when you sleep with the wife of a married guy you indirectly increase that person's risk for diseases, increase the chances for issues between those two people, and indirectly state that you are fine with the actions of people when they sleep with other's wives. Including your own

So, what you are saying is that when you sleep with someone you shouldn't, even if you don't consciously intend damage to others, damage can occur across multiple vectors. In other words, the impact of one's actions matters even if the intent is not necessarily to cause harm. I doubt someone would sleep with a married man just to hurt his wife (although people are crazy, and it's probably happened at some point once or twice) and in fact the sleep-ee (as we'll call the woman in this situation) may not desire or consciously consider the impact to the wife at all. Depending on the person I'm sure there is also the potential for various degrees of guilt. Which is actually kind of an interesting reaction, to be honest, because the one breaking vows in this situation is the husband.

We seem to agree that a single person acting in perhaps a selfish or heedless way (especially - although I'm sure those aren't the only limits) can cause "indirect" negative impact to others, even widespread or dangerous negative impact.

If someone's actions can be understood to have a negative impact without a negative intent, then does it not also stand that someone's words can have a negative impact without a necessarily negative intent? To speak is to act.

I posit that it is impossible to be fully aware of the ramifications of our speech or actions at any given time and that we all act in ways, from time to time, that cause negative impact without us having a negative intent behind them. The lack of a conscious intention to do wrong does not provide for a clean slate in which humans can move heedlessly and, when harm inevitably occurs, say "Well I didn't intend for that to happen, so you can't blame me."

On a side note, I highly doubt someone helping a married person to cheat on their spouse would care very much about the sanctity of marriage as an institution in general. I would go further and say that being a party to cheating in the context of a marriage does not indirectly condone the actions of people who sleep with married people, but rather directly condones it.

When a person does something it stands to reason that they are okay with doing that action, whatever it is - outside of course of situations such as blackmail (though one could argue that in the case of blackmail the person has decided that whatever they're being coerced to is worth their secret, whatever, not coming to light, and still has made the choice to condone their course of action). I think it's very possible a person might not have fully thought-through their actions and may later regret them, but in the moment of action they have decided what they are doing is viable.

My coworker got hit by a car a few years ago. The lady driving sure as hell didn't intent to hit her with a car. That lack of intention did not impact the very real injuries and damages my co-worker sustained. I also feel that that lack of intention is in no way justification for the driver of the car not to pay those damages, etc.

P.S. Trust me, married or not: if someone in a relationship is cheating, issues were there a long time before anyone's dick/pussy/sexual organs/[emotional cheating organ] got wet where it shouldn't've.

P.P.S. The point about the whole theoretical-asshole-argument that got missed is that people can have the best intentions and still be total dickwads. Which is also lacking the intent to do harm does not obviate harm done. People have skewed viewpoints and often perceive things, actions, words, scenes, differently. A guy may consider himself a hero, saving the masses, when really he is wreaking havoc.

You cannot absolve yourself of consequences by not intending to cause them. If, however, you really didn't mean for those consequences to occur, you'd act to correct them when you perceived them. You certainly wouldn't deny that they exist simply because you didn't foresee that they would come about when you made your initial action - be it to speak, or to move, or to act.

If you call a person a derogatory name as a joke and they burst into tears, it being a joke doesn't mean their feelings aren't hurt. It being a joke doesn't mean you aren't responsible for that pain.