Crispina G. Calumpit
Divine Word
College of Laoag – Graduate School
Abstract
The sanctity of
marriage is irrevocable. To break a
promise made in the eyes of God is a very crucial decision, every married
individual should take into account.
However, there are many factors to consider before finally ending up a
marriage and engaging into divorce without disregarding morality and ethics.
This
paper presents how marriage is defined, as stated in the family code, and in
view of Catholicism. It explores the
differences between divorce, annulment, and legal separation, reasons for
annulment, nullity of marriage, and legal separation in the Philippine
setting. It also includes the pros and
cons of divorce and the analysis of Divorce Bill in the Philippines.
This
also highlights the morality of getting divorced, and the ethics of divorce which
are incredibly important and helpful in establishing a paradigm of influencing people’s
decision-making processes, most especially to those who are having issues on
matter of divorce, including those who are capable of giving advice to
individuals undergoing such struggle.
In a way, the comprehensive literature review gives a
clearer picture about all the concepts included in consideration to all the
issues concerning them. This will serve
as an avenue to come up with a thorough decision, either to indulge in
divorce or to continue and try to preserve healthier and stronger marriages.
Keywords
morality, ethics, marriage, annulment, legal separation, divorce, family code, illegitimate promises, bilateral divorce, unilateral, deontology, utilitarianism
Introduction
Everybody wants to be
morally upright because everybody desires to live in a society where one feels
a sense of belonging and accepted. To be
so, there are standards of behavior that
would be accepted by all human beings with specific idealized situations. This set of moral principles must be adopted
by all rational agents.
Marriage, is
a legally and
socially recognized union, between a man and
a woman, that is regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that
prescribe the rights and duties of the partners and accords status to their
offspring (if any). It is rooted in cultural, religious,
or personal beliefs which often involves a formal ceremony and legal
documentation.
It is a sad fact, however, that not all marriages prosper
as expected. Matrimony fails for a
variety of reasons that couples never anticipated. Physical, mental, and emotional abuse, poor
communication, financial problems, infidelity, lack of intimacy, commitment,
external pressures and more. When these
factors attack the sacred vow, mutual respect breakdown, resulting to the
separation of husbands and wives.
Divorce
has become rampant, canceling or reorganizing the legal duties and
responsibilities of marriage, thus, dissolving the bonds of matrimony between a
married couple under the rule of law of country or state.
A
survey nationwide in association with TIME which was complemented by an
analysis of demographic and economic data from the United States Bureau was
done. According to a new Pew Research
Center, over the past 50 years, the transformation trends have led to a sharp
decline in marriage and a rise of new family forms have been shaped by
attitudes and behaviors that differ by class, age, and race.
Over the years,
several bills have been introduced in the Philippine Congress aiming to
legalize divorce, citing considerations such as irreparable marital breakdown,
spousal abuse, and incompatibility. These legislative attempts have sparked
significant debate, balancing societal values, religious beliefs, and the
rights of individuals seeking to dissolve irreparable marriages. (Respicio
& co., 2024)
Abalos
2017, Divorce and Separation
in the Philippines: Trends and Correlates
mentioned that the Philippines is the only country in the world, aside from the
Vatican, where divorce is outlawed. Yet, despite the lack of divorce law in the country
and the high costs of obtaining an annulment, recent data shows that a growing
number of Filipinos dissolve their marital unions, either legally or informally.
On
the other hand, due to domination of the Catholic Church, pro-divorce activists
conclude that even in cases of spousal abuse marriages are extremely hard to
escape.
Are individuals engaged
in divorce moral? Do they necessarily
violate ethical principles? The judgment underlies on the perspective of people
making the judgment whether individuals engaged in divorce are considered moral
or ethical.
This
paper seeks to emphasize the morality and ethics of divorce. Through the readings of related literature,
it seeks to give understanding on the different concepts underlying divorce,
its morality and ethics.
Literature
review
Marriage
The Family Code of the
Philippines, Article 1 states that marriage is a special contract of permanent
union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the
establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family
and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents
are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage
settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the
limits provided by this Code. (52a)
It is the main legal
function of marriage to ensure the rights of the partners with respect to each
other and to ensure the rights and define the relationships of children within
a community. With marriage as a historically has conferred
a legitimate status on the offspring, which entitled him or
her to the various privileges set down by the traditions of that community,
including the right of inheritance.
Marriage also established the permissible social relations allowed to the
offspring, including the acceptable selection of future spouses in most
societies. (Encyclopedia, 2024)
In Catholicism marriage is
a sacrament that both baptized man and woman administer to each other through
their marriage vows and lifelong partnership. Given that to a Catholic
sacramental marriage reflects the union of Christ with
the church as his mystical body, Marriage is understood to be an indissoluble
union because a Catholic sacramental marriage reflects the union of Christ with
the church as his mystical body. The marriage union is used to sanctify both
the husband and wife by drawing them into a deeper understanding of God’s love
and is intended to be fruitful, with any children to be raised within the
teachings of the church. The rite commonly takes place during a mass, with a priest serving as the minister of the mass and as a
witness to the mutual consent of the couple. (Petruzzello, 2018)
Understanding
Divorce in the Philippines
Divorce is a legal process that
terminates a valid marriage between two individuals, allowing them to legally remarry. The Philippines, known for its
conservative Catholic values, is the only country besides the Vatican where
divorce remains generally prohibited. However, there are exceptions and legal
alternatives available for Filipinos, such as annulment and legal separation.
Divorce happens when a married couple
decides to end their marriage. By definition, divorce means termination of a
marriage. During this process, both parties have a lawyer to represent them to
arrange issues such as property division and child custody. The Philippines and
the Vatican are the only two sovereign states without a div
In
the Philippines, although most
couples separate after a relationship, they’re still married on paper. On the
other hand, some take it through legal means and try to have their marriage nullified. The only available options for married
couples are legal separation and annulment, while debates for divorce is ongoing.
Divorce in the
Philippines: Legal Framework and Processes
In an article, Divorce in the Philippines:
Legal Framework and Processes, Respicio mentioned that divorce
remains a contentious and complex issue in the Philippines, a Catholic country
deeply rooted with values that historically has absolutely never agreed for the
dissolution of marriage through divorce. The legal framework surrounding
marital dissolution is multifaceted, including provisions for annulment and
legal separation under specific circumstances, yet largely disregarding divorce
as it is popularly known globally.
Psychological
Incapacity: A Ground for Annulment
One of the most
debated provisions for annulment is psychological incapacity, defined under
Article 36 of the Family Code. This ground has been subject to extensive
interpretation by the Philippine Supreme Court, which emphasizes that
psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical
antecedence, and in-curability. Cases under this provision require thorough
psychological evaluation and expert testimony, making it a complex and often
expensive process. (Respicio & co., 2024)
What is the nullity of marriage in the
Philippines?
Annulment declares a marriage null and
void from its inception, as if it never happened. Psychological incapacity, fraud, and
consent obtained under duress are the considerations on this ground.
The
declaration of nullity of marriage applies to null and void marriages from the
beginning. These marriages are nullified because one of the essential
requisites of marriage is absent.
According to the Family Code, marriages in the Philippines can be nullified if: 1) the spouse has a psychological incapacity for marriage; 2) the marriage is incestuous; 3) marriage is against public policy; 4) The marriage is bigamous; 5) when one of the spouses remarry without complying with the precordial requirement of the judgment of annulment or absolute nullity of the previous marriage.
What
is Annulment in the Philippines?
The nullity of marriage and annulment
might look like similar terms, but there are differences between the two. The
difference is that you annul a marriage is considered valid under the law. In
the nullity of marriage, the union is void because the marriage was invalid
from the start. Annulment has different grounds as well.
According to Article 45 of the Family
Code, here are the grounds for annulment: 1) no parental consent if either party was
between 18 and 21 years at the time of marriage; 2) psychological incapacity; 3)
fraudulent consent includes
non-disclosure of either party of a material fact before marriage, such as
pregnancy by another man or a sexually transmitted disease; 4)
consent obtained by force,
intimidation, or undue influence; 5) physical inability to consummate the
marriage; 6) serious
or incurable sexually transmitted disease.
Legal Separation:
Grounds and Consequences
Legal separation, allows couples to live
apart and divide their assets.
The marriage bond is
not dissolved, meaning
neither party can remarry. While legal separation permits spouses to live apart and
divides property and custody of children, it does not allow either spouse to
remarry, as the marriage remains legally binding.
Legal separation is a court-approved decision
of the court that allows the separation of husband and wife. Under legal
separation, the marital obligations between the two parties are ended, but the
marriage is not. In a legal separation, the property regime is separated and
severs matrimonial obligations.
During a legal separation, properties are
liquidated and dissolved. Usually, the spouse at fault has no right to any net
profits earned by their joint property.
Here are the grounds for legal separation
in the Philippines: 1) repeated physical violence or abusive behavior
towards the petitioner or their children; 2) physical violence or moral
pressure to make the petitioner change the religious or political separation;
3) if the spouse attempts to induce their children to engage in prostitution;
4) if the spouse will be incarcerated for more than six years, even if pardoned;
5) drug addiction or alcoholism of the spouse; 6) lesbianism or homosexuality
of the spouse; 7) contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous
marriage, whether in or outside the Philippines; 8) sexual infidelity or
perversion of the respondent; 9) attempt on the life of petitioner by the
respondent; or 10) abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable
cause for more than one year.
Pros and Cons of Divorce
Parents and
children involved are affected positively
and negatively to the outcomes of divorce.
Among the pros are greater freedom, room for growth, and an improved
environment for children. However, stress and financial challenges can
complicate outcomes for the family.
According
to Buscho, divorce is a complicated and emotional process that can have both
positive and negative consequences. Some outcomes are positive for some people
but affect others negatively. She cited
the following pros and cons of divorce.
The
generally considered pros of divorce are:
Freedom
and Independence. Divorce can provide individuals to make their own
choices and live life on their terms. with the freedom and independence. On the contrary, there will be an extreme
emotions created with this newfound independence if they are accustomed to a long-term
partnership.
Escape From Unhealthy
Relationships. It
can lead to improved mental and physical health
because divorce can
provide an escape from abusive or toxic relationships. On the other hand, most people experience emotionally challenging
situations such as
sadness, anger, guilt, and anxiety during
the divorce process, however,
these emotions usually subside as you adjust to your new life.
Opportunity for Personal Growth.To some people, divorce to a stronger sense of
self and increased self-esteem and
take it as an opportunity for personal
growth and self-discovery but to others, there is
fear and emotional toll of divorce can
hinder personal growth.
Improved Financial Situation. Divorce can lead to improved financial stability and the
ability to make independent financial decisions Depending on the circumstances, On the
other hand, divorce can
also result in financial hardships due to the support of two
homes with the same income. Disputes
over assets, child support, or alimony are also inevitable.
Better Environment for Children. Divorce may provide comfort, a safer and more stable
environment for the children especially, in cases of high conflict
or abusive marriages. To others, emotional turmoil,
trauma, and adjustment issues during
and after a divorce are experienced by children as they adjust to new
family structure.
The
cons of divorce are:
Emotional and Psychological
Stress. Stress, depression, anxiety, and
other mental health issues due to the fact that divorce is almost always emotionally
and psychologically taxing.
Financial Challenges. While some experience improved financial situations, others
may face significant financial challenges, including legal fees, dividing
assets, and maintaining separate households.
The betterment for children’s well-being is considered as divorce can create a more stable and
peaceful home environment in some cases.
Social Stigma. Divorce may free individuals from a marriage that wasn’t
socially or culturally accepted. Expect judgment and isolation,
however, it is worthy to note that it is the marriage that failed not the
persons involved in it.
Analysis of Divorce in the Philippines
Ethical and Moral
considerations
Individual autonomy pertains to human rights
determination to self determination and choice.
Marriage as sacred and personal should allow couple to part ways when
the union could no longer be fixed.
Human dignity is endangered if abuse is already
disturbing. This makes divorce ethical
because it offers a way to respond to such pain and suffering and let go to
look for better relationships.
Philosophical
Perspectives
Utilitarianism point of view allows divorce to be
legalized to offer chances of happiness through freedom from sad reality.
Social Contract Theory permits societies
to embody the will of the people. There would also be an agreement on
Legalizing divorce to be in accordance with the changed demographics and the
perception of Filipino people should also be an agreement.
Political dynamics
Religious influence vs. Secularism has
been evident due to the passion of the Catholic Church taking a stand in the
fight against the change of law implies that religion and culture are a
fundamental challenge in accepting the outcome in a society that embraces the
principle of the state and church separation.
Socio-economic Implications
Legislative
Gridlock illustrates that even bills with a high degree of urgency cannot pass
through the Philippine Congress due to legislative grid and polarization.
Socio-Economic
Implications:
Access to Justice: highlights the creation of access to justice
since some people cannot afford the cost of legal aid in seeking a legal
separation or annulling their union. Neutralizing the legalization of divorce
could therefore allows couples ending their troubled marriage easily without
spending so much.
Gender
Equality: frees women from
abusing or oppressive husbands and thus supports gender equality and an
effective way out and a signal of financial freedom.
Global
Context:
International
Human Rights Standards: Adopting such
laws, in terms of individual, gender, non-discrimination and freedom from
violence may help to legalize divorce and possibly draw the Philippines’ laws
closer to measuring up to those set out by international standards.
Globalization
and Cultural Change: indicates that social attitudes toward divorce are
influenced by globalization and cultural change across the globe. Marriage and
family is a crucial social institutions that all societies have to face the
challenges that come along with changes, and experiences of tension between
conventional and emerging norms where the Philippines is not exempted.
Morality
“Morality”
refers to norms and behavior, a code of conduct
that would be accepted by anyone who meets certain intellectual and volitional
conditions, almost always including the condition of being rational. To regulate their lives
and live a good life. The person
meets these conditions is typically expressed by saying that the person counts
as a moral
agent.
The
morality
of divorce
According to Mc Brayer, most of the
people have been significantly affected by divorce. At this point, deciding to end a marriage is
one of the most significant decisions a person ever makes. To consider it morally permissible means that
there is no moral obligation required to act differently. This means that you can have a divorce if you
have met all your moral obligations. He mentioned the following
considerations:
What
makes marriage morally special?
Getting married generates special moral obligations that
one would not otherwise have, as many ethicists agree. Primarily, marriage
creates moral obligations because it involves promise-making. Promise-making is a way of generating moral
obligations. Just as when wedding
ceremony takes place, two people make promises to one another. Thus, getting married generates moral
obligations.
On the other hand, some ethicists
also resist this thinking. They insist
that marriage promises do not have the power to create moral obligations. To these philosophers, marital vows are just
promises to feel a certain way towards one’s partner which cannot be
controlled. It does not coincide with
the thought that someone is morally obligated to do something beyond one’s
control. In this case, promising to do
something beyond one’s control does not create a new moral obligation.
There are at least two good reasons
to reject this analysis. First, it is
plausible that in the marriage context, we are promising to do things that are
in our control, or over which we have indirect control. For example, when we get married, we pledge
to do our best to bring about a certain emotional state, or make an
unconditional commitment to another person.
Second, and more importantly, anyone who has been to a wedding can see
that although there are often emotional components to marital vows, there are
also behavioral components.
Marital vows, therefore create new
moral obligations. The degree of the
moral obligation generated by a promise varies with the seriousness of the
promise-making, the clarity of the promises made, and the consequence of
breaking the promise. Finally, it
appears that the marriage promise creates a strong and special obligation
between the marriage partners.
Illegitimate
promises
It has been said that moral
obligations exist because of promises in marriage. To determine the permissibly of divorce,
there is a need to determine what is violated on marriage promises.
First, promises generate new
obligations only when the person making the promise is autonomous, and
informed, and does so willingly.
Otherwise, the promise is morally illegitimate, considering it not a
real promise.
Second, coercion affects the
condition that the marriage promise be made willingly because there are times
when a partner is coerced into marriage.
In these two cases, the marital
promises are considered illegitimate, hence no moral duties between the
partners were created. So, it is morally
permissible to severe the relationship through divorce because there are no
such special moral duties bonded.
Bilateral
divorce
Bilateral divorce is a divorce by
mutual consent. Making a legitimate
promise creates an obligation, releasing someone from a promise eliminates
obligation. One way for divorce to be
morally permissible would be for both partners to release their respective
marital promises.
But it is worth to note that even
there is mutual agreement to end the marriage between the couple, it is still
wrong to do so if their promises were made before God. Nevertheless, a promise before someone is
different from a promise to someone.
A promise made before you makes you a witness, whereas a promise made to
you makes you a beneficiary. In a case,
where God is not the beneficiary, you don’t have to get His permission.
Take note of two
things. First, while bilateral divorce
is morally permissible - in some ways, it is morally permissible on ll other
things being equal, but not all times are equal. Families with children are the obvious example. Parents have moral obligations to their
children, as well as to each other.
These moral obligations prevent parents from doing what is not good for
their children, and in so far as divorce is not an exception, these parental
obligations hinder these parents getting into divorce, while these children are
still young to suffer the harmful effect.
Second, people are troubled due to apparently
cavalier divorces. Examples are the
Hollywood stars who married on a whim and divorced 6 months later. Their actions manifest morally permissible,
but the attitude behind it reveals a moral vice, so quick to make promises that
they are not sincere to keep. People who
take marital promises for granted are not morally speaking, the kind of people
to be desired. This is definitely,
immoral behaviour.
Divorce when a partner
cannot fulfill his/her duties
This
principle is relevant to divorce in this way:
if you become unable to do what you promised to do, then you cannot have
a moral obligation to do that thing.
Hence, any time one of the partners is literally unable to keep the
marital promise, divorce will be morally permissible. However, this reason requires being clear
about what marital promises are.
Marital
promises are about goals over which we have indirect control. These are aimed at: (A) the goal of fostering
loving relationships between the partners, and (B) the long-term goal of making
a partner’s life better.
Suppose
that these are both plausible candidates for what we are pledging when we get
married. If the goal is (B), we have the following interesting result: when
staying together does not make your partner’s life better, in the long run,
then your marital promises do not obligate you to stay together. For example,
suppose one of the partners becomes involved in an extramarital affair, and
that she and her lover are happy building their lives together. In this case,
it is morally permissible for the other partner to initiate a divorce on the
grounds that his promise to his partner was aimed at making her life better and
he is unable to do so given the current situation. Because he cannot do so, he
has no moral obligation to do so. Thus, in this sort of circumstances it may be
morally permissible to formally mutually end the relationship. (McBrayer 2017)
Unilateral divorce
When
only one of the partners desires the dissolution of marriage, a unilateral divorce
happens.
The
obligations from marital promises make it morally wrong to seek a unilateral
divorce in many cases since promises produce moral obligations. In the case of
a man who wants to divorce his wife on the grounds that she has been recently
diagnosed with a chronic degenerative disease, it is not a morally permissible
ground for divorce. In particular, neither non-reciprocation nor the lack of
happiness of one of the partners justifies unilateral divorce.
Many
people who divorce cite the fact that their partners did not reciprocate in
certain ways as justification for the divorce. Their partners weren’t ‘doing
their part’ in the relationship. Whether this counts as a morally adequate
reason to get a divorce depends on whether the marriage promises were
unconditional or conditional, and the nature of the conditions. Take, for
instance, the promise to be sexually faithful to one’s partner. On an
unconditional reading, this promise says, ‘No matter what happens, I promise to
be sexually faithful to you’. However, on a conditional reading, the promise
might say, ‘I will be sexually faithful to you so long as you are sexually
faithful to me’. On the unconditional reading, one has a moral reason to be
sexually faithful to one’s partner regardless of what he or she has done. On
the conditional reading, one has a moral reason to be sexually faithful to
one’s partner if and only if he or she has also been sexually faithful.
Generally,
if marital promises are conditional, then the non-reciprocation of a partner in
such a way would cancel out the moral obligation generated, and hence a divorce
would be morally permissible. But if marital promises are unconditional, then
the non-reciprocation of a partner is morally irrelevant, and hence a divorce
would be morally impermissible.
Does
happiness, or the lack of it, count as a valid condition for divorce?
Regarding
the (supposed) right to be happy, many people cite their ongoing unhappiness as
the justification for their divorce. The idea is that if it becomes impossible
for a person to be genuinely happy while married to their partner, it is
morally permissible for them to divorce that partner. (McBrayer 2017)
Ethics of divorce:
Deontology and utilitarianism
In the article, Ethics of Divorce:
Deontology and Utilitarianism, ethics
refers to standards of behaviors and is defined as the acceptable codes
of behaviors and norms.
Furthermore,
if all people who are likely to be influenced by the consequences gain the greatest
good, actions are ethically right. Hence, if they have the capacity to result
in the greatest happiness among all people, actions are ethically justified. The natural laws that are applicable. Therefore, people may utilize the laws in
making decisions that influence individual actions based on what is permissible
and/or not tolerable under the doctrine.
In the context of divorce, it emphasizes the
significance of evaluating divorce decisions to ensure that they do not harm
parties through the consequences of the decisions made, according to Ketz. People should be selfless and exert effort
to enhance maximum good for all people who are likely to be influenced by their
actions.
Divorce
is inappropriate and not recommended after the solemnization of marriage based
on the religious theological perspective. Therefore, the ethics of divorce can
only be drawn from the reasons under which divorce may occur. Divorce is permitted only in case challenges
emerge in a marriage based on Islamic and Christian religious teachings.
The
ethics of divorce is complicated and delicate under the religious theological
perspective which holds that divorce is inappropriate and not
recommended after the solemnization of marriage.
Ethics
defines the acceptable codes of behavior and norms. The religious theological
perspective of divorce holds that divorce is inappropriate and not recommended
after the solemnization of marriage. Its ethics can only be analyzed based on
reasons of the divorce. Religious
perspectives only permit divorce in case challenges emerge in a marriage as
drawn from both Islamic and Christian teaching.
The
Machiavellianism school of thought holds that compliance with ethical behavior
which emanates from religious norms and values, or even traditional social
values that guide the institution of marriage. Marriage was considered an
important rite of passage which the society expects to last until death
separated the partners. Consequently, divorce was considered unethical.
Concerning the issue of divorce, these two schools of thought argue in almost
similar paradigms when evaluating the appropriate ethical decisions, yet differ
in their prediction and determination of the extreme circumstances under which
divorce may become the ethical thing to do. Utilitarianism requires the
evaluation and analysis of its impacts in terms of costs and which delivers the utmost good result to the wider number is the best decision made.
In the
context of marriage and divorce, the wider group of people may imply the
society, children, and even one’s partner. The deontological perspective
provides exceptions from a much-easier-to-identify personal circumstances. Thus,
divorce is ethical when domestic violence or any other divorce causes that have
negative emotional, physical, mental, and psychological implications for the parties to a marriage.
Conclusion
Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a
woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and
family life.
Divorce is a legal process that
terminates a valid marriage between two individuals, allowing them to legally
marry again. Annulment declares a marriage null and
void from its inception, as if it never happened. Legal separation, on the
other hand, allows couples to live apart and divide their assets without
dissolving the marriage bond, meaning neither party can remarry.
Grounds
for annulment, legal separation, and nullity of marriage are derived in the
family code of the Philippines.
Truly,
there are moral issues that are difficult to solve. In the case of shattered marriages, this has
been a perennial problem among couples who are not fortunate enough to let
their marriage prosper.
Analysis
of the Divorce Bill in the Philippines includes ethical and moral considerations,
philosophical perspectives, political dynamics, socio-economic implications,
and global context, all in favor of divorce under varied considerations.
Many divorces are morally permissible.
These include cases in which the marriage promise was illegitimate, scenarios
in which one of the partners is unable to fulfill the promises, and considered
bilateral divorce. But many divorces are also morally wrong, including those in
which the partners have other obligations that require them to stay together,
at least for a time, and unilateral divorces in which one partner’s
non-reciprocation or one’s right to be happy is cited as the sole reason for
the divorce.
There are two take-away thoughts. First,
a promise should be sacred which requires us to be very careful. This promise grounds
special moral obligations, and yet they are all too often vague, unclear, or
impossible to fulfill. Marriage should
be a well-decided stage to go through where partners entering into it should
have a vision of the future in their explicit conversations of their
expectations. It should be a promise
well kept and enough to bind the sanctity of the matrimony.
Second, we should also be very careful
about the decision to get a divorce. Whether a divorce is morally permissible
depends on a great many things, including the content of the promises made
between the partners. Merely citing a right to be happy does
not dissolve the moral obligations we have in other areas of life. Nor does it
on its own obviate the moral obligation we have to stick with a spouse when
doing so makes us unhappy.
Considering
both traditional and religious perspectives on the ethicalness of divorce, an
emerging question is whether one should remain clinging on a marriage that is
detrimental to one of the partners physical, mental, social, and psychological
well-being and growth, should they remain? When one partner turns out abusive
and adulterous, should they endure? This
paper suggests utilizing deontological and utilitarian ethical theories in
arriving at an appropriate ethical decision while evaluating whether divorce is
ethical in such circumstances.
Generally, the morality and ethics of divorce are subjective and will sometimes depend on the specific circumstances of the marriage, the reasons for considering divorce, the values and beliefs of the individuals involved and in consideration to the guided laws in the society. While there are acceptable arguments on both sides of the debate, it ultimately comes down to the fundamental question of whether individuals should have the right to end a marriage that is no longer working?
REFERENCES
Republic of the
Philippines. (2005). The Fmily Code of the Philippines. Cham RObles Publishing Company. https://www.chanrobles.com
Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2024, July 22).
marriage. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/marriage
Petruzzello, M. (2018, February 6). The Seven Sacraments of the Roman
Catholic church. Encyclopedia
Britannica.
Britannica, T.
Editors of Encyclopaedia (2024, July 30). deontological ethics. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/deontological-ethics
Beever, A.
(2013). Kant on the Law of Marriage. Kantian Review, 18(3),
339–362. doi:10.1017/S1369415413000149
Papadaki, L.
(2010). Kantian Marriage and Beyond: Why It Is Worth Thinking about Kant on
Marriage. Hypatia, 25(2), 276–294.
doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2009.01078.x
West, H. R. &
Duignan, B.(2024, May 7). utilitarianism. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/utilitarianism-philosophy
Official Gazette.(1987,
July 6,s.1987. Offical Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1987/07/06/executive-order-no-209-s-1987/
McBrayer, J. (2017).
The morality of getting divorced. Philosophy Now. https://philosophynow.org/issues/120/The_Morality_of_Getting_Divorced
Abalos, J. (2017), July
10. The rise of divorce, separation and cohabitation in the Philippines.
Niussp. https://www.niussp.org/family-and-households/the-rise-of-divorce-separation-and-cohabitation-in-the-philippines/?print=pdf
Pew Research Center.
(2010, November 18).The decline of marriage and rise of new families. Pew
Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2010/11/18/the-decline-of-marriage-and-rise-of-new-families
Camella.(n.d.) Divorce,
annulment, and legal separation in the philiipines. Camella. https://www.camella.com.ph/divorce-annulment-and-legal-separation-in-the-philippines/
Respicio, J. (n.d.) Understanding divorce, annulment, and legal separation in the Philippines. Respicio. https://www.respicio.ph/commentaries/understanding-divorce-annulment-and-legal-separation-in-the-philippines
Cebu Daily News. (2023, September 22) Explainer: Divorce vs. Annulment.
Cebu Daily News https://cebudailynews.inquirer.net/576063/explainer-divorce-vs-annulment
Tischler, B. (2023, September 29). An honest look at the pros and coms
of divorce. Psychology Toda.
"zone name","placement name","placement id","code (direct link)" dameanusabun.blogspot.com,SocialBar_1,24187568,""
No comments:
Post a Comment