Justin McBrayer considers when divorce is morally permissable, and when it isn’t.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/120/The_Morality_of_Getting_Divorced
The Morality of Getting Divorced
-
Impenitent
- Posts: 4365
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: The Morality of Getting Divorced
I'm Henry the Eighth I am
Henry the Eighth I am, I am
I got married to the widow next door
and she'd been seven times before
and every one was a Henry, Henry
Never a Willie or a Sam
I'm her eighth old man, I'm Henry
Henry the Eighth I am...
(Murray and Weston)
-Imp
Henry the Eighth I am, I am
I got married to the widow next door
and she'd been seven times before
and every one was a Henry, Henry
Never a Willie or a Sam
I'm her eighth old man, I'm Henry
Henry the Eighth I am...
(Murray and Weston)
-Imp
Re: The Morality of Getting Divorced
Another complete crappolo article in the highly steemed "Philosophy Now" magazine.
At least from a cultural perspective.
The article MAY mean something in Innsbruck, Austria, where the author resides and thinks. But the article is way off-kilter and meaningless with its basic premise in Canada, and in the USA.
The author (Justin -- male or female?) bases his or her point on promises made at the beginning of a marriage, which promises are called "marriage vows". Fair enough, except in Canada and in the United states there is NO PRESCRIBED SET OF MARRIAGE VOWS BY LAW OR BY FAITH. Maybe Jews and Muslims have a prescribed wording, but the Christians don't.
So if we are to follow the reasoning of Justin, the author, then we need to examine the marriage vows exchanged at each individual and separate marriage beginning.
That's A.
B. is that breaking promises may or else may not be amoral.
The author, Justin, therefore tries to establish, rather poorly and ineffectively, a general guide or think-guidance to help the reader know when breaking promises is moral, and when it is not.
He is lost in the quagmire of this deeply fundamental forest of meaningless pithy two steps into the woods, so to speak, or two words into the discussion.
I really am curious why Justin's article ever even saw print.
At least from a cultural perspective.
The article MAY mean something in Innsbruck, Austria, where the author resides and thinks. But the article is way off-kilter and meaningless with its basic premise in Canada, and in the USA.
The author (Justin -- male or female?) bases his or her point on promises made at the beginning of a marriage, which promises are called "marriage vows". Fair enough, except in Canada and in the United states there is NO PRESCRIBED SET OF MARRIAGE VOWS BY LAW OR BY FAITH. Maybe Jews and Muslims have a prescribed wording, but the Christians don't.
So if we are to follow the reasoning of Justin, the author, then we need to examine the marriage vows exchanged at each individual and separate marriage beginning.
That's A.
B. is that breaking promises may or else may not be amoral.
The author, Justin, therefore tries to establish, rather poorly and ineffectively, a general guide or think-guidance to help the reader know when breaking promises is moral, and when it is not.
He is lost in the quagmire of this deeply fundamental forest of meaningless pithy two steps into the woods, so to speak, or two words into the discussion.
I really am curious why Justin's article ever even saw print.