Ethics of Divorce Divorce with Children Ahrons versus Houlgate - PDF document

Ethics of Divorce Divorce with Children Ahrons versus Houlgate Possible Quiz Question Houlgate argues against divorce and then presents 4 objections to his argument. State each of the following in one clear sentence each: O: [Any two of the objections] R: [Houlgate’s response to each objection] Part of the quiz is your ability to state the “one clear sentence.” Do it exactly as indicated below. The word “Houlgate” will not be part of the sentence; nor will “objection” or “response.” Case for Consideration Should Morris Manville stay married to Susan? Ethics 1

Ethics of Divorce Should We Sanction Divorce? � Ahrons: yes � We need a new language; e.g., “binuclear families” � Ethics of language • Department of War became Department of Defense • “I am not breaking a promise; I am withdrawing a pledge Effect of Divorce on Children � A crucial element of the issue � Requires empirical study � Do you think children are harmed by divorce? � How small would the harm need to be and how much benefit would divorce need to be to the parents to justify the divorce ethically? Houlgate: Divorce Child Harm Argument � Parents have a duty to promote the best interest of young children. � Divorce harms some young children. � Therefore, it is morally wrong for parents of some young children to divorce Houlgate: it parallels child abuse Ethics 2

Ethics of Divorce Objections and Responses � Divorce is not comparable to child abuse • Houlgate: true, but it’s wrong for the same kind of reason � It’s not wrong to divorce if parents aggressively treat the problems afterward. • Houlgate: it’s wrong to put a child at risk (like smoking or not using child seats) Third Objection and Response � There might be a “grave cause” for divorce if the alternative is a hostile family environment � Do you think this is often the case, that the alternative to divorce is worse? • Houlgate: This is based on the “extraordinary assumption” that parents could not control the hostile family environment that caused children to suffer. � Is it an “extraordinary assumption”? Final Objection and Response � This position ignores the legitimate rights and interests of parents in favor of children. � Might parents’ own prospects for happiness outweigh moral claims of children? • Houlgate: this “empties the concept of parental obligation of most of its character • This might be fine from an impartial perspective; Houlgate emphasizes the special obligation of parents to children. • Even agreeing with that, how much do parents need to sacrifice? Ethics 3