On the contrary, any number of religious folks, citing the Ten Commandments, do in fact construe such behavior as immoral. As a Sin against God. Punishable [for some] by eternal damnation in Hell. Just as secular objectivists like Ayn Rand considered it entirely rational [and thus moral] for Nathaniel Brandon [married to Barbara] to sleep with her. Indeed, he was morally obligated to because she construed herself to be the highest form of woman.
And it’s one thing for men to deem women their property from the perspective of might makes right. But what of those like Satyr and his clique at KT who insist that this behavior is entirely in sync with that which nature compels. This then becoming their own “philosophical” rendition of right makes might.
Now, on this thread, what I am interested in exploring is how individual Buddhists react to coveting their neighbor’s spouse. And then acting on it. And then configuring this behaviour “in their head” as it relates to their understanding of enlightenment and karma, as that is connected to their understanding of reincarnation and Nirvana on the other side. In other words, given their religious values what are the actual consequences – here and now, there and then – of the behaviors they choose.
Also, my point is that the “attitudes” that particular individuals acquire here is rooted as much or more in dasein as in anything they might come to conclude as philosophers or ethicists or religionists.
Again, in any particular context where stealing becomes a matter of survival, it can be rationalized as acceptable behavior. But, for some, that doesn’t make it any less immoral. And what of those who couldn’t care less about pinning down the behaviors they choose as either right or wrong. They do what they do because it furthers their own self-interest. Period. You’ll see that more and more if the coronavirus crisis really begins to deepen. Assessments of rational/irrational, moral/immoral, sufficient/insufficient behavior will begin to blur more and more. It will depend on the context perceived in a particular way.
After all, why on earth do you suppose hundreds of millions of men and women turn to one or another religious narrative in the first place? With God all of these conflicted distinctions are resolved on Judgment Day.
It’s just that with Buddhism, there appears to be no God and thus no Judgment Day. So, how does it work “for all practical purposes” when the rubber meets the road…when conflicting assessments of enlightened behavior here and now are reconfigured into reincarnation and Nirvana there and then.
One can go on and on and on making these technical distinctions between rational and sufficient reasons. But where does that get you on the day you die? What does it mean – philosophically, theologically, spiritually – to have thought that through correctly?