The problem of divorce and morality: A Literature Review

 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,""

atOptions = { 'key' : 'ec63b517c8cd8c5e5fc8db8b1ea2e981', 'format' : 'iframe', 'height' : 250, 'width' : 300, 'params' : {} };

Moral challenge of Success: Treating Employees as Resources

 MARLON D. MACALMA

Divine Word College of Laoag, Ilocos Norte, Philippines

Abstract

 

This reflection paper realizes the ethical issues of treating employees as mere resources and assets in organizations, emphasizing the significance of balancing and harmonizing business goals with respect for individual dignity. It discusses how Human Capital Theory views employees as valuable assets and the risks of seeing them only as tools for productivity. The paper draws on real-world examples like Google’s “20% Time” and IBM’s development programs to illustrate ethical practices that support employee growth. It also examines and analyzes how companies like Ayala Corporation and Jollibee Foods Corporation use ethical leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to ensure fair and objective treatment of employees. The paper concludes that recognizing employees as individuals, rather than just resources, leads to a healthier work environment and greater organizational success.

 

Keywords Ethics, Human Resources, Human Capital Theory, Kantian Ethics, Motivation, Corporate Social Responsibility, Ethical Leadership

 

Introduction

 

This reflection paper determines the ethical issues of treating employees as resources or assets in an organization. It focuses on finding the right balance between achieving business goals and respecting each person's dignity. Human Capital Theory views employees as valuable assets, proposing that enhancing their skills and knowledge benefits both the individuals and the organization (Becker, 1964). However, this view can sometimes lead to seeing people as just tools, which raises ethical concerns. Kantian ethics argues that people should be valued for who they are, not just for what they can do for the company (Kant, 1785). This idea is important to prevent treating employees in a way that exploits or degrades them. Motivation theories by Maslow and Herzberg emphasize the need to meet employees' higher needs for personal growth and recognition to keep them engaged and satisfied (Maslow, 1943; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). Moreover, ethical leadership and corporate social responsibility (CSR) emphasize the importance of treating employees fairly and with respect, supporting their well-being (Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005; Freeman, 1984). Combining these views helps organizations balance ethical practices with achieving their goals, creating a workplace that values employees as individuals while striving for success.

 

Human Capital Theory and Ethical Considerations

 

Human Capital Theory, introduced by economist Becker (1964), suggests that investing in employees’ education and development can make them more productive, benefiting both the employees and the company. A real-world example of this is Google’s “20% Time” policy. This policy allows employees to spend 20% of their workweek on projects they are passionate about, even if they are not directly related to their job. This investment in employees' personal interests and professional growth not only encourages innovation but also respects their individual goals and well-being. It shows an ethical approach by supporting employees' development, which in turn helps the company succeed.

On the other hand, the ethical challenges arise when the focus changes from valuing employees as individuals to seeing them only as assets. For example, if a company pushes for maximum productivity and financial gain without considering employees' needs, it might treat them as mere tools to achieve business goals. This can lead to serious ethical issues. A company that demands long hours and high output without addressing job satisfaction or work-life balance might create a stressful environment where employees feel overworked and unappreciated. This approach risks exploiting workers and failing to support their overall well-being.

 

Consider a company that prioritizes high performance but cuts back on employee support programs to save costs. Employees might face stress from increased workloads, reduced job satisfaction, and limited personal development opportunities. Such a company might see a short-term improvement in productivity but could suffer from higher turnover rates, lower employee morale, and a damaged reputation in the end. This scenario highlights the importance of balancing performance goals with ethical treatment, ensuring that employees are valued and supported as individuals, not just as means to achieve business outcomes.

Balancing Performance with Ethical Treatment

Balancing performance goals with ethical treatment of employees can certainly be challenging. Human Capital Theory suggests that investing in employees—through training, development, and support—should ideally benefit both the organization and the employees. However, when this investment is solely aimed at maximizing productivity without regard for employees' well-being, it can lead to significant ethical issues.

 

For example, consider a company that prioritizes digging out the maximum output from its employees. Management might push staff to work longer hours, cut breaks, or increase workloads without considering their health or work-life balance. Although this might yield short-term productivity gains, it often results in burnout, decreased job satisfaction, and higher turnover. Such an approach disregards employees' overall well-being and raises ethical concerns.

 

In contrast, IBM exemplifies a more balanced and ethical application of Human Capital Theory. Through initiatives like the “Think Academy” and other development programs, IBM demonstrates a commitment to both employees' professional growth and personal well-being. The Think Academy offers continuous learning opportunities that help employees advance their skills and careers, reflecting IBM’s belief that supporting their development benefits both the company and ultimately the employees.

 

Moreover, IBM fosters a positive work environment by providing resources for mental and physical well-being, promoting a culture of inclusion, and encouraging work-life balance. This focus on employee satisfaction ensures that the company’s practices align with ethical standards. Furthermore, IBM’s approach is centered on long-term benefits rather than immediate productivity. By investing in a satisfied and well-supported workforce, IBM reduces turnover and retains valuable skills within the organization. IBM’s approach illustrates that it is possible to achieve high performance while maintaining ethical treatment of employees. By investing in employees' growth and well-being, IBM not only enhances productivity but also upholds a commitment to ethical practices, demonstrating that performance goals can be balanced with a genuine concern for employees' holistic needs.

Ethical Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility

 

In the Philippines, ethical leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) are crucial for ensuring that employees are treated with dignity and fairness. Ethical leaders in Filipino businesses prioritize transparency, fairness, and the overall well-being of their employees, setting an example that echoes throughout the organization. For instance, Filipino companies like Ayala Corporation have demonstrated a commitment to ethical practices and social responsibility, integrating these values into their business strategies to support fair labor practices and community development.

 

CSR initiatives in the Philippines focus on enhancing working conditions, ensuring fair compensation, and offering opportunities for employee growth. An example is the approach taken by companies like Jollibee Foods Corporation, which is known for its CSR efforts that include providing safe working conditions, fair wages, and career development programs. Jollibee’s initiatives reflect a commitment to treating employees as valuable contributors to the company’s success rather than mere resources.

 

The alignment with stakeholder theory is misleading in these practices. Stakeholder theory, introduced by R. Edward Freeman in 1984, suggests that organizations should account for the interests of all stakeholders, including employees, in their decision-making processes. This theory advocates for a broader view beyond solely maximizing shareholder value, emphasizing the importance of considering the well-being of all those affected by business operations.

 

For instance, the approach of companies like Globe Telecom includes providing comprehensive benefits, educational opportunities, and fair wages for employees. This demonstrates a dedication to valuing employees as crucial stakeholders, fostering a positive work environment, and contributing to long-term success.

 

Ethical leadership and CSR are vital in promoting respect and fairness towards employees in the Philippine business landscape. Leaders who champion transparency and fairness set a positive example, while CSR programs that focus on employee welfare reflect a commitment to recognizing employees as essential stakeholders. This approach aligns with stakeholder theory, underscoring the importance of considering the interests of all stakeholders in organizational decision-making.

 

 

 

Effect on the Human Person

 

When employees are regarded merely as resources, they face significant risks of exploitation, misuse, and manipulation. This often leads to overworking, underpayment, and undervaluation, as seen in companies where unrealistic productivity targets are imposed without adequate breaks or fair compensation. In Philippine companies like Jollibee Foods Corporation, where workers might be pressured to meet high demands without proper support, employees can experience severe stress and burnout, manifesting in physical symptoms like fatigue and headaches, and mental health issues such as anxiety and depression.

 

On the other hand, treating employees as valued individuals fosters a healthier work environment. For instance, a Philippine company like BDO Unibank prioritizes its employees’ well-being by offering flexible work arrangements, extensive benefits, and a supportive atmosphere. This approach makes employees feel appreciated and motivated. BDO Unibank’s focus on wellness programs and professional development emphasizes its commitment to valuing employees as key to its success. Such a positive environment enhances creativity, productivity, and loyalty, as employees are more engaged and contribute effectively when they feel respected.

 

Likewise, a company like San Miguel Corporation places significant emphasis on employee well-being through comprehensive support programs that address mental health, work-life balance, and career growth. This commitment to employee welfare not only boosts job satisfaction but also fosters a sense of community within the organization. Employees are encouraged to share ideas and take ownership of their roles, which leads to innovative solutions and a more engaged workforce.

 

Treating employees as mere resources can lead to exploitation and health issues while valuing them as individuals creates a positive work environment that enhances job satisfaction and overall well-being. When employees feel respected and valued, they are more motivated and contribute more effectively, resulting in better outcomes for both the employees and the organization.

 

Conclusion

The ethical implications of viewing employees as resources or assets are reflective and complex. While recognizing employees as valuable assets emphasizes the importance of investing in their development, it is equally critical to uphold their inherent dignity and worth.

 

Viewing employees solely as resources can lead to a focus on efficiency and productivity at the expense of individual well-being. This perspective might result in treating employees simply as tools to achieve business goals, overlooking their needs and rights. For example, in a factory setting, pushing workers to meet strict deadlines without proper rest or safety measures can cause high turnover, injuries, and decreased job satisfaction, reflecting a troubling disregard for employees' intrinsic value.

 

On the other hand, ethical theories and organizational behavior research support treating employees as "ends in themselves" rather than mere means to an end. This approach involves valuing people’s unique contributions and ensuring their well-being. Companies like Ben & Jerry’s and Microsoft exemplify this perspective. Ben & Jerry’s is noted for its fair wages, comprehensive benefits, and commitment to personal growth, fostering a positive work environment where employees feel valued. Similarly, Microsoft promotes a balanced work-life environment through flexible hours, mental health resources, and a supportive culture, demonstrating respect for employees' individual contributions and enhancing overall engagement.

 

Research highlights that organizations recognizing employees as valuable individuals enhance job satisfaction, the performance, and create a more ethical and positive work environment. Employees who feel respected and valued are more likely to be committed and innovative, benefiting both themselves and the organization.

 

In conclusion, while treating employees as resources can highlight the need for development investments, it is essential to balance this view with respect for their dignity and intrinsic worth. Ethical theories and organizational behavior research support the notion that recognizing employees as valuable individuals leads to a more positive, ethical work environment, ultimately benefiting both employees and the organization.

References

Becker, G. S. (1964). Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education.

Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117-134.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The Motivation to Work.

Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.

"zone name","placement name","placement id","code (direct link)" dameanusabun.blogspot.com,SocialBar_1,24187568,""

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.

 

"zone name","placement name","placement id","code (direct link)" dameanusabun.blogspot.com,SocialBar_1,24187568,""