What are your thoughts about DIVORCE?

[ziraulo]

Pro-divorce, but I'd like to avoid it as much as possible. Marriage is a big responsibility that paves the way for other bigger responsibilities, like taking care of children. One should really think it through before they get married. But of course, there are still some cases where it just doesn't work out, and being separated is way much better than staying together.

[dilbertschalter]

It's good to see that at least people here agree with the fact that everybody should reflect and think carefully about their responsibilities before getting married. I sometimes happened to argue with people who just don’t care about it and think everybody can just follow their basic instincts and have no problem with getting married and then divorced 100 times, every time the passion of love is fading without thinking about morality or children.
In my opinion, divorce can be necessary sometimes, but the very fact that there are so many situations in which divorce is preferable over staying together shows how rotten our society is.

that or people change their minds and that we value something known as "freedom." the world we live in is better than anything (more prosperous, less violent, smarter, etc;) that came before it precisely because people are not restricted by arbitrary moral codes.

not that divorce isn't a bad thing, but the freedom to choose is a cornerstone of the modern world (countries that have not fully grasped that have not done as well).

[Dwalin]

that or people change their minds and that we value something known as "freedom." the world we live in is better than anything (more prosperous, less violent, smarter, etc;) that came before it precisely because people are not restricted by arbitrary moral codes.

The concept of "freedom" is used too often to justify every infamous thing in this world. Freedom is a good thing, but morality is as well. It's a pity only elder people care about morality today.
By the way, it seems you are idealizing the modern society. "Freedom" can be wrongly understood by people. You can't imagine what happened in my country (Russia) after the fall of communism and the so-called "freedom" in the 90s. It nearly became a war zone divided by mafia groups. I am not a communist though in case you think that.

not that divorce isn't a bad thing, but the freedom to choose is a cornerstone of the modern world (countries that have not fully grasped that have not done as well).

They haven't done well of course, but the countries that HAVE fully grasped it haven't done well either. The society we live in is rotten anyway, independently from the fact if there is freedom or not. Freedom alone doesn't make this sick society perfect.

[dilbertschalter]

that or people change their minds and that we value something known as "freedom." the world we live in is better than anything (more prosperous, less violent, smarter, etc;) that came before it precisely because people are not restricted by arbitrary moral codes.

The concept of "freedom" is used too often to justify every infamous thing in this world. Freedom is a good thing, but morality is as well. It's a pity only elder people care about morality today.
By the way, it seems you are idealizing the modern society. "Freedom" can be wrongly understood by people. You can't imagine what happened in my country (Russia) after the fall of communism and the so-called "freedom" in the 90s. It nearly became a war zone divided by mafia groups. I am not a communist though in case you think that.

not that divorce isn't a bad thing, but the freedom to choose is a cornerstone of the modern world (countries that have not fully grasped that have not done as well).

They haven't done well of course, but the countries that HAVE fully grasped it haven't done well either. The society we live in is rotten anyway, independently from the fact if there is freedom or not. Freedom alone doesn't make this sick society perfect.

well, there's no denying that freedom can have certain negative effects. the problem was summed up rather nicely by a certain famous person a couple hundred years ago:

"Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an ailment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency."

though the topic addressed in the quote is politics, the basic idea is universal- when you give people freedom, they will do some things that you don't like and perhaps even some things that are quite bad, BUT the damage done to society by taking away freedom is far greater. obviously there are some kind of freedoms that people should not have- you shouldn't be "free" to steal or physically attack someone for example, but once you start expanding the list of abridgeable freedoms you walk down, to use the catchy phrase of an economist i am not much of a fan of, the road to serfdom. i am not a libertarian by any means, but it is still crucial to realize how much good comes from something as simple as letting people decide what is right for them.

saying that society is sick does not make it so. you are free to feel that people in the modern world are depraved or otherwise lacking in true moral character, but more objective judges of quality of life and the like tell no such story.

[Dwalin]

well, there's no denying that freedom can have certain negative effects. the problem was summed up rather nicely by a certain famous person a couple hundred years ago:

"Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an ailment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency."

though the topic addressed in the quote is politics, the basic idea is universal- when you give people freedom, they will do some things that you don't like and perhaps even some things that are quite bad, BUT the damage done to society by taking away freedom is far greater. obviously there are some kind of freedoms that people should not have- you shouldn't be "free" to steal or physically attack someone for example, but once you start expanding the list of abridgeable freedoms you walk down, to use the catchy phrase of an economist i am not much of a fan of, the road to serfdom. i am not a libertarian by any means, but it is still crucial to realize how much good comes from something as simple as letting people decide what is right for them.

saying that society is sick does not make it so. you are free to feel that people in the modern world are depraved or otherwise lacking in true moral character, but more objective judges of quality of life and the like tell no such story.

I may agree with you about freedom, but I still don't understand why you said in your previous post that the lack of moral codes helps the modern world to be "more prosperous, less violent and smart". Living in a world without morality is one the worst things that can happen in my opinion.

[Callid]

well, there's no denying that freedom can have certain negative effects. the problem was summed up rather nicely by a certain famous person a couple hundred years ago:

"Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an ailment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency."

though the topic addressed in the quote is politics, the basic idea is universal- when you give people freedom, they will do some things that you don't like and perhaps even some things that are quite bad, BUT the damage done to society by taking away freedom is far greater. obviously there are some kind of freedoms that people should not have- you shouldn't be "free" to steal or physically attack someone for example, but once you start expanding the list of abridgeable freedoms you walk down, to use the catchy phrase of an economist i am not much of a fan of, the road to serfdom. i am not a libertarian by any means, but it is still crucial to realize how much good comes from something as simple as letting people decide what is right for them.

saying that society is sick does not make it so. you are free to feel that people in the modern world are depraved or otherwise lacking in true moral character, but more objective judges of quality of life and the like tell no such story.

I may agree with you about freedom, but I still don't understand why you said in your previous post that the lack of moral codes helps the modern world to be "more prosperous, less violent and smart". Living in a world without morality is one the worst things that can happen in my opinion.

How do you define "morality"? Morality is nothing constant, it is entirely subject to its times and circumstances. For example, the morality of others might allow them to divorce at any time and as often as they want, and yet they'd still adhere to their morality, which just happens to be different from yours. For example, people in some Sharia-ruled lands might consider stoning a moral punishment for adultery, while people in first-world countries tend to hold the opinion that any any punishment (except possibly divorce) would be unmoral. So, what is morality?

Also, note that dilbert said "not restricted by arbitrary moral codes". I.e., those parts of the moral code that proved to be irrational have been overruled by logic.

[Dwalin]

How do you define "morality"? Morality is nothing constant, it is entirely subject to its times and circumstances. For example, the morality of others might allow them to divorce at any time and as often as they want, and yet they'd still adhere to their morality, which just happens to be different from yours. For example, people in some Sharia-ruled lands might consider stoning a moral punishment for adultery, while people in first-world countries tend to hold the opinion that any any punishment (except possibly divorce) would be unmoral. So, what is morality?

Also, note that dilbert said "not restricted by arbitrary moral codes". I.e., those parts of the moral code that proved to be irrational have been overruled by logic.

Let’s not start an argument about morality, if you think it's subjective then, following that logic, we can say that even pedophiles or terrorists follow their morality (I really don't mean to offend you, but I don't understand your logic). Marriage isn’t just about morality or freedom, it’s about RESPONSIBILITY.  

[mangaluva]

...Why are we bringing pedophiles and terrorists into this? And why is this a morality debate again? This is like a self-proving article about how subjective morality is.

[Dwalin]

But still, what about responsibility? Doesn't this mean anything to anybody any more?

[IdentityUnknown]

Thoughts...

Avoid it unless it's the best option.

Though really, consider what you're getting into before you get married...marrying for the heck of it destroys the whole essence of marriage.

[mangaluva]

But still, what about responsibility? Doesn't this mean anything to anybody any more?

Not to celebrities.

[dilbertschalter]

well, there's no denying that freedom can have certain negative effects. the problem was summed up rather nicely by a certain famous person a couple hundred years ago:

"Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an ailment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency."

though the topic addressed in the quote is politics, the basic idea is universal- when you give people freedom, they will do some things that you don't like and perhaps even some things that are quite bad, BUT the damage done to society by taking away freedom is far greater. obviously there are some kind of freedoms that people should not have- you shouldn't be "free" to steal or physically attack someone for example, but once you start expanding the list of abridgeable freedoms you walk down, to use the catchy phrase of an economist i am not much of a fan of, the road to serfdom. i am not a libertarian by any means, but it is still crucial to realize how much good comes from something as simple as letting people decide what is right for them.

saying that society is sick does not make it so. you are free to feel that people in the modern world are depraved or otherwise lacking in true moral character, but more objective judges of quality of life and the like tell no such story.

I may agree with you about freedom, but I still don't understand why you said in your previous post that the lack of moral codes helps the modern world to be "more prosperous, less violent and smart". Living in a world without morality is one the worst things that can happen in my opinion.

morality!=moral codes. i would in fact say that most people today live in a more "moral" way than their ancestors did (mainly in that people today are less violent and more respectful of law). as for the better world part, people much are better at making decisions when they rely on themselves rather than on the crutch of prescribed dogma.

[Callid]

How do you define "morality"? Morality is nothing constant, it is entirely subject to its times and circumstances. For example, the morality of others might allow them to divorce at any time and as often as they want, and yet they'd still adhere to their morality, which just happens to be different from yours. For example, people in some Sharia-ruled lands might consider stoning a moral punishment for adultery, while people in first-world countries tend to hold the opinion that any any punishment (except possibly divorce) would be unmoral. So, what is morality?

Also, note that dilbert said "not restricted by arbitrary moral codes". I.e., those parts of the moral code that proved to be irrational have been overruled by logic.

Let’s not start an argument about morality, if you think it's subjective then, following that logic, we can say that even pedophiles or terrorists follow their morality (I really don't mean to offend you, but I don't understand your logic). Marriage isn’t just about morality or freedom, it’s about RESPONSIBILITY.

If they (paedophiles and terrorists) believe that it is right and just what they do (which is not necessarily a given, especially with the first group), then they indeed follow their morality.
I, however, agree with your second statement, though I'd go even further - the only thing (apart from the partners' interests and the legal situation, of course) which should be considered concerning a marriage (or divorce) is responsibility.

[Akonyl]

[Kor]

Dwalin is distracting the conversation away by mentioning pedophiles and terrorists (I'm surprised he didn't mention Hitler); while he might not be doing so intentionally, I suggest to not follow that line because it has nothing to do with divorce.