no. Is it a good idea? Once again, I say no. You never know what might happen after you get to know the person. Final conclusion on lemon law for dating: amoral but not a good idea.
what is with today's american society and the need for instant gratification? there was a time that couples would be determined at birth and then work with what they had. If you are already on a date, then you have obviously put in at least some effort to set everything up, meet, and so on. You never know what might happen or what you could work out.
Another way you could argue this topic would be to think of it at a higher level in a relationship. Say you have been married for a year and you have been having some problems lately, and oh yeah, you have a kid. would it be o.k. to just say, this isn't workign and peace out, or suffer through a little pain for a possibly much greater payoff. So no, i do not think it would be right to just walk out of a date.
nevertheless, i am a result of the society in which i was raised. if i didnt think the date was going anywhere i would be out of there faster than anyone. contradiction is my one consistency.
I think it is a matter of commitment. You made an agreement to spend an allotted amount of time with someone. If your so caught up in the fact that a date might go miserably, plan that way. Tell someone you just want to grab lunch or coffee real quick. There's an easy answer. Don't lock yourself into a full blown dinner if you are so seriously concerned that you think it might not work out.
You agreed to spend a certain amount of time and energy (maybe money too) with someone and it's your obligation now to do that. It's similar to holding a job interview...you agreed to interview this person for whatever amount of time and you owe it to them to have a reasonable chance of convincing you. Same goes for dating.
I do not understand how knowingly hurting someone is amoral, you are saying it is inevitable that the person gets hurt because your raising their hopes...well stop being fake to your date and be real, if they said something that wasnt funny - DONT LAUGH, basically if its a "lemon law" date the other person should get the hint sooner or later, but it is always better to figure something out on your own then being told...I think that is something Kant said about enlightment...not positive though.
WHO CARES IF THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF A SECOND DATE OR NOT?!?! for one, by the end of the night you could be counting your lucky stars for sticking with it because you find out how amazing someone actually is. maybe they are just putting up a front to try and see if you are actually going to make an effort and get past it. how would you feel if someone who you thought you 100% hit it off with all of the sudden dropped this law on you? as kant would say, you are using that person as a mere means to get out of a crummy situation. this can be compared to suicide(i know totally different but hear me out). someone that wants to kill themselves usually wants to do that because they are IN A CRUMMY SITUATION and they do not see it getting any better. funny how that sounds exactly like getting out of a bad date because you don't see a future in the relationship...
I don’t think it’s socially permissible to walk out on someone in the middle of the first date. You made a commitment with them to get to know each other for a few hours. You should not go back on your agreement. You certainly shouldn’t deceive the person into thinking that you would like a second date when in fact you don’t. However, you should stick it out to the end of the date. If you walk out on someone during the date, not only do you diminish almost any chance of ever dating that person, you could also keep any other sort of friendship from developing. By walking out, you display the characteristic of a friend who would give up on someone when things got a little hairy. Even if this person isn’t compatible for a romantic relationship, they could be one of your future best friends or someone who truly needs your help (especially if the person appears to be psycho). However, you would never know that by wiping away your credibility by walking out during the middle of a date.
I think the lemon law idea is ok because if you are stuck there with someone you dont like you're probably not having a good time which is bad for you, and also you're probably sending unconscious signals to them telling them you're not having fun so neither are they so now you're both miserable. Plus, if you're not into and somehow they are and are growing more affectionate towards you then you are essentially just leading them on which inst fair. But i also think with a lemon law there should also be a time limit b/c if you make it past a certain point then you probably do owe it to them to stick it out because you've taken enough of their time to owe it to them
I think it is acceptable if it is obvious that it won't work for either person. If one person still wants to continue the date I feel that the other person owes them that chance, first impressions are not always correct.
To not back off of the date and lead the other person on would be the equivalent of a lie, and therefore immoral. THe lesser of the two "evils" is to tell the person that you pull the "lemon law" rule, and no longer wish to see them.
Even though you can tell pretty easily whether or not there will be a second date righ toff the bat, you should still finish the date. You don't have to finish the complete date though. For example, if you planned on dinner and a movie and then go karts after that, you should atleast go to dinner and then cut it off. Atleast this way you can know for sure and you won't seem like such a jerk for turning right around and making a snap judgment.
I am in favor of this idea. However, I personally think that if there was such a "lemon law for dating" it would rarely be invoked. Yes, there are those few instances that you go on a blind date and you know from the start that it's not going to work. However, I think that most of the time people would be more curious to get to know the person and see if there is a chance. To present why I think a lemon law would be justified, if there is something so obvious and repulsive to you that you would even consider invoking such a law, then there is no reason to put yourself or the other person through the agony of trying to make a doomed relationship work.
I do not agree with this policy for more than one reason. There is more to just hurting the other persons feelings, they have set aside time to go out with you, maybe dipping out on other plans or even canceling in hope of a nice date. Secondly even if you don't believe the date is going anywhere this is the perfect opportunity to work on social skills, just because in a social situation things are not going well does not mean you have the ability or it is even proper to walk out of the situation. Learn to liven the situation or make a boring night into a fun one, look at it as practice for the many times this could happen again while making another persons night enjoyable.
I think a lemon law would be perfectly acceptable. I like the idea of honesty. If there is a situation where you know its just not going to work out, just better to cut your losses. However, i do not think this would get used that often. For myelf, it would have to be a really bad date before I just ended it. If it wasn't that bad i would stick it out for the other person's sake. Like a previous poster said, they make have taken the time out and they deserve a chance, as long as its not too painful.
Post a Comment