The moral landscape of artificial intelligence and automation

 By Jenneby Grace C. Acidera

 Divine Word College of Laoag

 Abstract

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) and automation is transforming industries, economies, and daily life in profound ways. While these technologies offer unprecedented opportunities for efficiency, innovation, and problem-solving, they also present significant ethical challenges. This paper explores the moral landscape of AI and automation, examining the complex ethical issues that arise from their integration into society.

Key areas of focus include the potential for job displacement, the perpetuation of bias and discrimination through algorithmic processes, concerns over privacy and surveillance, and the impact of AI on human autonomy and decision-making. Through a combination of ethical theory and real-world case studies, this paper analyzes these challenges, offering insights into how they might be navigated responsibly.

The paper also discusses the role of regulatory frameworks, corporate responsibility, and public engagement in ensuring that AI and automation technologies are developed and deployed in ways that align with ethical principles. Recommendations are provided for balancing the benefits of AI and automation with the need to protect human dignity, fairness, and justice.

This research highlights the importance of ethical vigilance as society continues to integrate AI and automation into critical aspects of life, emphasizing the need for a thoughtful and inclusive approach to their development and use.

Introduction

In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) and automation have rapidly transitioned from theoretical concepts to practical tools that are reshaping industries, economies, and societies worldwide. From autonomous vehicles to intelligent decision-making systems, AI and automation are becoming integral to daily life, promising increased efficiency, cost savings, and the potential to solve complex problems. However, alongside these advancements, there are growing concerns about the ethical implications of deploying such technologies on a large scale.

As AI and automation continue to evolve, they bring with them a host of moral and ethical challenges that demand careful consideration. These technologies are not just tools; they are systems that can influence decisions, impact lives, and reshape social structures. The ethical landscape surrounding AI and automation is complex, encompassing issues such as job displacement, algorithmic bias, privacy violations, and the potential erosion of human autonomy.

This research paper aims to explore these challenges within the broader context of moral philosophy and ethics. By examining the ethical implications of AI and automation, this paper seeks to provide a nuanced understanding of how these technologies interact with human values and what it means to integrate them responsibly into society. The goal is to navigate the moral terrain that AI and automation present, offering insights and recommendations for ensuring that these powerful tools are used in ways that promote fairness, justice, and the well-being of all individuals.

The structure of this paper will guide the reader through a comprehensive exploration of the moral issues at hand, beginning with an overview of AI and automation, followed by an analysis of the key ethical concerns they raise. Case studies will illustrate real-world examples of these challenges, and the paper will conclude with recommendations for balancing technological innovation with ethical responsibility.

This introduction sets the stage for a thoughtful and in-depth exploration of the moral and ethical issues associated with AI and automation.

Keywords

Ethics, Artificial Intelligence and Automation, Job Displacement, Bias and discrimination, Privacy, and Surveillance, Impact of AI on human autonomy and decision-making, Ethical Frameworks, Technology Ethics, Corporate Responsibility

What is artificial intelligence?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology allows computers and machines to simulate human intelligence and problem-solving tasks. The ideal characteristic of artificial intelligence is its ability to rationalize and take action to achieve a specific goal. AI research began in the 1950s and was used in the 1960s by the United States Department of Defense when it trained computers to mimic human reasoning. A subset of artificial intelligence is machine learning (ML), a concept that computer programs can automatically learn from and adapt to new data without human assistance. (The Investopedia Team, 2024)

Artificial Intelligence (AI), the ability of a digital computer or computer-controlled robot to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent beings. The term is frequently applied to the project of developing systems endowed with the intellectual processes characteristic of humans, such as the ability to reason, discover meaning, generalize, or learn from past experience.

AI systems work by ingesting large amounts of labelled training data, analyzing that data for correlations and patterns, and using these patterns to make predictions about future states.

For example, an AI chatbox fed examples of text can learn to generate lifelike exchanges with people, and an image recognition tool can learn to identify and describe objects in images by reviewing millions of examples. Generative AI techniques have advanced rapidly over the past few years and can create realistic text, photographs, music, and other media.

Ethical use of AI in hiring, performance evaluations, and employee monitoring

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in hiring, performance evaluations, and employee monitoring has introduced significant ethical considerations, particularly regarding fairness, discrimination, and worker autonomy. While AI has the potential to enhance efficiency and objectivity, its deployment also raises concerns about bias, transparency, and the impact on employees' rights and well-being.

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in human resources (HR) has become increasingly common over the last decade. The embedding of AI in HR can be seen across key areas, including recruitment, screening, and interviewing of applicants, management of workers’ tasks and schedules, evaluation of job performance, and personalized career coaching. An attractive prospect for employers is that automation and data-based decision-making will lead to better decisions about hiring and management, increased efficiency, and reduction of costs.

Fairness and bias in AI systems

AI systems are often trained on historical data that may contain biases, which can lead to unfair outcomes in hiring and performance evaluations. AI is often promoted as a tool for reducing human bias in decision-making processes. However, if the training data includes biased patterns, the AI will likely replicate these biases. For example, an AI system trained on resumes from a predominantly male industry might develop a preference for male candidates, thereby reinforcing gender bias. Research has shown that AI systems can unintentionally perpetuate discrimination if not carefully designed and monitored.

Bias in AI systems can manifest in various forms, such as gender, racial, or age discrimination. Studies have revealed instances where AI-driven hiring tools have favoured certain demographics based on biased training data, leading to unequal opportunities for job applicants. For instance, Amazon's AI recruiting tool was found to be biased against women because it was trained on resumes submitted predominantly by men, leading to the system downgrading resumes that included the word "women".

Transparency and accountability

AI systems often operate as "black boxes," meaning that their decision-making processes are not easily understood by users or those affected by their decisions. This lack of transparency raises ethical concerns about accountability. One of the primary ethical concerns with AI is the lack of transparency in how decisions are made. Employees and job applicants may find it difficult to understand why certain decisions were made, such as why they were not selected for a position or received a particular performance rating. This opacity can lead to mistrust and dissatisfaction among those affected by AI-driven decisions.

The question of who is responsible for AI-driven decisions is crucial. If an AI system makes a biased or unfair decision, it can be challenging to determine who should be held accountable whether it's the developers, the data scientists, or the organization deploying the AI. This challenge is compounded by the fact that AI systems are often complex and involve multiple stakeholders.

Worker autonomy and surveillance

The use of AI in monitoring employee behaviour introduces ethical concerns about privacy and autonomy. AI systems can track various aspects of employee performance, such as time spent on tasks, communication patterns, and even physical movements. The use of AI for continuous monitoring can undermine workers' sense of autonomy and dignity at work. Employees who know they are being constantly monitored may experience increased stress and reduced job satisfaction. This "surveillance culture" can also stifle creativity and innovation, as workers may feel pressured to conform to strict productivity metrics rather than engage in thoughtful or creative work.

The use of AI for continuous monitoring can undermine workers' sense of autonomy and dignity at work. Employees who know they are being constantly monitored may experience increased stress and reduced job satisfaction. This "surveillance culture" can also stifle creativity and innovation, as workers may feel pressured to conform to strict productivity metrics rather than engage in thoughtful or creative work.

Discrimination and Inclusivity

AI systems can discriminate against certain groups if they are not designed with inclusivity in mind. For example, AI hiring tools might exclude candidates from particular socioeconomic backgrounds if the training data reflects a bias against those groups. Regular audits and adjustments are necessary to ensure AI systems do not disproportionately disadvantage certain populations.

Ethical AI deployment should include efforts to actively promote diversity and inclusivity in the workplace. This involves not only avoiding discrimination but also ensuring that AI systems are used to create opportunities for underrepresented groups. For example, AI could help identify and reduce biases in job descriptions or assist in reaching a more diverse pool of candidates.

The ethical use of AI in hiring, performance evaluations, and employee monitoring requires a nuanced approach that prioritizes fairness, transparency, accountability, and worker autonomy. Organizations must implement AI systems in ways that enhance rather than harm workplace dynamics, ensuring that these technologies are tools for equity rather than sources of new biases. Regular audits, clear policies, and human oversight are essential to mitigate the ethical challenges associated with AI in the workplace.

Ethical responsibilities of companies and governments in addressing worker displacement due to AI and automation

The rise of AI and automation presents significant ethical challenges, particularly the displacement of workers across various industries. Both companies and governments bear ethical responsibilities to mitigate the negative impacts of these technological advancements and ensure a fair transition for affected workers.

As AI and automation replace jobs, companies and governments must provide affected workers with opportunities to learn new skills that are relevant to the evolving job market. This includes investing in reskilling and upskilling programs that can help displaced workers transition into new roles. The World Economic Forum has highlighted the importance of public-private partnerships in reskilling initiatives, where companies collaborate with governments to create training programs that align with future job demands. Governments and companies should promote lifelong learning as a strategy to help workers continuously adapt to technological changes. This involves providing accessible and affordable education and training opportunities throughout a worker’s career.

Companies have an ethical obligation to implement AI and automation in ways that do not unduly harm workers. This means considering the broader social implications of replacing human labor with machines and finding ways to use automation to augment human work rather than entirely replace it. Some companies are using AI to support human decision-making rather than replace it, which can help preserve jobs while improving efficiency. Companies should be transparent with their employees about the potential impacts of AI and automation. Clear communication about how these technologies will be implemented and what it means for the workforce is essential for maintaining trust and preparing workers for changes.

Governments have a responsibility to strengthen social safety nets to support workers who are displaced by AI and automation. This includes enhancing unemployment benefits, social security, and other forms of economic support to provide a safety cushion during periods of job transition. Some economists and ethicists advocate for UBI as a potential solution to the economic displacement caused by automation. UBI would provide all citizens with a regular, unconditional sum of money, helping to alleviate poverty and economic insecurity.

Governments have a responsibility to regulate the deployment of AI and automation to ensure that these technologies are used ethically and do not exacerbate inequality. This includes setting standards for fair labor practices, data privacy, and the use of AI in decision-making processes. The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) includes provisions that address the ethical use of AI, such as the right to explanation for automated decisions, which can help mitigate the negative impacts of AI on workers.

Policymakers must ensure that the benefits of AI and automation are broadly shared across society. This can involve implementing tax policies that encourage companies to invest in human capital and ensuring that economic gains from automation are redistributed to support displaced workers.

The ethical responsibilities of companies and governments in addressing worker displacement due to AI and automation are multifaceted. Both entities must work together to provide training and education, ensure responsible use of technology, strengthen social safety nets, and implement policies that promote inclusive economic growth. By doing so, they can help mitigate the negative impacts of technological disruption and ensure a fair and just transition for all workers.

The collaboration between humans and AI, especially in scenarios where AI augments human abilities, brings about several ethical concerns, including dependency, bias, transparency, privacy, and the impact on employment. Addressing these concerns requires careful consideration of how AI systems are designed, implemented, and regulated to ensure that they enhance human capabilities without compromising ethical principles.

Impact on Employment and Skill Degradation

The augmentation of human abilities by AI can lead to job displacement, as certain tasks become automated or require fewer human inputs. This raises ethical concerns about the responsibility of companies and governments to support workers who may be displaced by AI. In industries like manufacturing, AI-driven automation has led to the reduction of certain job roles, requiring workers to reskill or face unemployment.

AI and automation technologies can displace workers, particularly in routine and repetitive tasks. Jobs in manufacturing, data entry, and other fields that rely on structured and predictable processes are particularly vulnerable. Studies indicate that while AI may eliminate some jobs, it can also create new roles, especially those involving AI oversight, maintenance, and development. However, the transition may not be smooth, leading to periods of unemployment and economic dislocation for affected workers. Despite the risks of job displacement, AI can generate new job opportunities in areas such as AI development, data analysis, and AI ethics. These new roles often require advanced technical skills, leading to a shift in the labour market towards more specialized professions.

As AI takes over more tasks, there is a risk that human skills in these areas may degrade over time. For example, if pilots rely too heavily on AI for navigation and control, their manual flying skills may deteriorate, leading to potential safety risks. Increased reliance on AI can lead to a loss of critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Employees may become too dependent on AI for decision-making, reducing their ability to handle complex, non-standard situations. This dependency can result in a workforce less capable of innovation and adaptation.

To counteract skill degradation, organizations need to invest in reskilling and upskilling programs. These initiatives are essential to help workers transition to new roles and maintain their relevance in an AI-driven economy. Lifelong learning becomes crucial as the pace of technological change accelerates.

Dominance of Using Artificial Intelligence

Even if AI has a lot of risks especially, in the work environment, we cannot deny that it also offers a multitude of advantages across various domains, contributing to enhanced efficiency, decision-making, innovation, and overall quality of life.

AI Increases productivity in which it automates routine and repetitive tasks, allowing human workers to focus on more complex and creative activities. This leads to significant increases in productivity and operational efficiency across industries. By automating tasks that previously required human labour, AI can reduce operational costs. This is especially true in sectors like manufacturing, logistics, and customer service, where AI-driven systems can operate continuously without breaks.

AI can enhance decision-making by using data-driven insights and predictive capabilities. AI can process and analyze vast amounts of data quickly, providing insights that help businesses and organizations make informed decisions. This capability enhances strategic planning and enables more accurate forecasting. AI's ability to predict outcomes based on historical data helps organizations anticipate future trends, optimize operations, and mitigate risks. This is particularly valuable in finance, healthcare, and supply chain management.

AI drives innovation by enabling the development of new products and services. For example, AI has been instrumental in the creation of personalized medicine, smart home devices, and autonomous vehicles, transforming industries and improving quality of life. AI accelerates the research and development process by analyzing complex data sets, identifying patterns, and generating hypotheses. This capability is particularly beneficial in fields like pharmaceuticals, where AI can significantly shorten the time required for drug discovery.

AI allows companies to offer highly personalized experiences by analyzing user data to understand individual preferences and behaviours. This leads to more targeted marketing, improved customer satisfaction, and higher loyalty. AI-driven chatbots and virtual assistants can provide round-the-clock customer service, ensuring that users receive prompt responses to their queries. This improves user experience and allows businesses to operate without downtime.

AI offers substantial advantages across a variety of sectors, driving efficiency, innovation, and enhanced decision-making. By automating tasks, providing data-driven insights, enabling new capabilities, and improving user experiences, AI has the potential to transform industries and improve overall quality of life. As AI continues to advance, its impact is likely to grow, providing even more significant benefits in the future.

Conclusion

The exploration of the moral landscape of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and automation reveals a complex interplay of ethical considerations that will shape the future of work and society at large. As AI and automation technologies continue to advance, they hold the potential to transform industries, enhance productivity, and drive innovation. However, these advancements come with significant ethical challenges that require careful deliberation and proactive management.

The integration of AI and automation in the workplace presents both opportunities and risks. While these technologies can lead to job displacement, they also have the potential to create new roles and drive economic growth. Policymakers, businesses, and educational institutions need to collaborate in developing strategies that support workers in transitioning to new job opportunities, ensuring that the benefits of AI are equitably distributed. AI systems, if not carefully designed and monitored, can perpetuate or even exacerbate existing biases, leading to unfair outcomes in hiring, promotions, and decision-making processes. To mitigate these risks, it is crucial to prioritize transparency, accountability, and fairness in AI development, ensuring that these technologies promote inclusivity rather than discrimination.

Over-reliance on AI and automation can lead to the erosion of human skills and a diminished capacity for critical thinking and decision-making. Organizations must strike a balance between leveraging AI's capabilities and maintaining human oversight to preserve essential skills and safeguard against potential failures in AI systems. The deployment of AI and automation technologies calls for a strong ethical framework that guides their development and use. This includes addressing issues of accountability, transparency, and the broader societal impacts of these technologies. Ethical governance is essential to ensuring that AI and automation contribute positively to society, respecting human rights, and promoting the common good.

The moral landscape of AI and automation is dynamic and multifaceted, demanding continuous reflection and adaptation as these technologies evolve. By embracing a proactive and ethically informed approach, society can harness the transformative potential of AI and automation while mitigating the associated risks. This will require a collective effort from all stakeholders—governments, businesses, academia, and civil society—to build a future where AI enhances human well-being, promotes fairness, and upholds the values that define our humanity.

As we move forward, the challenge lies not only in advancing AI technologies but in doing so in a manner that aligns with our ethical principles and societal goals. The responsible integration of AI and automation into the workplace and broader society will ultimately determine whether these innovations serve as tools for human flourishing or as sources of disruption and inequality.

References:

The Investopedia Team. 2024. What is Artificial Intelligence?

B.J. Copeland. 2024. What is Artificial Intelligence?

Binns, R. (2018). Fairness in machine learning: Lessons from political philosophy. Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 149-159.

Raghavan, M., Barocas, S., Kleinberg, J., & Levy, K. (2020). Mitigating bias in algorithmic hiring: Evaluating claims and practices. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 469-481.

Kim, P. T. (2017). Data-driven discrimination at work. William & Mary Law Review, 58(3), 857-936.

Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. Public Affairs.

O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. Crown Publishing Group.

Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. W. W. Norton & Company.

Susskind, D. (2020). A World Without Work: Technology, Automation, and How We Should Respond.

World Economic Forum. (2018). Towards a Reskilling Revolution: A Future of Jobs for All.

European Union. (2016). General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Bessen, J. E. (2019). AI and Jobs: The Role of Demand. NBER Working Paper No. 24235.

Susskind, R., & Susskind, D. (2015). The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts. Oxford University Press.

Autor, D. H. (2015). Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? The History and Future of Workplace Automation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 3-30.

Manyika, J., Chui, M., Miremadi, M., Bughin, J., George, K., Willmott, P., & Dewhurst, M. (2017). A Future That Works: Automation, Employment, and Productivity. McKinsey Global Institute.

Chen, H., Chiang, R. H., & Storey, V. C. (2012). Business Intelligence and Analytics: From Big Data to Big Impact. MIS Quarterly, 36(4), 1165-1188.

Rust, R. T., & Huang, M. H. (2021). The AI Revolution in Marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(1), 24-42.

Lu, L., Zhang, D., & Wang, X. (2020). A Review of Artificial Intelligence Technologies in Customer Support Service. IEEE Access, 8, 73729-73749.

 

 

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

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,""