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

Ethics of Divorce Ethics 1 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

• f the sentence; nor will “objection” or “response.”

Case for Consideration

Should Morris Manville stay married to Susan?

Ethics of Divorce Ethics 2

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

• f some young children to divorce

Houlgate: it parallels child abuse

Ethics of Divorce Ethics 3

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

• utweigh moral claims of children?
• Houlgate: this “empties the concept of parental
• bligation 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?