Dilemmas · Love

Should I confess an affair?

What the philosophers say — Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill and Michel de Montaigne

Is your silence protecting your partner, or protecting you from what you did?

The dilemma

Few questions divide moral philosophers more cleanly than whether to tell a painful truth. Here three of them take on the hardest version, one where the truth can wreck a home. One held that deception wrongs a person in a way no good outcome can repair. One weighed every act by its effect on the happiness of everyone involved. One spent years examining his own motives and distrusted everyone's, including his own.

Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant

1724 – 1804 on honesty and treating people as ends

Silence that depends on deceiving your partner treats them as a thing to be managed.

Let me be precise, because precision matters here. I do not hold that you must volunteer every fact about yourself to everyone. Reserve is not the same as deceit. But you are not keeping a private thought to yourself. You are keeping from your partner a fact about the very relationship they have chosen to share with you, and you can only keep it by continuing to act out a falsehood every day: in what you say, what you allow them to believe, and what you let them build upon.nnAsk yourself the question I ask of every maxim. Could you will that everyone in your position act as you are acting? Could you will a world in which partners routinely hide betrayals so as to manage each other's feelings? In such a world the trust that makes a shared life possible would not exist at all. Your maxim depends on others not following it.nnThere is a second test. You are deciding, on your partner's behalf, what reality they are allowed to live in. You treat them, however lovingly, as someone to be handled rather than as a rational person entitled to judge their own life with the facts in hand. That is the wrong at the centre of all deception.nnI do not say confession will turn out well. The consequences are not in your control, and you are not answerable for them in the way you are answerable for your own honesty. You are answerable for this.

More about Immanuel Kant →

John Stuart Mill

John Stuart Mill

1806 – 1873 on consequences, and the right to choose with the facts

Count everyone's happiness, including the right of your partner to choose their own life.

I judge actions by their consequences for the happiness of everyone affected, counted fairly, with your own interest weighing no more than anyone else's. So I will not give you a rule. I will ask you to do the sum honestly, which is harder.nnBegin with what confession would cost: pain to your partner, possibly the end of the relationship, harm to children if there are any, and to you. Those costs are real and I do not dismiss them. Then set beside them what silence costs, which people in your position nearly always underestimate. There is the strain of a secret on you and on everything you say. There is the likelihood that it will come out anyway, in a worse way, at a worse time. And there is a harm that does not show up as pain at all.nnI spent much of my life arguing that people must be free to direct their own lives, and that this freedom is one of the deepest sources of human happiness. Your partner is making decisions now, about staying, about trust, perhaps about children and money, on the basis of a false picture you are maintaining. You have taken away their ability to choose for themselves. That is a serious harm, even if they never feel it.nnBe honest about whose happiness your silence is really serving. If it is chiefly your own comfort, the sum does not come out in your favour.

More about John Stuart Mill →

Michel de Montaigne

Michel de Montaigne

1533 – 1592 on self-knowledge and the motives for confessing

Know why you want to confess before you do it.

I have little patience with lying. I once wrote that if we understood the horror and weight of a lie, we would punish it more severely than other crimes, because our whole dealing with one another depends on the word. So I will not tell you that a comfortable deception is a harmless thing.nnBut I have also spent years watching my own motives, and I have learned to distrust them, especially when they look noble. Confession can be a very selfish act. It can be a way of unloading a weight from your own shoulders onto someone else's, of buying your relief with their pain, of making a little theatre of your repentance in which you play the leading part. I have seen men confess not to be honest but to be forgiven, which is a different thing.nnSo before you speak, examine yourself, slowly and without flattering. Is the affair over, or are you asking your partner to absolve something that is still going on? Are you telling them because they have a right to know the truth of their own life, or because you can no longer bear the discomfort of knowing it alone? Have you thought about how to tell it, with care, rather than in a storm?nnMy own inclination leans to the truth, told plainly and gently, without excuses and without performance. But the right reason matters as much as the right act. Know yourself first.

More about Michel de Montaigne →

Where they part

Kant says ongoing concealment wrongs your partner whatever the outcome, because it treats them as someone to be managed; Mill weighs the consequences for everyone but counts your partner's right to choose their own life as a heavy harm on the side of silence; Montaigne leans towards telling but warns that confession can serve the confessor more than the confessed. Kant judges the act, Mill the results, and Montaigne the motive.

For education and entertainment only. Each answer is written in the philosopher's manner from what they actually argued. It is not a quotation, and it is not psychological, medical, legal or financial advice.

philosophersatlas.com · /dilemma/should-i-confess-an-affair/