Do you agree with the premise that at the foundation of every divorce is selfishness? If so, do you agree with the premise that any troubled marriage can be saved if both parties become less selfish?
Popularity: 4% [?]
|
Do you agree with the premise that at the foundation of every divorce is selfishness? If so, do you agree with the premise that any troubled marriage can be saved if both parties become less selfish?
Popularity: 4% [?]
Yes. And yes, however this would need to be contingent on certain factors affecting the marriage.
No, selfishness is not the exclusive cause of divorce.
No species controls procreation and neither do we. It’s important to realize our own limitations and deal with them responsibly.
My concern is that the exclusive attribution to selfishness triggers denial. We should not delude ourselves that we have superhuman powers.
Remember, abusers marry enablers. Crushing their spouse’s self-esteem, abusers shift blame and induce feelings of impotence.
Confronting abused women with ditties about virtue only victimizes them again. Instead, the responsible thing to do is to strengthen their resolve and shelter them and their children when they leave an abuser behind.
Now, one can argue that the abuser has to be less selfish. First of all, that’s not our choice. Each spouse only gets to chose for him- or herself. Second, it is not clear if abusers really have a choice. Often they are broken spirits that may not have the capacity to change.
Either way, mothers need to protect themselves and their children. We need to make that easier, not harder.
The premise was not that selfishness is the exclusive reason for all divorce. The premise was that selfishness is the foundation of all divorce.
Arguably, it is a choice for the abuser.
I wouldn’t be so sure. A lot of abusive behavior is compulsive. Many people are damaged long before they ever get married. They might be victims of child abuse, for example.
Jesus requires us not to judge. One reason may be that it is difficult to determine whether other people actually have a choice.
There are forces in the human condition that are beyond choice. Behavior may be guided by the unconscious or the subconscious. Genetics and socialization limit us. That’s especially the case when it comes to the sex drive and procreation.
As Christians we know that we need to be humble. We will benefit if we acknowledge our own limitations. We need to take responsibility for our lives but that does not mean that we are in charge.
Speaking of humility and judging, may be, we should consider how an LDS divorcee has to feel about this discussion. The last thing they need is people blaming them for “selfishness.”
Hellmut
It isn’t a judgement on any one person. Both Kim and I have family members who are divorced. What it is, is an intellectual question about the idea of divorce. That the root of divorce is based on selfishness, i.e. because one or both marriage partners are participating in behaviour that is self serving enough to create the divorce or likelihood of it.
On another point in your discussion, when it comes to abusive behaviour I don’t agree that some people are unable to control it, if they truly are, then that takes away choice. This of course is seperate from mental issues, but even there, help is available to combat those issues.
In order for a divorce to occur, one or both of the marriage partners want something for themselves that they are not finding in the marriage. If you can truly find a reason for divorce that is altruistic, I would be interested to know what it is. Again, this is not a judgemetn on anyone, it’s just a fact of the reality of it.
Neither would I. Hence the lack of any absolute statements.
Nah. I don’t need to consider the feelings of anyone in any questions I ask. Are their feelings important? Sure. Are they relevant to me asking questions. Not really.
That being said, no one is suggesting that in every divorce each party is guilty of selfishness.
Hellmut
It strikes me that you are reading far more into what Kim is sayng and into what I am saying then what is meant. That, I find rather alarming.
Having known abused women who have escaped marriages I wholly support those choices. I do NOT ever believe a woman should stay in an abusive marriage ever. I have seen it, and thank goodness I do not have to experience it.
I do not mean this at all, nor do I imply it. To look at that situation, the person being selfish is the abuser.
And guess what, I have family who have divorced because of abuse. So don’t start attributing cavalier opinions where none are meant. No one is saying divorce isn’t sometimes a good choice. Many times, YES it is.
Yes, you sound very harshly judgemental. Judging without even knowing our past experiences.
And if you want to talk addiction, Yes I know about that as well. I have seen it first hand. But that doesn’t make the behaviour non-selfish.
It’s clear you are going to continue to attribute opinions to me, that I do not hold and nothing will change your view on that so I won’t be responding to you anymore. To even imply that I think abuse is acceptable in any way shape or form is something I find abhorrent. Anyone who knows me will attest to the fact that this is the antithesis of who I am. So I will leave you to your over generalisations and misunderstandings. If it makes you comfortable to be this way, well, enjoy life.
Perhaps a better question to ask is “why is free agency a good thing when it hurts so much?”
Divorce is Free Agency in action.
I fail to understand why the premise that at the foundation of every divorce is selfishness would be untrue since the foundation of every marriage is also selfishness.
Well Rick, I can’t agree with that. In a marriage there is much unselfishness (well of course there is selfishness often times) but showing a pure love in marriage involves much sacrifice and giving. Of course, you could argue that it is self serving since making your spouse happy makes you happy too.
Of course it is self-serving.
The very notion of doing things because you can’t bear to see your spouse unhappy is selfishness itself.
Of course most altruism in primates is a of the reciprocal variety – selfishness is in our genes, regardless of how pretty a bow we put on it.
Are you suggesting that two selfish people could not be married to each other?
I do not believe selfishness is the cause or solution to divorce.
Free Agency is the problem. Get rid of Free Agency and Divorce Lawyers would have to change professions.
Rick
But selfishness means thinking ONLY of oneself, whereas a marriage, although it can be self serving too, isn’t only this way.
You can look at every action as selfish if you use such a broad definition, but to look at it purely, that will limit certain actions.
For example, as a parent, I do things for my children to make them happy and healthy and secure, but I also do it for me. I love to see them happy, I want to keep them safe and I want them to be healthy, for not only themselves but for my own peace of mind and comfort.
Mary, your line applies equally to divorces as it does to marriages.
How many times did you say the word “I”? With that many repetitions, it’s obviously about selfishness; YOU can’t stand to see your kids unhealthy or insecure. Is that selfish, I would offer that, by definition, it is.
Also;
Love, whatever that means inside one’s head, is an evolutionary construct which allows those who experience it to care for their young and mates better. Although it seems to be altruistic, it is in truth a reciprocated altruism (with a hidden motive) in that the parent has an interest in seeing its’ genes continue to propagate.
Loved offspring flourish and reproduce, and this passes on one’s genes to a greater number of progeny. Tricky, huh?
is it selfish to want good things for them? To want them to be happy and healthy and safe?
WEll, yes. but then I suppose it depends on how you see selfishness. True selfishness which thinks only of oneself without regard for how it affects the other person.
I agree. However divorce (although needed sometimes) is more negative, whereas marriage is positive.
Rick, you seem to be saying that every motive is ultimately selfish. If I do something because I care deeply for another person’s happiness, then I am doing it only because it fulfills my own psychic desire to serve that person–hence, I am selfish. If I do something self-sacrificing because I care about honor, then I am doing it only because it fulfills my own desire for feelings of self-respect–hence I am selfish.
I think that’s going too far; it simply converts every motive into a self-serving one.
I don’t think Rick is all that far off. After all, the natural man is certainly selfish. As such, it is by no means a stretch to imagine that naturally, we have desires for our own welfare and survival.
If it is true that there’s no such thing as an unselfish motive, then how is it possible to follow Christ’s instructions? How can we put off the natural man? There’s nothing to turn to but another form of selfishness.
Perhaps your definition is too broad to have useful meaning.
The question is, just how positive were these marriages destined for divorce?
How much more pain and suffering was borne by the couple by trying to be married?
Divorce can also be a release.
Selfish choices are not always wrong.
oh the things i’ve learned.