Exposing the lie for selfish gain, in my opinion, is significantly less moral than remaining complicit with the lie. That much, I'd hope, most could agree with.
As for the lie in the first place, as far as I can tell it was not covering up any infidelity (or at least that much is not known). I don't think they ever mentioned when the sister and her husband began their relationship, but she certainly seems devoted to him now.
Given that assumption, the lie seems tantamount to a white lie, and would actually be the moral choice from a utilitarian point of view. Other points of view might require visiting the sister's motivation for the lie, but let's be generous and suggest it was to avoid the strained relationship between not-quite-father and bastard-son. As long as it wasn't to cover up then and future infidelity, I see no harm in it. Ignorance is bliss, after all.
reply
share
fairy_depp
9 years ago
Exactly - telling the truth would achieve nothing but hurt. It would have devastated everyone involved including the son. He obviously loves the boy and is a good dad so why risk tearing a happy family apart? (and particularly for money). As the others have said, there's nothing to suggest she cheated on her husband, I got the impression that she was pregnant before she met him
reply
share