The following story I used from the New York Times was based upon the letter written by an individual (I will name her Katie) who decided with her boyfriend, they would declare an open relationship. This open relationship ended up in Katie having an affair. At this point Katie isn’t sure whether or not she should tell said boyfriend. Her reasoning is that she doesn’t want him to become upset with her and potentially fail the semester due to the stress of it all. My opinion is that if his feelings were important, she wouldn’t have had the affair. But as the author of the response said, open relationships come with a risk. So now that we have established Katie’s act of egoism, we can determine she must tell her boyfriend so that they can both …show more content…
Just consider it a fling (like discussed would potentially happen) and move on. If Katie is not concerned with keeping her boyfriend and would rather move on with someone else, she may be able to approach the fact by Natural Theory Law. In this case she tells the truth, and whatever happens will be the final result. Whether or not it be negative. So you see here all the ways this could go and her complexity of options. Katie is going to need to understand what she wants her outcome to be most similar to. Now I will discuss my answer to Katie based upon a moral frame. The moral frame I choose for her is Natural Law Theory. Now considering Natural Law, it speaks against homosexuality. But I am simply referring to her method for solving her problem, not how this theory applies to her situation. Act Egoism is what I applied to her actions earlier. It is almost related to Kant’s means-ends principle but not the same thing. However they both have a strong value for human life. So if Katie has a strong value for her boyfriend’s life she will tell him the truth so that he may be able to live accordingly. If she doesn’t tell him or doesn’t value his life, he will live never knowing what really happened, never knowing the truth about someone he