“DIVORCE FROM THE ETHICAL THEORIES’ PERSPECTIVE”

 (Erico Joseph T. Cañete)

LET’S TAKE a look at the contentions of the Emotive Theory and Situation Ethics and examine each in relation to the moral issue of divorce. 

The Theories:

Emotive theory asserts that there is no objective or universal norm of morality. There is no rational basis for right and wrong because every moral judgment depends on the agent’s exhortation. Every moral situation is exhortatory rather than cognitive. For example, the statement, “corruption is evil” would only signify the agent’s feelings about corruption. Subjectivity, via emotion, is the absolute norm.

On the other hand, Situation Ethics asserts that moral judgment is based on the demands of the situation. If situation necessitates the agent to steal medicines to save an ailing family member, then it can be justified since the situation demands so. 

The world becomes chaotic if moral judgments are based on emotion and situation as criteria for the rectitude and wrongness of one’s actions. 

Bases of Ethics:

The universal and objective bases of morality are human nature and the natural moral law. 

Though this demands a lengthy discussion, just allow me to give a synopsis on the issue.

First, an act becomes morally good if it makes man perfect according to his own degree of perfection. Otherwise, the act is evil. Yet, this implies a thorough knowledge as to what or who man is for what is good or evil for man depends on who man is.

Second, is the Natural Moral Law. It is a plan in the mind of God to direct a rational creature achieves his end. This contains the Primary Precepts manifested in the dictum, “Do good and void Evil.” The Secondary Precepts like the Decalogue supplements an understanding of the Primary Precepts of the good act to be done and the evil act to be avoided. “Honor your parents” is a good act hence it is imperative for us to obey. “Thou shall not commit adultery” is an evil act hence we are forbidden to do so. This House Bill 9349, “which would institute absolute divorce as an alternative mode of dissolving irreparably broken or dysfunctional marriage,” once approved into law, ought to become part of the Remote Conclusions; a result from a fuller understanding of the Secondary Precepts.

On Divorce:

“Divorce dissolves the marriage thru a legal process and a decree by a court.” It legalizes the act. And its justification is for “remedy for irreparably broken marriages with the goal of sparing children from the emotional strain of parental dispute.” 

Dissolving marriage using this justification is subscribing to situation ethics and emotive theory; an appeal to emotion fallacy – rather than reason, which prescribes a wrong antidote to an infirmity. How can the state judge that the marriage is irreparable in the first place? Is it through the evidences presented in court where both parties present their emotional struggles, and destructive or irreconcilable individual differences? Does it actually save the divorced individuals? No! On the contrary it opens an avenue to create another scenario of a moral evil to exist for it allows divorced individuals to remarry. The problem is not marriage but individual differences with belligerent attitude towards each other. Settle the differences in a complementary relation and not competition. Isn’t it because we are different that we have so much to share?

Does it actually save the children from emotional strain of parental dispute? No! On the contrary, the children are the real victims. Divorce is a way to solve an evil by resorting to another evil. “Ne ad mallum addas mallum!”

Divorce, once legalized, ought to take part of the Remote Conclusions. It becomes legal but it’s not moral for it deviates from the tenets of the Secondary Precepts. Reason, and not only faith, tells us that marriage is an indissoluble union and no man should put asunder otherwise the vow “for better or for worse” is broken. 

SYNTHESIS:

Divorce is legalized because legislators failed to see what is really good for man or failed to see the connection and harmony between the Secondary Precepts and Remote Conclusions.

Anyone who divorces for convenience, pleasure, expediency, escapism, inter alia, under the guise of sparing the individuality of the divorced couple or sparing the psyche of the children subscribes to the theories mentioned.

No to divorce!

Salute to our three Boholano representatives who voted against divorce.