Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reblogged: A Controversial Thought on Divorce

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I wish that the divorce rate were higher.

I know some people who’ve been married for decades, and they’ll likely never divorce. Yet life in that marriage is miserable due to ongoing dishonesty, manipulation, malevolence, and even physical abuse.

Divorce requires courage, and many people don’t have enough of that. Those who do — and who’ve seen their way to independence — are so much better off as a result, in every possible way.

Hence, the divorce rate should be higher.

7iEghh25f2Y

Link to Original
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. Divorce involuntarily breaks longstanding habits, which in net, for more-or-less stable people, is a good thing. Even if some old habits prove to be worthwhile, a reconsideration can improve perspective and solidify them more firmly.

Taking it even further, we could just do away with marriage in its current form altogether. The idea that someone can "lock" someone in is about as toxic as it gets when just starting out -- the opposite of how it should be. Then, guilt for leaving and uncertainty and low confidence in yourself about going out on your own leads to no good life outcome that I can imagine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but the same couple's staying married could be even worse for the children.

 

Nathaniel Branden once observed that marriage should be like any other contract, with a stated expiration date, after which the parties could renew or let it lapse.  Caterers and florists would love it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but the same couple's staying married could be even worse for the children.

 

In some cases, yes, but in the vast majority of cases it would be better for the parents to stick it out, at least until the children are grown. Of course if the parents are divorcing with a young child, they should have been more responsible and not had a child in the first place.

 

 

Nathaniel Branden once observed that marriage should be like any other contract, with a stated expiration date, after which the parties could renew or let it lapse.  Caterers and florists would love it.

 

Contracts often extend in perpetuity or terminate upon death of one of the parties. That's not unusual at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In some cases, yes, but in the vast majority of cases it would be better for the parents to stick it out, at least until the children are grown. 

Would it? What makes being taken care of by two unhappy parents who live together better than being taken care of by two happy parents who don't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To many people run into marriage without talking through everything they value, consider money issues, mental and physical compatibility, or just take the time to make sure it is a good fit.  The issue isn't should they leave a poor relationship (which I agree they should) but whether they should be there in the first place.

 

The divorce rate should be much lower because humans use their heads before entering into it like any other agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RobertBaratheon, I think the damage is done when two incompatible people have a child. Staying together is best only when people are compatible. People need to do the work to ensure they won't break up before having kids. But if they find out they failed, breaking up is usually better for the kids.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced it's possible to ensure beforehand a relationship will last through child rearing. People will change no matter the circumstances, and a child will likely bring change that wasn't imaginable before becoming a parent.

Besides, kids live through much worse than divorce and make it to adulthood relatively unscathed. Also, divorce doesn't have to mean a vastly different life for a kid. And, kids adapt fairly well to change -- for example, having two bedrooms instead of one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I agree based on personal experience. Most of the people I know from divorced parents did not adapt well and it continued to disadvantage and haunt them into adulthood. My wife's life has been very difficult primarily due to her parents' divorce, although, as mentioned, they shouldn't have wed in the first place. Usually it leads to strained and awkward family relationships and a much lower standard of living. I think it also sets a bad example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Childless marriages do not parent. Parents need not be married. Parenting is closer to the nature of man via biology, then marriage. Marriage is a wholly man made institution. Western culture has seen the legal and cultural significance of marriage change in even the not so distant past. Divorce rates are an expression of those cultural changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife's life has been very difficult primarily due to her parents' divorce

In what way? 

Usually it leads to strained and awkward family relationships and a much lower standard of living.

What material goods did your wife have to go without, that made her life difficult?

I think it also sets a bad example.

It's a bad example only by a religious conservative standard of Ethics. Not by any rational one. At least none that you have established, as of yet.

The argument being made in this thread is precisely that divorce, when two people are no longer happy together, is a good thing. It sets a good example: selfishly follow your own happiness, don't look at your marriage as a duty you must suffer through.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She and her mother had to move out of their house because resources were no longer being pooled to allow them to afford it (the biggest advantage of marriage). She also had to start going to public school because the family could no longer afford private. The mother had to work a second job, so she was alone at home a large portion of the time.

Marriage is not fundamentally religious in nature. It is a legal instrument that pools lives and resources together to stabilize expectations and improve quality of life.

The bad example set is giving up on long term commitments that affect other people, especially when it's children. Whatever the problems spouses have with each other, they should come second to financially and emotionally providing for the children they chose to have together. Work it out.

Edited by Robert Baratheon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She and her mother had to move out of their house because resources were no longer being pooled to allow them to afford it (the biggest advantage of marriage).

Move out to where? Another house of apartment, I presume, in which case I don't understand how a smaller or less luxurious home causes damage to a child.

She also had to start going to public school because the family could no longer afford private.

90% of the population went to public school. Are we all damaged?

The mother had to work a second job, so she was alone at home a large portion of the time.

This just doesn't add up. How did her mother and father go from being able to afford a house and private school, to not being able to pay for two small apartments? The math just doesn't make sense. I can understand how the cost of the house translates to two apartments, but where did the private school money go? And even if the private school money also went to paying for the two separate homes, how could it still not be enough?

The only explanation I can think of is that the father just abandoned her. That's not divorce, that's a criminal act. That says nothing about the moral value of divorce.

The bad example set is giving up on long term commitments that affect other people, especially when it's children. Whatever the problems spouses have with each other, they should come second to financially and emotionally providing for the children they chose to have together. Work it out.

You're working off of the false assumption hat divorce makes it impossible for parents to financially and emotionally provide for their children. Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're just being argumentative to the point of absurdity at this point. If you're going to seriously argue that divorced parents can on average emotionally and financially provide for children just as well as married parents, there is no point to continuing the conversation because all the data and common sense tells us you are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're just being argumentative to the point of absurdity at this point. If you're going to seriously argue that divorced parents can on average emotionally and financially provide for children just as well as married parents, there is no point to continuing the conversation because all the data and common sense tells us you are wrong.

Divorce costs money (though not a lot, if it's an amicable divorce). Maintaining two households also costs more than maintaining one. That much is true.

Everything else you're saying is rationalistic nonsense meant to justify yet another instance of you reflexively adopting a conservative pet cause. There is no reason why divorced parents can't provide the same emotional support to their children as a married couple, and there's also no reason why divorced parents can't provide everything their children need materially.

In a prosperous country, two working adults can afford to maintain separate households that adequately serve their childrens' needs. And you haven't even attempted to make a rational argument as to why divorced parents would have trouble supporting their children emotionally.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything else you're saying is rationalistic nonsense meant to justify yet another instance of you reflexively adopting a conservative pet cause. 

 

That's me - Mr. Conservative just towing the party line. Besides, of course, my support of gay marriage... and sex education... and contraception... and abortion rights... and about a thousand other libertarian positions you're ignoring. Because I'm a libertarian. 

 

Everything else you're saying is rationalistic nonsense meant to justify yet another instance of you reflexively adopting a conservative pet cause. There is no reason why divorced parents can't provide the same emotional support to their children as a married couple, and there's also no reason why divorced parents can't provide everything their children need materially.

 

"No reason"? You mean besides the obvious fact that each parent will be seeing far less of the child, and the natural guilt the child will feel, and that most of the child's important milestones will become awkward and socially sensitive affairs?

 

 

In a prosperous country, two working adults can afford to maintain separate households that adequately serve their childrens' needs. And you haven't even attempted to make a rational argument as to why divorced parents would have trouble supporting their children emotionally.

 

I see, so even if standard of living is cut in half and the child's academic opportunities are drastically curtailed (college was expensive last time I checked) as long as a child's basic material needs like food and clothing are met, it's all the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"No reason"? You mean besides the obvious fact that each parent will be seeing far less of the child

It's not an obvious fact, it's an arbitrary statement based on a childish stereotype conservatives paint of the concept of family. Families, especially the ones in which parents are "toughing it out" when they don't love each other, aren't cereal commercial actors. You can't fake a loving relationship for 20 years. People like that either fight, or ignore and avoid each other.

Divorced parents can easily interact just as much or more with their children as a married couple. Even the time they spend together can become enjoyable, once they're no longer trapped by an unwanted romantic relationship.

, and the natural guilt the child will feel

Guilt for what? Divorce is not a sin. There's nothing to feel guilty about, unless the child is indoctrinated to see divorce as a sin.

It's like declaring that children shouldn't be allowed to masturbate because the guilt will damage them. You're the source of the guilt. There's no natural guilt, the guilt is created by people calling it bad.

and that most of the child's important milestones will become awkward and socially sensitive affairs?

More religious conservative nonsense. Why would divorced parents getting together be awkward or "socially sensitive" for any rational person?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see, so even if standard of living is cut in half

A lower middle class and an upper middle class child's standard of living, in the US, is virtually the same. They all have a perfectly comfortable shelter and transportation, plenty of food, wear the same clothes, have access to the same entertainment, receive the same education, clean air, safety etc, etc.

Cutting a child's standard of living in half would involve dumping them into a mud hut in Africa, and sending them to school five miles away barefoot every day, not having them play with last year's XBox (oh, the humanity) instead of the newest version, or take the bus instead of being driven to school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see, so even if standard of living is cut in half and the child's academic opportunities are drastically curtailed (college was expensive last time I checked) as long as a child's basic material needs like food and clothing are met, it's all the same.

Do you mean to argue that parents should spend their lives miserable together so that their child may (arguably) more easily pay for college?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JASKN - I'm not arguing in nearly such absolutist terms. Every situation will be different. What I am saying is divorce is extremely destructive to children emotionally and financially, so parents should try to stick it out if they can, even if it's very difficult to do so.

Nicky - You win - divorce is wonderful. Marriage is for religious conservative dopes and serves no purpose. Everyone who gets married is stupid and you are smarter than all of them. Divorce has no negative impact on young kids. Everyone should get divorced. Satisfied?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is every situation different? Or, is it extremely destructive to children? The way you phrased it makes it sound like it is absolutely always extremely destructive to children, which would make those two questions a contradiction if they were both accepted as true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JASKN - I respect you as a poster, but I feel like you're playing word games now. Divorce can be destructive, generally, while there can also be situations where the net outcome is better (exceptions). The context of the thread was certain people claiming divorce is a force of good and there should be more of it. This is plainly untrue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...