First principles:
As a first principle we can say that “conscious thought” always precedes “intentional action.”
Volumes have been written on that concept – and it makes for an interesting “two drink discussion” – i.e. what exactly is “consciousness?” is a “reflex” action “thought?”
We then wander into the concept of “mind vs body” – i.e. if a small child puts their hand on a hot stove, they will automatically pull their hand back illustrating a “reflex” action (the autonomic nervous system). BUT “reflexes” can be controlled by “higher brain” functions in humans (completely irrelevant tangent from Ancient Rome here).
Sure in “animals” it is possible to condition/desensitize individuals to certain stimuli – but that is “learned helplessness” not “conscious thought.”
The fidelity thing …
Fidelity comes into the English language via the Latin fidere (“to trust”). What is slightly interesting is that “fidelity” always seems to have been in short supply, and therefore is always highly valued as a concept if not in practice.
Working from the idea that “conscious thought proceeds intentional action” – then I will point out another truism: the “unexamined life” is not worth living.
I usually trot that one out when people are asking for “career advice” (e.g. Q. “What should I do for a career?” A. “I have no idea what you should do – what do you enjoy doing? can you make a living doing that?” etc).
As a clarifier for “the unexamined life isn’t worth living” I’ll point out that we will “react” to situations how we have been “trained” to react.
Which is the whole idea of “military training exercises” – i.e. the extreme example: “How will soldiers react in combat?” well, no one really knows for sure how individuals will act – but we do know with 100% certainty that “untrained troops” tend to panic and run – i.e. the “natural response” is some form of “run away.” So “you will react as you have been trained” becomes truism 2a.
Meanwhile back at the ranch …
Now we run into the idea that “infidelity” might be the “natural response.”
Ok, calling someone an “old dog” might be a complement – of course context matters. The “old dog” might not easily learn “new tricks” but has been tested and remained faithful.
However, saying that someone has the “morals of a dog” is most certainly NOT a complement – it implies that someone acts on impulse for pleasure.
The (hopefully) obvious example is that “thou shalt not commit adultery” is one of the 10 commandments because infidelity has always been a problem AND we react the way we have been trained.
SO (in general) if you have been trained that “infidelity is wrong” then you are much less likely to engage in “faithless behavior” of any kind.
But (just as obvious) if you have been trained that “if it feels good do it” then “cheating” is going to appear natural/ok/acceptable.
Final thoughts/Wisdom/Virtue/I’m rambling again …
Umm, all of which means that “infidelity” might be “natural” but has never been “acceptable.” Obviously “great societies” tend to suffer from an internal moral decay before they “fall” – but that is probably like saying that if you pile rocks on top of each (without any mortar to keep them together) they will eventually topple.
Remove the “moral mortar” from any society and it is in danger of collapse. Just for fun – I’ll point out the Augustus Caesar was worried about the state of the “Roman family” way back when – so this is a “human nature” type of thing …
ANYWAY – the issue becomes that “societal norms” will be “taught” from one generation to the next MOST EFFECTIVELY by what the “little ones” see at home – which is another post some other time …
There is a difference between “knowing things” (maybe call that “knowledge”), “knowing what is ‘right/good/correct/moral’” (maybe call that “wisdom”), and “the practice of doing what is ‘right’” (maybe that is “virtue”).
SO “virtue” must be taught/learned – which brings a quote to mind
Experience is the hardest kind of teacher. It gives you the test first and the lesson afterward.
Oscar Wilde.