Euthanasia and its morality

 

By: MARY ANN M. REYES

Divine Word College of Laoag

 

Abstract:

Euthanasia is undeniably one of the most pressing social issues of our times. It is a topic that has been the subject of debate and arguments. Euthanasia is a relevant concern in human rights discussions as it not only touches ethical but also practical, religious, and legal issues about a patient's right to end his life. To provide background, this paper aims to define euthanasia and its four types. It also presents the arguments of proponents for both the opposing and supporting sides as every individual or group has a different viewpoint regarding euthanasia. Every individual or group has a different viewpoint regarding euthanasia. This paper hopes that the following articles will provide insight into these issues.

Keywords: euthanasia, types of euthanasia, anti-euthanasia, pro-euthanasia

 Introduction

The marvels brought about by the expanding availability of fast-pacing medical technology not only bring extraordinary opportunities to save human lives. By prolonging the agonizing journey of a terminally-ill patient, they can also be a source of significant weight in terms of suffering and medical expenses.

The word “Euthanasia” comes from the Greek words “Eu” meaning good and “Thanatos” meaning death. Put together it means good death. Euthanasia, also called mercy killing, then, is an act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons who are suffering from a painful and incurable disease or incapacitating physical disorder or allowing them to die by withholding treatment or withdrawing artificial life-support measures. The idea is that instead of condemning someone to a slow, painful, or undignified death, euthanasia would allow the patient to experience a relatively “good death”.

Euthanasia is executed at an individual’s consent most especially if someone is suffering from a terminal illness. Moreover, the decision to administer euthanasia can also be made by the patient’s family or doctors. However, it must be noted that only if the patient is critically ill such that he or she cannot reasonably decide or think, can a decision by the family or doctors be arrived at.

Euthanasia has given way to unprecedented debates in society because it involves several considerations and arguments. The most significant of these are practical, religious, and ethical issues. Besides, euthanasia is seen as a challenge to doctors since it veers away from medical ethics. In some countries, it is considered illegal. Therefore, approaches towards euthanasia require caution since it can lead to legal repercussions (Nicholson, 2000).

Types of Euthanasia

There are four types of euthanasia – active, passive, voluntary, and nonvoluntary. Healthline.com lists these different types of euthanasia when they're used, and what type is chosen depends on a variety of factors, including someone's outlook and level of consciousness.

 When most people think of euthanasia, they think of a doctor directly ending someone’s life. This is known as active euthanasia. Purposely giving someone a lethal dose of a sedative is considered active euthanasia. It is sometimes called “aggressive” euthanasia.

Passive euthanasia is sometimes described as withholding or limiting life-sustaining treatments and support such as a ventilator or feeding tube so that a person passes more quickly. A doctor may also prescribe increasingly high doses of pain-killing medication. Over time, the doses may become toxic.

If someone makes a conscious decision to seek help with ending their life, it’s considered voluntary euthanasia. The person must give their full consent and demonstrate that they fully understand what will happen.

Nonvoluntary euthanasia involves someone else deciding to end someone's life. A close family member usually makes the decision. This is generally done when someone is completely unconscious or permanently incapacitated. It usually involves passive euthanasia, such as withdrawing life support from someone who's showing no signs of brain activity.

 Arguments

In general, arguments over euthanasia are primarily based on practical, religious, and ethical, and legal issues.  The following presents arguments of both opponents and proponents surrounding euthanasia.

 Opposing Euthanasia

Individuals and groups opposing euthanasia support the following arguments (BBC, n.d):

Euthanasia is against the word and will of God. Religious people don’t argue that we cannot kill ourselves or get others to do it. They know that we can do it because God has provided us with free will. They argue that while it is true that we can do it, it would be wrong to do so. To kill oneself or to get someone to do it for us, is to deny God.

Euthanasia weakens society’s respect for the sanctity of life. Anti-euthanasia arguments posit that euthanasia is bad because of the sanctity of human life. They argue that euthanasia devalues life because it interferes with the fundamental processes of human life. They claim that death should be perceived as a natural phenomenon like birth and life as a whole. Religious people hold that birth and death constitute the fundamental life processes that were created by God, and they are ought to be respected because they are sacred. They further claim that life is a sacred gift from God that has to be treated with dignity (Shiflett & Carroll, 2002).

Suffering may have value. Religious people sometimes argue against euthanasia because they see positive value in suffering. Christianity teaches that suffering allows the sufferer to share in Christ’s agony and his redeeming sacrifice. Suffering draws a person interiorly close to Christ. Pope John Paul II said that "It is suffering, more than anything else, which clears the way for the grace which transforms human souls."

Accepting euthanasia accepts that some lives, especially those of the disabled and sick, are worth less than others. Some people fear that allowing euthanasia sends the message that it's better to be dead than sick or disabled. The connotation is that some lives are not worth living. This belief not only exposes the sick or disabled to risk, but it also downgrades their status as human beings while they are still alive. But from a disabled person's perspective, all people regardless of capacities have equal rights and opportunities to lead good lives. Many persons with disabilities enjoy living despite the obstacles. On one hand, many individuals who do not have disabilities don’t enjoy life, but no one is threatening them. In a disabled person’s eyes, the proper approach is to provide them with appropriate support and not to kill them because the quality of a person’s life should not be assessed by others, more so, that the quality of a disabled person’s life should not be assessed without providing the proper support and treatments first.

Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to nonvoluntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable. Many people worry that if voluntary euthanasia were to become legal, it would not be long before nonvoluntary euthanasia would start to happen. This is called the slippery slope argument. Simply put, it says that if we allow something relatively harmless today, we may unwittingly start a trend that results in something currently unthinkable becoming accepted.

 Euthanasia affects other people’s rights, not just those of the patient. Euthanasia is usually discussed from the point of view of the person who wants to die. What it fails to mention sometimes is that it affects other people, and similarly, their rights should also be considered. These other persons include the family and friends, the medical people and other caregivers, other people in a similar circumstance who may feel pressured into making the same decision, and lastly the society in general.

 

Proper palliative care makes euthanasia unnecessary. Good palliative care is the alternative to euthanasia. If it is available to every patient, it would certainly reduce the desire for death to be brought about sooner. Anti-euthanasia groups believe that the introduction of euthanasia will reduce the availability of palliative care in the community because health systems will want to choose the most cost-effective ways of dealing with dying patients. Allowing euthanasia will lead to less good palliative care for the terminally ill because it undermines the commitment of doctors and nurses to saving lives, it will discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill and it undermines the motivation to provide good care for the dying and good pain relief

There is no way of properly regulating euthanasia. Euthanasia opponents don't believe that it is possible to create a regulated system for euthanasia that will prevent the abuse of euthanasia. Opponents of euthanasia have raised fears over the regulation of the issue, since it may compromise medical ethics (Nicholson, 2000). For instance, approval of euthanasia as part of the medical procedures may compromise the performance of healthcare professionals (Dobson & Galbraith, 2000).

 

Euthanasia gives too much power to doctors. Doctors should not be allowed to decide when people die. This argument often appears as 'doctors should not be allowed to play God'. Since doctors give patients the information on which they will base their decisions about euthanasia, any legalization of euthanasia, no matter how strictly regulated, puts doctors in an unacceptable position of power.

 Euthanasia exposes vulnerable people to pressure to end their lives. The fear is that if euthanasia is allowed, vulnerable people will be put under pressure to end their lives. People who are ill and dependent can often feel worthless and an undue burden on those who love and care for them. They may be a burden, but those who love them may be happy to bear that burden.  It would be difficult, and possibly impossible, to stop people using persuasion or coercion to get people to request euthanasia when they don't want it. The last few months of a patient's life are often the most expensive in terms of medical and other care. Shortening this period through euthanasia could be seen as a way of relieving pressure on scarce medical resources, or family finances.

 Pro-euthanasia

Individuals and groups supporting euthanasia set out the following arguments (http://www.bbc.co.uk):

 People have an explicit right to die. Many people think that each person has the right to control his or her body and life and so should be able to determine at what time, in what way, and by whose hand he or she will die. Behind this lies the idea that human beings should be as free as possible, and that unnecessary restraints on human rights are a bad thing. Another idea is that human beings are independent biological entities, with the right to take and carry out decisions about themselves, providing the greater good of society doesn't prohibit this.

 

A separate right to die is not necessary, because other human rights imply the right to die. Without creating or acknowledging a specific right to die, it is possible to argue that other human rights ought to be taken to include this right. Individuals and groups that support euthanasia argue that the right to life includes the right to die. The right to life is not a right simply to exist; it is a right to life with a minimum quality and value. For them, death is the opposite of life, but the process of dying is one of the most important events in human life. Therefore, people have the right to try and make their life events as good as possible and being so, they have the right to try to make their dying also as good as possible.

Death is a private matter and if there is no harm to others, the state and other people have no right to interfere. If an action promotes the best interests of everyone concerned without violating their rights then that action is morally acceptable. Persons in favor of euthanasia argue that in some cases, euthanasia promotes this belief and therefore is morally acceptable.

 

Allowing people to die may free up scarce health resources. Euthanasia may be necessary for the fair distribution of health resources. This argument has not been put forward publicly or seriously by any government or health authority. In most countries, health resources are scarce. As a result, some people who are ill and could be cured are not able to get prompt access to the facilities they need for treatment. At the same time, health resources are being used on people who cannot be cured, and who, for their reasons, would prefer not to continue living. Allowing such people to resort to euthanasia will not only let them have what they want, but it will also free valuable resources to treat people who want to live.

 It is possible to regulate euthanasia. Individuals and groups in favor of euthanasia think that there is no reason why euthanasia cannot be controlled by proper regulation. On the other hand, they also acknowledge that some problems will remain. For instance, it will be difficult to deal with patients who want to commit euthanasia for selfish reasons or to pressure vulnerable patients into dying.

 Euthanasia satisfies the criterion that moral rules must be universalizable. Formally stated, a rule is universalizable if it can consistently be willed as a law that everyone ought to obey. The only rules which are morally good are those which can be universalized. As put forward by Immanuel Kant, one of the commonly accepted principles in ethics is that only those ethical principles that could be accepted as a universal rule should be accepted. In other words, one should only do something if he or she is willing for anybody to do the same things in exactly similar circumstances, regardless of who they are. Persons in favor of euthanasia argue that giving everybody the right to have a good death through euthanasia is acceptable as a universal principle and that euthanasia is therefore morally acceptable.

 Conclusion

Euthanasia has indeed raised some ethical concerns in our society and these concerns not only delved upon ethics but also on practical and religious issues. With the huge differences in viewpoints and perceptions, euthanasia encompasses enormous uncertainties.  Therefore, different individuals and groups view it from varied differing perspectives giving way to the emergence of two opposing sides, the anti-euthanasia, and the pro-euthanasia. However, whatever their concerns and arguments are, as listed in this paper, there exists no universal concurrence over whether euthanasia is right or wrong. Euthanasia has indeed put mankind into some kind of ethical dilemma.

 References:

BBC (n.d). Anti-euthanasia arguments. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk

Dobson, K., & Galbraith, K. (2000). The Role of the Psychologist in Determining Competence for Assisted Suicide/euthanasia in the Terminally Ill. Canadian Psychology,41, 7-23.

Euthanasia: Understanding the Facts. Retrieved from https://www.healthline.com

Nicholson, R. (2000). No Painless Death yet for European Euthanasia Debate. The Hastings Center Report, May-June 2000

 BBC (n.d). Pro-euthanasia arguments. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk

Shiflett, D., & Carroll, V. (2002). Christianity on Trial: Arguments against Anti-Religious Bigotry. San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books.

 

Ethics and its importance in our lives

SONNY P. DIZA, MBA 

DIVINE WORD COLLEGE OF LAOAG

"Ethics is the most important and functioning branch of philosophy today. In general, ethics is a moral philosophy. The term ethics is derived from the Greek term Ethos, which means custom and character. This is related to our values and virtues. Therefore, our actions and our experiences in everyday life are the subjects of ethics. We can think about our choices, so we are responsible for all our decisions and actions." - Science Direct

Abstract

In our everyday life, we often disagree about value questions. These types of questions are sure to expose divergent ideas about what is right or wrong. If ethical theories are to be useful in practice, they need to affect the way human beings behave. Some philosophers think that ethics does do this. Some argue that if a person realizes that it would be morally good to do something, then it would be irrational for that person not to do it. However, human beings often behave irrationally - they follow their 'gut instinct' even when their head suggests a different course of action.

It is often seen as ethics must answer the core question of what morality requires from us. However, there are other questions of similar importance, such as: Why be moral? How moral can we be in a non-ideal world? Are we moral by nature? Are moral judgments true? Such questions cannot be avoided when we confront the problems of life, particularly in a non-moral world. However, the questions themselves are relevant in our contemporary lifestyle. It is the method by which we categorize our values and pursue them at a higher level. Do we sacrifice ourselves, or do we pursue our happiness for a greater cause?

Keywords: ethics, morality, descriptive, normative, meta-ethics

 Introduction

This is an article about ethics, about good and bad, and about right and wrong in human life. But can we tell the moral right from wrong or vice versa? Many people think that morality is not like science, which deals in facts, but a matter of values, about which we can only have personal opinions. This point of view tells us that there aren’t any moral facts, and this explains why people disagree so much over ethical questions. While morality is essentially subjective, science is the objective.

Ethics is about character -- the sum of qualities that defines a person. These qualities include a person's intellect, thoughts, ideas, motives, intentions, temperament, judgment, behavior, imagination, perception, emotions, love, and hate. In virtue ethics, the character is all about what a well-intentioned person with good character would do. Character counts, as the saying goes, and it is the sum of who we are, what we stand for (Mintz, 2017).

           Ethics and Morality

The word “ethics” is derived from the Greek word ethos (character), and the Latin word ‘mores’ (customs). Derived from the Greek word “ethos,” which means “way of living”, ethics is a branch of philosophy that is concerned with human conduct. It consists of a code of conduct of human beings living in a society. Ethics examines the rational justification for our moral judgments; it studies what is morally right or wrong, just or unjust. Together, they combine to define how individuals choose to interact with one another. In philosophy, ethics defines what is good for the individual and society and establishes the nature of duties that people owe to themselves and one another. It aims at individual good as well as a social good, the good of mankind as a whole (http://www.kkhsou.in)

Ethics is an attempt to guide human conduct and it is also an attempt to help a man in leading a good life by applying moral principles. Ethics refers to well-based standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. Ethics is related to issues of propriety, rightness, and wrongness. What is right is ethical and what is wrong is unethical. The words 'proper',' fare' and 'just' are also used in place of right 'and 'ethical'. If it is ethical, it is right, proper, fair, and just. Ethics is a matter of practical concern. It tries to determine the good and right thing to do; choices regarding right and wrong, good and evil; questions of obligation and value. Ethics is to consider the practice of doing the right actions or what we may call the art of living the good life (Lillie, 2011).

It is also defined as the science of the highest good. Mackenzie (1901) defines ethics as “the study of what is right or good in human conduct” or the “science of the ideal involved in human life”. So, ethics is the study that determines the rightness or wrongness of actions.

Applied ethics is the practice of ethics that aims to guide the moral judgment governing the decisions we make in all areas of our lives. Issues of right and wrong are related to one’s values. In the context of ethics, values are our standards of right and wrong.

Morality originated from the Latin word morality (which means manner, character, and proper behavior), which is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper. Morality is the moral beliefs, views, and attitudes of given individuals, societies, and groups. Ethics is systematic reflections on moral views and standards (values and norms) and how one should assess actions, institutions, and character traits (Khatibi,& Khormaei,2016).

Descriptive and normative Morality

In its descriptive sense, "morality" refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct, or social mores from a society that provides these codes of conduct in which it applies and is accepted by an individual. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong, but only refers to that which is considered right or wrong. Descriptive ethics is the branch of philosophy that studies morality in this sense (Gert, 2016).

According to Gert (2016), in its normative sense, "morality" refers to whatever (if anything) is right or wrong, which may be independent of the values or mores held by any particular peoples or cultures. Normative ethics is the branch of philosophy that studies morality in this sense.

Scope of Ethics

Meta-Ethics: Meta-ethics comprises the area of situational ethics and deals with logical questions like 'What do we mean by 'freedom' and 'determinism' etc. It delves into the nature of ethical properties, attitudes, and judgments. For example, a media critic's description of a TV series as 'good drama' does not necessarily denote that the program is morally sound. It is the function of meta-ethics to define such vague concepts in ethical terms. Some of the theories of Meta-Ethics are Naturalism, Non-Naturalism, Emotivism, and Prescriptivism.

Normative Ethics: Normative ethics deals with standards or norms by which we can judge human actions to be right or wrong. It deals with the criteria of what is morally right or wrong. For example, if someone murders a person, everyone will agree that it is wrong. The question is: Why is it wrong to murder someone? There are a lot of different answers we could give, but if we want to specify a principle that stated why it is wrong, the answer might be: Murder is wrong because when we kill someone, we violate their right to live. Another perspective might be – To inflict unnecessary suffering on the person being murdered or their family is wrong, that's why killing a person is wrong.

Applied Ethics: Applied ethics is the problem-solving branch of moral philosophy. It uses the insights derived from meta-ethics and the general principles and rules of normative ethics in addressing specific ethical issues and cases in a professional, disciplinary, or practical field. Applied ethics is the vital link between theory and practice, the real test of ethical decision-making. Applied ethics often requires not only theoretical analysis but also practical and feasible solutions (https://nehakubms.wordpress.com).

 Importance of Ethics

Ethics is a central component of any happy, healthy, and mature life. But some critics still question the value of studying ethics and living an ethical life.  According to Panza (2010), some great reasons to resist those critics include the following:

• Ethics allows you to live an authentic life. An authentic and meaningful life requires you to live with a sense of integrity. Integrity is making commitments and sticking to them through thick and thin — no matter how much violating them may benefit you. Having a firm character or set of principles to guide your life and the choices you make is what ethics is all about.
• Ethics makes you more successful. You may think that ethics can hold you back in all kinds of ways, but the truth is the opposite. Ethical people embody traits that unethical people have to work at to fake — they're honest, trustworthy, loyal, and caring. As a result, ethical people are perfectly suited not only for interpersonal relationships generally but also more specifically for the kinds of interactions that make for a thriving business. Unethical people generally don't do so well at these things.
• Ethics allows you to cultivate inner peace. Lives that are lived ethically tend to be calmer, more focused, and more productive than those that are lived unethically. Most people can't turn off their sympathy for other human beings. Hurting people leaves scars on both the giver and the receiver. As a result, unethical people have stormier internal lives because they have to work to suppress their consciences and sympathies to deal with the ways they treat others. When they fail to properly suppress their sympathies, the guilt and shame that comes with harming or disrespecting one's fellow human beings take deep root within them.
• Ethics provides for a stable society. When people live ethical lives, they tell the truth, avoid harming others, and are generous. Working with such people is easy. On the other hand, callous and insensitive people are distrusted, so it’s difficult for them to be integrated well into social arrangements. A stable society requires a lot of ethical people working together in highly coordinated ways. If society were mostly composed of unethical people, it would quickly crumble.
• Ethics may help out in the afterlife. Some religious traditions believe ethics is the key to something even greater than personal success and social stability: eternal life. No one can be sure about eternal life, but people of faith from many different religions believe that good behavior in this life leads to rewards in the next life.

Conclusion

Ethics asks basic questions about the good life, about what is better and worse, about whether there are any objective right and wrong, and how we know it if there is. It is a must for human life and helps us in deciding what course of action is to be done. It can give real and practical guidance to our lives. Ethical values (i.e. honesty, trustworthiness, responsibility) help guides us along a pathway to deal more effectively with ethical dilemmas by eliminating those behaviors that do not conform to our sense of right and wrong – our best rational interests – without sacrificing others.

Ethics is about character -- the sum of qualities that defines a person. These qualities include a person’s intellect, thoughts, ideas, motives, intentions, temperament, judgment, behavior, imagination, perception, emotions, loves, and hates. Character is all about what a well-intentioned person with good character would do. Character counts because it defines who we are and what we stand for.  We need to be ethical because it defines who we are individually in society. These are norms of behavior that everyone should follow. As a member of society, we might fall into chaos if we accept that each of us could pick and choose what the right thing to do is. Some people may lie; others may not do what they say they will do; still, others act irresponsibly and engage in harmful behavior.

References

Gert, B., Gert, J. (2016). In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu

Khatibi M and Khormaei F. (2016). Morality and Ethics: A Brief Review. J. Life Sci. Biomed. 6(3): 66-70 retrieved from www.jlsb.science-line.com

LaFollette, H. (Ed.). (2020). Ethics in practice: an anthology. John Wiley & Sons.

Lillie, W. (2011). An introduction to ethics. Allied Publishers.

Mackenzie, J. S. (1901). A manual of ethics. Hinds & Noble.

Mintz, S. (2017). Why Do We Need Ethics? Retrieved from https://www.ethicssage.com.

Panza, C. & Potthast A. (2010). Ethics For Dummies retrieved from https://www.dummies.com

Singer, P. (2011). Practical ethics. Cambridge university press retrieved from https://books.google.com.ph

Williams, B. (2012). Morality: An introduction to ethics. Cambridge University Press.

https://nehakubms.wordpress.com/2018/09/02/ethics-definition-scope-nature-and-objectives/

https://books.google.com.ph/books?hl=en&lr=&id=FdjNDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP10&dq=lafollette+ethics&ots=mH1K0d77C_&sig=NPrswgemQWtYQJkwH6yMK2QhGP4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=lafollette%20ethics&f=false

https://www.civilserviceindia.com/subject/Essay/moral-and-ethics-in-everyday-life3.html

 

 

 

The challenge of marriage life and preventing divorce

 

Elma Ocampo Gabriel

Divine Word College of Laoag

Laoag City, Ilocos Norte

“People do not get married planning to divorce. Divorce is a result of a lack of preparation for marriage and the failure to learn the skills of working together as teammates in an intimate relationship.”

~ Gary Chapman

Abstract

Divorce is either or neither be moral or immoral. It is a reality that marriage is not always a bed of roses. Keeping the marriage is not easy and when conflicts arise, the couple should exert an effort to learn how to fix the troubled marriage.

According to the Bible, God does not favor divorce except for the cause of infidelity and abuse. He did not make man and woman be united and then separated if they got into some problems.

Marriages fail because people fail to mend what made the relationship broken and end up in divorce. Evidence found by social scientists from all over the world that divorce law contributed to the epidemic increase of divorce cases and its worst victims are the children who seem to bear the heaviest burden from their parents’ divorce.

While divorce may be the right solution to an unhappy marriage that cannot be fixed, it is important to remember that married couples must think that marital problems have always solutions if they are willing to protect the sanctity of their marriage.

Keywords: Divorce, marriage, legal separation, morality, the sanctity of marriage

Introduction

“What God has joined together, let no one separate” this quote refers to Jesus' teaching on marriage and divorce found in Mark 10:1-12 and Matthew 19:1-12. Marriage originated with God and if He has united a man and a woman in a marriage, the union is meant to be for life. Consequently, it is God not man has the right to break that union. This holds despite the faith of a married couple. When two nonbelievers marry, their marriage has been united by God whether they recognize it or not. This simply implies that Divorce is never God's plan, it was created as a convenient way out of a self-imposed problem, and due to failure to learn how to fix a problematic marriage.

The Philippines is the only Christian country in the world besides the Vatican City where divorce is not legal. The indissolubility of marriage is stated in the Constitution and strongly advocated by the Catholic Church, to which the majority of Filipino are Catholic.

The Family Code of 1987 Article XV, Section 2 states that “Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State”. The Philippine Constitution is the only one in the world that guarantees the protection of the institution of marriage as a lasting and permanent union. Exemption to the rule is Filipinos who are married to foreigners and seek a divorce in another country and for Muslim Filipino who are governed by different marriage laws.

The Government's fundamental law and the strong opposition of the Church are the two main reasons why the Philippines is the only country in the world aside from the Vatican where divorce is not allowed. The only options for separation are Legal Separation, Annulment, and the Declaration of Nullity.

Despite many couples still hold to religious views about marriage and divorce regardless of culture and religion around the world, a rising segment of the population is becoming more receptive to the idea of divorce. What contributed to this growing liberal attitude towards the acceptance of divorce? Is the present generation becoming unethical in their decision-making on matters of marriage? Therefore, the paper finds the topic of divorce and morality extremely important since it will help to know the moral considerations of marriage and divorce. The findings of this paper will help us deepen our understanding of the causes of divorce and its implications to the children, society, and even to one's partner.

Preparing Oneself to Marriage

The decision to get married is one of the most significant decisions and will greatly impact one’s life than almost any decision a person will make in his life. Luistro (2015) states that couples must know, before marriage, the requirements to get married like consent, validity, and the dispositions of those entering into marriage. They must primarily focus on the sacredness of marriage. Unity and the indissolubility of marriage are necessary for the pact of love to last. They must know that marriage is a life-long commitment of mutual, exclusive, total, irrevocable, and sincere self-giving and sacrifice. It is entered into with open eyes, a lot of reflection and logical thinking, maturity, and a lot of preparation knowing the other person extremely well and knowing that the union is not just based on mere passion or convenience. In other words, those contemplating marriage must make a sincere and diligent effort to know and understand the future partner's character and background including that of his/her family. Marriage fulfills natural law. It is not just a piece of paper signed in a ceremony. It is a promise, a vow, and there is a purpose to this vow. The vow keeps the groom and his bride together for life in an unbreakable bond of love, respect, trust, and safety needed to safeguard a very clear outcome of the union – a home, a family, children. Every baby deserves a family and every child has the right to have both a father and a mother together.

Causes of the Rise of Divorce

Most research concerning divorce and separation comes from the United States where divorce has greatly increased in proportions. The creation of divorce law that allows the dissolution of the permanent bind of marriage has harmed the children who seemed to bear the heaviest burden from their parents’ divorce.  Children from broken homes are significantly more likely to divorce as adults, to experience marital problems, to suffer from mental illness and delinquency, to drop out of high school, to have poor relationships with one or both parents, and to have difficulty committing to a relationship. Furthermore, in most respects, remarriage is no help to children of divorced families. Children who grow up in stepfamilies experience about the same levels of educational failure, teenage pregnancy, and criminal activity as children who remain in a single-parent family after a divorce.

Over 40 years (1960-2000), the divorce rate more than doubled in the United States, from about 20 percent to about 45 percent of all first marriages. Between the mid-eighties and 2002, 46 research articles appeared mostly dealing with the causes of separation and divorce and only very few with the repercussions and treatment approaches. The data suggest that about two-thirds of all divorces involved low-conflict marriages and domestic violence or emotional abuse was not a factor in the breakup of the union.

Goldstein (1999) noted that divorce rates show a leveling off mainly because there is now considerable cohabitation that is, living together without marriage. The increase in union dissolution has been associated with the parallel increase in the proportion of partners living together without marrying.

Without using religious arguments and regardless of religious affiliation, divorce law can lead to social and economic problems, as can be gleaned from the experiences of other countries where divorce is legal. The following are some causes as to why divorce occurs:

Too Early or Arranged Marriages. The most married couple who ended up getting divorced got married in their early 20s and cut their ties with their spouses in their early 30s. For some, their spouse was their first serious relationship and taught that that entering marriage will work in a lifetime. Others just want it to get out of their house and to enjoy their independence away from their parents' supervision.

Arranged marriages had a risk of divorce which was about 2.5 times as high as the non-arranged marriage. It was also noted that divorces were higher in urban than in rural areas. Other things being equal, women with more children had a lower risk of divorce. Son-preference exerted an effect on marriage dissolution. Women with no son had a significantly higher risk of divorce than those with at least one son.

The Lack of Preparation for Marriage. Most couples rush into marriage with little preparation or for the wrong reasons. Engaged couple gives far more attention in preparing for the wedding plans rather than preparing for married life. Oftentimes, a couple makes a hasty decision to get married without giving a great deal of thought about the person they will be living with for the rest of their lives. A marriage that was built on a weak foundation without commitment is not to love at all.  That feeling of being in love is not sufficient ground for building a successful marriage

Women's Independence. Over the years, women who are highly educated have gained independence due to the improved economic status that is most likely to provide them with financial independence.  This sense of women's independence enables women to support themselves and their children without the need to relying on financial support from their spouses. Ruggles (1997) found the rise of female employment in non-farm-type occupations was closely associated with the growth of divorce and separation.

An interesting phenomenon over recent years is that women file for divorce more often now than men, despite deep attachments to their children who they know are being harmed by such divorces. Many women in retrospect report the fact that they are happier being single than when they were married (Brinig & Allen, 2000). Many women also file for divorce to have sole custody of the children. Sayer and Bianchi (2000) explored whether a wife's economic independence destabilized marriage and heightened the risk of divorce.

Economic and Financial Factors. There are some circumstances when divorce is obtained to fraudulently exploit tax advantages or to get government benefits. An example of this is when a couple divorces because it will allow one of them to claim a tax credit or receive financial aid from the government for their children yet the couple is not separated.

An international study of regional differences in divorce rates was carried out by Lester (1999). The author explored social correlates of regional divorce rates for seven nations: Finland, France, Hungary, Japan, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the USA, finding little consistency. The most consistent social correlates were found to be unemployment and, to a lesser extent, population size, homicide rates, percentage of elderly people, birth rates, death rates, and crime rates.

Liberal Divorce Laws or the Ease of Obtaining Divorces. Most countries where divorce is legal have now gone a step further down by accepting what is called a "no-fault divorce". This means that couples do not need a valid or compelling reason to separate; only a simple agreement to end the marriage is enough. This paves the way for flimsy excuses (or none) to be legal grounds for ending a marriage. The petitioner for divorce could cite "irreconcilable differences" without having to validate what he or she means.

Failure to Learn How to Fix Troubled Marriages. Anyone who believes in divorce should not think of entering into marriage. In many instances, people marry before acquiring the skills necessary to keep married. A couple who mutually thinks that divorce is one of their way out when their marriage fails can eventually end up in divorce.

Selfishness. One of the common causes of a married couple who suddenly consider divorce is selfishness. In a relationship, it is not only you that matters all the time. Couples need to be aware of the expectations they are bringing into the marriage not in a selfish way that disregards their partner but, in a way, to make allowances to understand the changes and adjustments through the years.

Things to be done to Fix Troubled Marriage

Although the percentage of failed marriage or divorce is growing, there are still couples who went through a lot of challenges in their marriage but were able to learn to fix a troubled marriage and still end up together. Below are some of the ways on how to fix troubled marriage:

Choose your marriage over the divorce. Marriage is a commitment not only to the couples but also to God who created it. It is a divine union between a man and a woman willing to sacrifice and to love each other for better or for worse. If a couple wants to get married but they mutually think that divorce is one of their options if their marriage fails, that couple should not think of entering into a marriage in the first place and their children will also be spared from a broken family.

Take responsibility for your actions.  Recognize issues in your marriage that usually end up in arguments. Sit down and be honest, accept mistakes, and agree to compromise to solve the issues to make the marriage lasts.

Listen more and talk less. While your spouse is explaining their point of view, just listen. Do not interrupt. Your spouse will be encouraged to talk about his feelings because your spouse knows that you are listening. Constant communication will bridge the gap of misunderstanding and also makes you closer to each other.

Spend quality time together. Always find ways to spend time together even if there are children, work, and other matters to attend to.

Consider Marriage Counselling. If you cannot stand with your partner, consider counseling. Many couples were able to obtain wonderful results by seeking help from marriage counseling experts

Conclusion

Morals are different depending on the beliefs and culture of an area. As always, the answer depends on the circumstances. Divorce is the dissolution of the union of two people who vowed to spend the remaining of their lives together. If the relationship is due to sexual infidelity or physical and mental abuse then divorce is morally permissible. Certainly, a person who is in an abusive marriage should get out of it, and seeking a divorce in that situation is not an issue of morality.  The immorality of divorce is the lack of attempting to repair what was damaged, without actually addressing the underlying issues and not taking steps to resolve them.  Just because you are tired or feel trapped in an unsatisfactory marriage will not be a sufficient ground for divorce.

Yet, as a Christian, I would still consider any behavior that is outside of God's approval as immoral. Getting into marriage relates to the older generation's sayings that "Marriage is not like a hot food that when you get burn, you spit it out." This refers to the sanctity of one's commitment to marriage. To remain true to one's word, it is important to remember that keeping the marriage is not easy, but you have to do whatever it takes to make it work not only to fix the troubled relationship but by being honest with yourself, fix whatever needs to be mended while working on repairing and avoiding harm to our children, society and our spouse.  Divorce should only be taken as the right and final option in extreme circumstances, other reasons aside from this will just mean a convenient way out to face responsibility.

References

Abalos, J.B. (2014). Trends and determinants of age at the union of men and women in the Philippines. Journal of Family Issues 35(12): 1624‒1641.

 Abalos, J.B. (2017). Divorce and separation in the Philippines: Trends and correlates. Demographic Research 36 (50): 1515-1548. DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2017.36.50.

 Abalos, J.B (2017). The rise of divorce, separation, and cohabitation in the Philippines. Retrieved from http://www.niussp.org.

 Lopez, J. (2006). The law of annulment of marriage rules of disengagement: How to regain your freedom to remarry in the Philippines. Pasig City: Anvil Publishing.

 Lowenstein, L. (2005). Causes and Associated Features of Divorce as Seen by Recent Research. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net.

 Luistro, R.B. (2015). Divorce… why not? Retrieved from http://alfi.org.ph

 The Family Code (Executive Order No. 209), 1987. Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org