It is a recurring theme: powerful, successful men have their careers brought down by sex scandals. It is, of course, natural to wonder why this occurs. I will look at three main areas of possible failures: epistemology, logic, and values.
Epistemology is, of course, the study of knowledge. Briefly put, it deals with questions regarding the nature and limits of knowledge. It also involves matters of belief and justification, so much so that philosophers used to often take knowledge to be justified true belief. In the case of sex scandals, such as those that brought Spitzer and Weiner to grief, one likely possibility is that the men do not believe that they will get caught, despite the evidence to the contrary (namely all the other men who have been caught). This can be seen as a epistemic failure on their part in that they hold to a belief that is not true and not justified. It also seems likely that they hed beliefs about their abilities that were not warranted. As such, one factor in their downfall is their epistemic failures.
Naturally, their mistakes can also be partially attributed to failures in critical thinking/logic. To be specific, these men presumably believe that they will not be caught. However, they behave in ways that have often resulted in people getting caught. That they believe they will be the special exception in the face of evidence to the contrary shows a failure of reasoning on their part. Weiner’s case nicely illustrates poor reasoning: he certainly seemed to infer that he would be able to hide his behavior while engaging in that behavior with people he did not know that well via the internet in general and via social media in particular. A little critical thinking would show that his exposure was all but inevitable. As such, failures in critical thinking contributed to their downfall.
The main factor was, obviously enough, a failure in values. These men engaged in behavior that they themselves claim is wrong. If they are truthful about that, then they were acting against their own values and thus engaged in a moral failing. If they did not consider their behavior wrong, then they clearly had a different sort of moral failing, namely a failure to understand the wrongness of their actions. As such, either they were morally weak (and failed to live up to their principles) or they were lacking in moral principles in this regard. Either option would, obviously enough, make it possible for them to engage in such bad behavior.
