| Login | Become a Member | Add a Quote | Friday, November 20, 2009 |
| ||
|
| ||
| My Profile | Browse |Search | Submit | Contact |
| Words of Wisdom: | ""You can't be brave if you've only had wonderful things happen to you."" - Manny Garcia |
|
| ||
Ethics - Marriage and Divorce In a purely existential sense a religion or at least an “old” religion is one that is based on values and virtues that allow a sustainable community to survive and thrive. Using the same principals of survival of the fittest one can deduce that any religion with rituals or traditions that harmed or hampered the community would die out and any religion that encourage procreation and community would have a greater chance of surviving. It is from these laws and rituals that, over time, ethical standpoints are formed by a community. By generations of human conditioning it then becomes unthinkable for the unethical act to be considered normal. In the case of marriage in this sense there are a few main benefits. Namely its effect on procreation and biodiversity, having an alpha male as a single breeding stud for a community would limit the biodiversity of any colony of organisms (in this case humans) whilst slowing down procreation as there can only be a certain amount of impregnations at a time (lacking the ability to be in two places at once). Another notable effect of the family system is that it provides an instant community group that the person belongs to, having a default social setting means that there is less cases of depression and anti-communistic attitudes. If an analytical standpoint is taken in the previous argument then it is arguable that the religious traditions could have originated not only from a profit but from qualitative observations of cause and effect. If people keep having mutant children when they are born out of an interbred relationship then it is seen as an act of God as there is no other reason. It then passes into law that inbreeding cannot happen and as a law passes through time and generations under human conditioning of offspring it becomes a part of the community’s ethos to not inbreed. Therefore upon analytical results an ethic is formed. Other examples of this occurring includes if a well is poisoned it becomes a sin to drink from it. A tree is poisonous so people are forbidden to eat its fruit. People should be isolated if are seen as spiritually unclean, this was often as a cause of some contagion that needed to be contained to prevent its spread. But the most important to the following argument is the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and how the sacrament of marriage prevents it becoming widespread. In a romantic sense (an idea most noted for its presence amongst religion) the world is perfect and there is always the perfect person to marry. A person will find there soul-mate and spend the rest of there life with that person. Therefore it is only logical to assume there would be some form of sealing bond between the members of the couple to announce that any courtship attempts from an out side body are futile as there heart cannot be swayed from its course. Therefore the act of marriage is taken upon. These three examples of generalised human thought I have chosen all outline different views on ethics and marriage in a contemporary sense. But as to provide a more specific and defined analysis and argument on marriage and the yet to be touched upon, divorce I will choose Christianity and Judaism to provide examples of ethics a rituals as source material and to provide points to be touched upon. In both named religions the act of marriage is an agreement to an ideal from two parties, one male and one female. The main idea of the relationship is procreation, as in an orthodox sense a life of celibacy is assumed to be lived out. In the existential point of view explored above the survivability of a religion with such a set up would be one generation and therefore one of insignificance to those interested in current religious practices. Therefore a sexual relationship must be established to provide a sustainable community, this also has to be done to fulfil the Jewish commandment of “Be Fruitful and multiply”. Although in an economical and governmental standpoint the marriage is a part of a contractual obligation to care and share with one another, in a religious text point of view it stands for much more than that, which I hope to explore in some depth. For a Jew there are many laws and ethical guidelines set in the Mitzvot, this includes how to marry, that a wife shale be made a wife by kiddushin (the sacrament of marriage), who may not marry and to whom people cannot marry. The ethics and guidelines set in the Mitzvot include those about remaining faithful to both the husband and the family community. The family being seen as a community is most important in the Jewish mindset as one of the laws that are held in high esteem is that Jews are responsible for the community in which they live in. Another law is “not to cherish hatred in ones heart” (Levites 25:17), this can be seen to go hand in hand with arranged marriage and the belief that “love will grow; you don’t have to love the person you marry in the start”. The detachment of love and sexual relationships taken from an institutional point of view would mean someone who loved someone else’s wife would not necessarily seek a relationship with that person or envy the husband, as they have been conditioned from birth to repress emotions of lust and love and to see sex as a duty to the community (this duty to the community is for the procreation of Jews and thus the Jewish community, as well as the family community by strengthening relationships between husband and wife). Laws concerning who may be married involve the disallowment of marriage between gentiles and Jews. These pose problems over a lengthened period of time that could produce some ethical considerations, namely to do with incest being a sin. If there are no new families entering the Jewish community then eventually all members of the community will be related in some manner causing an ethical conundrum. The Christian marriage is in essentials the same except for a few key differences; this can be expected with most of the ethical issues encountered as the Christian church stems from Judaism (the Torah is seen as the Old Testament). Notable changes include the fact that the marriage is mutual, this means that the partners should love one another before hand and this love is seen by the church to reflect gods love. This lends itself to the pre-noted views of a romanticist. Problems associated with this (other than those discussed as to why arranged marriages are seen as ok in the Jewish religion, although baring in mind that those reasons pose as negatives in this context) includes, and this is if we were to indulge in probability as well as cause and effect, that if a person is humble as it says in the beatitudes. Then they should put others before them, thus there belief is that God loves others more than them, if this viewpoint is taken then the person is obliged to think that since there love is a reflection of there’s with God and God loves others more than him/her then they would believe that there partner loves others more than themselves. If this is so it could lead to depression which then leads to self hate and self hate causes great problems with “do unto others that you wish them to do unto you”. In the Catholic Church marriage is seen as a divinely appointed institution, as an institution takes power away from the individual one is led to question the reasoning behind the process to anything other than actual love, conditioning or the old cliché of madness. In the Christian church marriage is seen as a mutual covenant of self sacrifice for one another and as a vow to remain with one another as well as to help one another to the best of each others ability. Such is the importance of the vow that in orthodox churches it is viewed as a sacrament and it is only in most Pentecostal churches where it is not viewed thusly. Divorce is always a controversial issue, it raises many points and some rather obscure reasoning. For example if a person dies then are you still married? If there is life after death then wouldn’t it be obvious that they still exist in a tangible form? If the other person still exists and you need them to agree to a divorce how can you if they are no longer physically reachable? After vowing your love can you take it back? There are many strict Jewish laws on divorce, under what circumstances (wether someone was unfaithful) and remarriage (in the event of death and no offspring). The official documentation for a Jewish divorce is called a “Get”. These ethical laws are based on remaining faithful to the dead as well as the covenant with god to procreate as well as to continue bloodlines. According to the 79th law of the Mitzvot “A widow whose husband died childless must not be remarried but to her husband’s deceased brother” This insures that the bloodline of the family is continued but is it morally right? As the marriage to has accepted the woman into the family and she is now her new husbands sister-in-law and therefore any sexual act can be seen as moral incest. That is if incest is defined as the sexual act performed with a relative therefore although not a blood relation the sister in law is still morally and for the sake of this argument “ethically” a sin. Much like the set up for marriage the divorce proceedings have been set up to try and prevent tension within the community. If the man defames the wife he cannot divorce her, this prevents a public outcry between two individuals forcing others in the community to take sides. As well as this there is a law “That one who has divorced his wife shall not remarry her, if after the divorce she had been married to another man” (Deuteronomy 24:1), this prevents out would tension between the two males as they both have a right to love her but one had already divorced, the new husband is allowed to “let his love grow” for his new wife. In the Christian churches teach that divorce should be frowned upon but have a light handed approach and therefore accept it as fact that people will eventually divorce at least some of the time in its acceptance of secular reality. Furthermore the church can grant an annulment, which means that the marriage was meaningless in the first place. It may do this if one or both of the partners is ignorant, incapable or unwilling to be responsible for duties needed in married life as well as to have a family. And this therefore declares that the sacramental bond did not exist in the first place, although the Orthodox Church will only permit two remarriages. Due to the church’s leniency in its views many Catholics have divorces more readily and is thus seen as taking away from the sanctity of marriage. As a part of the vows taken during the wedding the partners vow to remain together until death, so accordingly the marriage is nul and void when one partner dies. What would have been a major problem during periods such as the Middle Ages was that it was not always a certainty that someone was dead when they were buried. The expression “saved by the bell” is supposed to have come from when a bell was tied to the deceased wrist and kept above ground with a string attaching it, if the bell rung they would dig the person out. This raises an ethical issue about knowing if the person is dead or not and wether or not the partner can remarry, for example if a person is declared dead and then there partner remarries and then it is discovered they were not dead (they might be comatose) the who would be with whom. Following this train of thought one is forced to ponder the “substance” of death, if a person is physically dead and then comes back what then, has the marriage been cancelled or just put on hold. It is a Jewish persons right and responsibility to live as long as they can but they don’t have to have treatment, therefore it could be assumed that although the person is physically alive it is not that person but a bunch of hospital equipment. We can keep a body “alive” without the brain, we can chop bits out and make them work independently so therefore is a parson ever physically dead? If we were to assume you were to remain married to a person even if they were mentally dead as far as observational records show. Now we shall ponder what would happen if that person was an organ donor, if lets say a husbands heart was put in a different person, it is logical to say that a bit of the wives husband is not dead and therefore she is married to a part of that person. This possible tangent of thought could open up a whole new range of ethical debate. As we learn more about science and quantum physics we learn that even energy (which has been speculated to be what the soul is) is made of physical substance, therefore a soul is tangible in a small was and a partner would still exist in the spouses life, therefore is it possible to say that someone ever dies, if it is that would go against the idea of an afterlife as you would be a completely different makeup and person (and both Christianity and Judaism do not believe in reincarnation to that extent), whilst to say that someone cannot die would go against the idea of an afterlife as they never died in the first place therefore a paradox is created. But the point of pondering this is that if your partner is still alive in a sense are you still married to them? In conclusion it is arguable that the ethics that are the driving force behind marriage and divorce ensure a continuation of species, the betterment and sustainability of a community both with procreation and social status. It leaves points open to ponder as new technology allows for reason to be expanded to an intangible level we are forced to recognise and study death to find out when a marriage is nullified (as without any physical means both of the spouses cant agree to a divorce). We are forced to question the relationships between each other and our own point of view. Ultimately we have to ask ourselves a question that I purposefully left out for the sake of not writing a book; “is there any reason for these rituals, or are we just fulfilling a human need for ceremony?” This essay is only for research purposes. If used, be sure to cite it properly! |
|
All images, coding, essays, and pages cannot be used without the prior
written consent of this web site. Copyright © 1996-2009. The Essay Depot. All rights reserved. Acceptable Use Policy | Copyright Inquiries | Privacy Policy |