Not only was he abusive to his first wife, he then got married to his cousin, and almost proposed to her daughter. Beyond that, he had a great deal of affairs.
Einstein may have been smart, but he was a really awful person.
Being shitty about commitment and affection in your romantic life does not by default make you an awful person. It makes you bad at strong romantic relationships perhaps. There are however many other metrics of what makes someone good and bad in a moral and human sense. So please, lay off the "if you ever cheat on your wife you must be a piece of human garbage" nonsense.
Why is the relationship sphere separate from the moral sphere? How do you decide what belongs in the moral sphere? Does the relationship sphere overlap with the moral sphere in other areas just not in fidelity? Why doesn't it intersect there?
Saying someone is boolean "good" or "bad" is of course complex - perhaps beyond utility. But to the extent a moral evaluation is being made of a person (unless your point is no such evaluation can or should ever be made?) I don't see how their conduct in their romantic relationships could be exempted?
I did not say it shouldnt be exempted, only that on the scale of moral judgments insofar as we are equipped to make them, cheating is and should be far down the list compared to many other acts that individually or in summary could and in many cases should make someone worse than a "good person" by the normal standards of moral judgement that most of us accept and live by.
Being shitty about commitment and affection in your romantic life does not by default make you an awful person.
Yes, it does. Abusing your spouse is one of the worst forms of abuse, especially during that time, because they can't really get themselves out of that situation. Cheating's a more intense version of any other breaking of commitment. A person who consistently breaks commitment is absolutely an awful person.
There are however many other metrics of what makes someone good and bad in a moral and human sense.
Sure. A child-beater can donate millions to charity. An anti-consumer monopolist can donate billions. A rapist can volunteer at homeless shelters. None of these are good people: their worst aspects are inexcusable.
So please, lay off the "if you ever cheat on your wife you must be a piece of human garbage" nonsense.
Do it multiple times to multiple wives, you're definitely human garbage.
You can't magically compartmentalize away being a terrible person solely because you're only terrible to a single person who has very little power. If a person who tortures someone—just a single person—has good actions outside of the person they have locked up in their basement, they're still a bad person.
I think you've gone well off the reservation with lack of perspective. In most modern western societies your spouse that you cheat on can indeed very easily leave you any time she or he wants to, and they're certainly not powerless in either a legal or practical exit sense. If we're talking about a non-legally binding girlfriend/boyfriend relationship, even easier for them to walk away. And no, cheating on someone sexually or romantically is not the same as abusing them in any legal sense, and it's definitely far removed from being a child beater, torturer or rapist. Drop the absurd hyperbole please. These are literal criminal acts of violence against another person, whereas the former is an act of dishonesty to one consenting, adult who understands basic fidelity risks in life and sexual license with another consenting adult. Neither of these is enough to get someone classified as "human garbage" in such denigratory terms in my view, and certainly not enough to put them on par with the genuinely vicious acts of coercive predatory behavior you're comparing cheating to. Your view is absurdly emotional and outside reasoned analysis of moral comparisons dude.
In most modern western societies your spouse that you cheat on can indeed very easily leave you any time she or he wants to, and they're certainly not powerless in either a legal or practical exit sense.
Not during the early 1900s, which is what's being discussed here. Also, "any time she or he wants to" is a complete misrepresentation of today's situation, as well.
And no, cheating on someone sexually or romantically is not the same as abusing them in any legal sense,
I didn't claim it was abusive, I claimed it was a terrible thing to do. I claimed that his abusive behavior was abusive, which is true.
Your entire argument is based around strawmanning against an argument that wasn't being made.