Tuesday, 29th July 2008
It’s my life and I do what I want
Going through the many blogs, posted comments and myriad articles on the introduction or otherwise of divorce one notices different trends and schools of thought.
The liberal and communitarian schools are two of them. I cannot go here into a detailed discussion. A cursory look with the concurrent danger of some simplification and lack of clarity is the best that one can hope for in this space and type of medium.
The libertarians versus the communitarians
The first way concentrates on the individual and her individual freedom (I will not burden this piece by continually writing his or her. I choose “her” to compensate for the continuous use of “his” by many.). The individual is the measure of all things. What she thinks is right is right by virtue of her so thinking. She is in control of her life and no one should interfere. Moral relativism is the result. The sense of community is weakened.
The second holds that each and every human being totally discovers herself though communication with others. We are the result of the web of relationships that we weave throughout life. Solidarity is a constitutive element of our human nature. We become ourselves the more we open ourselves to others. We are beings-for-others. The supreme good, in this perspective, is the common good. The common good should be understood not just on the national scale but also on the global scale and with the interest of future generations in mind. It will ultimately also turn out to be what is best for the individual.
“Wait a minute” I hear the libertarians scream. “No one should interfere with my freedom so long as no third party is negatively affected.” “True”, the communitarians would quickly reply “but we are so closely weaved together that the legitimate question would be: what can I do which does not affect others?”
We are the first generation in the history of humanity that has seen Mother Earth as a tiny sphere floating in the enormous cosmos. We consequently noticed that the distance between the extremes of this sphere is minimal when compared to the corresponding space. We are so close to each other that we are almost part of each other. Someone freely exercises one’s property rights by burning part of the Amazon forest which is her property and ends up burning the oxygen we breathe. Our oxygen.
One freely decides to eat junk food and then we are asked to finance the health services spiralling costs as a result. Someone exercises her freedom to use CFCs without any limits and ends up puncturing the ozone layer. One’s promiscuous style of life – which one’s freedom gives her a right to – lands one in hospital and we are expected to finance that person’s unorthodox lifestyle. And so on and so forth.
The “it’s my life and I do what I want” attitude works to enhance Bruce Sptingteen’s pocket since he came up with the lyrics but it does not help to enhance our dignity as humans.
More than just divorce
The real issue facing us is the choice of the kind of value system and world view that we should adopt to build on the legitimisation of our society. The libertarian arguments about the introduction of divorce are those which are used by other libertarians to legalise abortion, homosexual marriages, stem cell research, embryonic manipulation and euthanasia. Let me be very clear. I am not saying that those advocating the introduction of divorce in Malta are in favour of the legalisation of all these things I just mentioned. On the contrary, most I know are not. What I am saying is that the core arguments of the libertarian position will definitely lead us down this slippery path. No two ways about it.
A different path
In my last blog I wrote that I am open to conviction on the legalisation or otherwise of divorce. I really am and do not yet have an answer either way. The questions I ask before I decide on the topic are the following. In the present situation of the family and marriage in Malta will the introduction of divorce be for the common good – which, in my perspective, is the best for the individual good? Do we really know what the situation is? And the third question was: Are we doing everything possible to strengthen the family and the institution of marriage? Wouldn’t that be the best for the common and the individual good? This path will not put us on the slippery slope described in the previous paragraph.
Respect above everything else
Whatever the position one takes or the path one chooses to follow I believe that mutual respect is the golden rule that should be followed at all times. In this tiny speck called a nation state we cannot keep on demonising each other. My reading of different blogs, comments and articles makes me believe that this is not always the case.
I hope you will agree that it is the case of at least this piece; even if you disagree with its contents.
RSS
Comments
Whom do i want to devide or whom do i want to rule? Please explain.
Within the constraint of a 200 word limit I believe that I have answered all questions that merited an answer, sometimes more than once, and which were not outlandishly rhetorical.
The only thing that leaves me "speechless" is the effort to locate any grain of wit concealed in the bushel of chaff that characterises your comments. I apologise for any unintentional omission but I promise to answer any intelligent queries if you identify them for me. But, please, only one pertinent query at a time.
You perversely distort my plain English.
I did not object to your failure to "beep" when lobbyists pushed their ideas. I criticised your contradictory and discriminatory behaviour in beeping ferociously only when the Catholic faithful dared to exert the same right. I do not judge you but I draw attention to your discriminatory double standard and your inconsistencies, quoting you verbatim. It is this exposure of your illogicality that makes you feel so uncomfortable and which your subconscious suggests to you that you are being adversely judged.
You claim to "embrace" Catholicism but you only allow it a theoretical right to express its views castigating it if it tries to exercise that right insisting that "the Church must know its place" that "it may make its voice heard ... teach and guide ... but it MUST stop there" misinterpreting the exercise of this right to teach as some attempt to interfere with the democratic process. You discriminate blartantly by do not making the same accusation in respect of lobbyists for legislation in favour of divorce, abortion, gay marriage etc.
Your "embrace" of the Catholic Church is more suggestive of the death coils of a boa constrictor.
Dr Saliba would do very well to remember what the Good Book says: 'Do not judge'.
By the way, there you go again, emulating the good Father and repeating his malicious and not-so-subtle attempt at confusing minds - putting divorce, abortion and gay marriage in the same sack. And Fr Borg continues obstinately to defend his stance! Oh, well, what do we expect?
I do not 'raise obstacles' when the Church speaks out. On the contrary, the Church MUST speak out - it is its Mission. But it is when the Church makes certain manouvres to ensure that its wishes are observed - that is where I BEEP and 'raise difficulties', and this is because then, it is not democracy that we would be living in - but theocracy, a taliban!
You fail to reply for other points ...or you are speechless.
I hear no beep from you protesting against the lobbying by pressure groups in favour of legislation favouring divorce, abortion and gay marriage. The right to freedom of expression is an essential feature of democracy.
You raise difficulties only when the Church or its faithful dare to exercise the same right but expressing a dissenting opinion. It is only them that you start howling about the Church acting undemocratically and trying to influence people in their choice of representation in parliament! You unashamedly adopt two weights and two measures in an obvious anti-Catholic bias, in spite of your claim that you "embrace" that Church.
The reference to the citizen's duty to pay taxes (irrespective of his religious belief or absence thereof, his marital status and sexual orientation) is too nonsensical to merit any reply.
1. I did not write about divorce but about its legalisation or otherwise. I wrote that I am open to conviction on whether Malta should legalise it or not. Had I condemned the legalisation of divorce, as you seem to imply, I would never have written that I can be persuaded that it should be done.
2. I never wrote that the legalisation of divorce necessarily opens the flood gate to other issues such as gay marriage. I could have never written that since I wrote that I am open to persuasion on the subject. What I wrote is very different from what Joseph Agius says. I wrote that the legalisation of divorce based on the liberal arguments would open the flood gates. I also wrote that I was proposing a different path which could lead to the legalisation of divorce without putting us on the slippery path I referred to.
Is it the case that your stratagem is to divide and rule?
I beg to differ on some issues which you mention in your article. the first and above all is divorce. Opening the way to this does not necessarily open the flood gate to other isues such as gay marriage. It is very difficult for a lot of people to come to the decision of divorce, a very painful process indeed is even that of separation. You seem to condemn divorce but don't people deserve a second chance to love someone, to re build a life especially when their first marriage falters, for any reason or circumstance. separation may be used in a very abusive manner anyway, so what's the big difference. when it comes to annulment, the church hears the case, the generous sums of money are paid and what is the result: its as though the marriage never took place. I see a very strong moral dilemma here. How do you explain annulment to children who have been born into the marriage? A lot of people do honestly feel very strongly about relationships, the fact that they want to get a second chance while being 'morally' correct tears them up inside?
any suggestions
thanks....an ex student
I repeat - we are here speaking about the State's duty! I am in complete agreement that the Church should and must be given the necessary space to make its voice heard: let the Church teach and guide. But the Church MUST stop there. The Church must know its place! And I have no doubt that Mons. Cremona is the excellent Bishop to do just that.
Otherwise, we will start having witch-hunts, next.
Dear Fr Grech, if you have a magic formula that will stop all marriage separations, then there will be no need for divorce. In the meantime, the government should ensure that adequate education on married life starts early in schools, and that divorce is introduced for those marriages that still fail.
That marriage stability is both a private and a common good is a no-brainer. We all know it is both. However, humans are complex beings, and one shouldn't oversimplify matters.
Also, your claim that where you live, a divorce means a lot of money, leaving women and children as the victims, is in need of an explanation. For instance, do the women and children stop being victims if the husband/father just deserts them, instead of divorcing?
So, is this the democracy that we cherish so much. On the one hand we say that the Church has the right to teach and to guide; on the other hand, you add something like this: ... teach and guide to the point of influencing people to elect representatives who have their same way of thinking (ie Catholic).
How about that? What about the others, if this were to happen? Wouldn't they feel left out? So, why not get taxes only from Roman Catholics????? And tell gays, lesbians, separated men and women, and all those who are not within the confines of the RCChurch not to pay taxes at all! How is that for a solution?
Whatever the religious allegiance that an MP might have, his duty is towards the people as a whole, without fear OR FAVOUR. We don't need any Buttigliones in our country - we are bad enough as it is.
Anyway, you are all barking at the wrong tree because nothing of this will come to fruition.... people are not interested in what the Church has to say in the political field. ....
You accuse d. attard of "mak(ing) unjustified insinuations which do not result from any intelligent reading of (your) comment", when you yourself wrongly assume and insinuate that all those who are in favour of the introduction of divorce want to silence the Church.
When you wrote "Unfortunately this was always followed by a flood of lightly undertaken "marriages" relying on the availability of easy civil divorce even under sham pretences such as simulated adultery, incompatibility etc. The Church cannot be blamed for erring on the side of caution before opening the door wide to this abuse", I assumed you were referring to the Church's opposition to divorce legislation. Therefore, my allegory with another legal situation still stands.
My allegory would not stand only if the Church kept to what you describe as "teaching and the spreading the gospel "good news"". But of course, we all know that the Church's current position is that divorce should not be introduced.
Now, seeing that this is the Church's position on divorce, to say that divorce should not be introduced because there will be people who abuse it (like you said), is not a valid case against divorce. Hence my allegory.
Of course, I never said the Church should have no say in the matter. The Church has as much right as any of us to participate in the debate.
The legal difficulties resulting from a continuining legal tie with someone (even after separation) or the impossibility of creating one, have very cruel consequences. By virtue of certain legal options, a number of the parts that create the whole would be in a better position to function as healthy members of our community. The resulting loss of mental health, productivity and overall social wellbeing brought about by the lack of these legal frameworks is not serving society well.
The common good is a subjective and debatable concept. Concrete examples from real life of individual suffering are real and objective.
You ask rhetorical questions and make unjustified insinuations which do not result from any intelligent reading of my comment - no wonder that you are "singularly offended" .
I made it quite clear that by "the Church's mission" I meant its duty to teach and spread the gospel message. You yourself expressed agreement with that although, very significantly, you add that you accept the Catholic Church as a representative of your "culture" - nothing more. You have no right to twist my plea to allow the Church to make its voice heard as some support ffrom me or a "unilateral imposition of single values in society".
You have no grounds for hinting that I advocated any "setting up of a political party of Catholic fundamentalists". I only expressed an opinion that if the Church is allowed to make its voice heard enough voters could be persuaded to cast their vote in favour of candidates who supported those views. And that is the true reason for objecting that the Church makes its voice heard under the pretext that it was actually attempting "a unilateral imposition of single values on society" - to quote your exact words.
I find this statement singularly offensive considering that I live in a country where the Church has for centuries silenced any other reasonable religion/secular voice that dared come from woithout.
Dr Saliba also makes reference to a Church that is allowed to carry out its mission unhindered. Is he implying that this mission implies the imposition of its values on society to the exclusion of all other civilised values?
I am the first to defend the church's right to preach its values freely. I embrace the Church as a representative of my culture. I will also resist unilateral imposition of single values on society.
It is the first time that I really thank the stars that we have joined the EU.
If Dr Saliba is suggesting the setting-up a political party made up of Catholic fundamentalists, I hope that his call does not fall on deaf ears. We will be finally able to decide on a secular vs fundamentalist state.
The allegory with crime is inappropriate because today's Church is concerned only with the teaching and the spreading the gospel "good news" and not with crime and its punishment. Mitred lords and princely bishops went out of fashion many centuries ago.
Speaking in general terms, today's libertarian society refuses to be libertarian when it comes to allowing the Church the freedom to spread Christ's message because this does not tally with the presumed right to be libertine and to act in any way it pleases quoting nebulous "fundamental human rights" without conceding the corresponding obligation to respect the rights of others particularly the right and the duty of the Church to carry out its mission.
The campaign to silence the Church on the question of divorce is only one aspect of a more widespread malaise. It is powered by the fear that, if the Church is allowed to carry out its mission unhindered, too many voters would accept its message and elect parliamentarians similarly inclined.
A: Because there's no power over people's lives to be gained by forcing them to be alcohol-free.
I appreciate your contribution, which is a valid and well-thought one. I also happen to believe that, although the main debate is on secular divorce, the church has as much right to contribute to the debate as anyone else.
I do feel I must comment on your remark on erring on the side of caution (in your last sentence), though. An analogy would be the following:
Suppose 5 persons commit a crime. There are 6 persons that could possibly have committed the crime, but only 5 actually did it. It cannot be established who committed the crime. Do we jail all 6 of them (including the innocent one), or do we jail none of them? I think the fair (albeit unfortunate) choice would be to opt not to jail any of them unless the guilty can be discovered.
Correct me if I am wrong. When Christ declared that whatever sins his apostles bound or unbound on earth would be similarly bound/unbound in heaven He was not abdicating his own divine right to forgive sins. He was only authorising the Church to enforce the decalogue with an understanding for any particular mitigating circumstances e.g. no sin against the fifth commandment if killing was necessary in self defence nor would it be such a grave sin to tell a merciful "white lie" that was not intended to deceive but only to prevent misery without harming anybody. The Church could possibly exercise the power given to it to unbind so as to relieve genuine distress in marriage as Moses did in his time.
Divorce laws are always introduced initially to afford relief from real hardship due to an unforeseen breakdown of a genuine marriage. Unfortunately this was always followed by a flood of lightly undertaken "marriages" relying on the availability of easy civil divorce even under sham pretences such as simulated adultery, incompatibility etc. The Church cannot be blamed for erring on the side of caution before opening the door wide to this abuse.
Just to be very clear I am talking about civil divorce. My issue is that some Catholics wish to make their faith the standard by which all should live. There are many other equally valid ethical systems other than the Catholic one, and enough space in the world for all of them.
One final point about change... is it change that's the issue or the fact that the established Christian power structure is being threatened? Any of the anti-change people have an problem with the fact that Christianity changed established social systems 2000 years ago? Perhaps a more honest and accurate expression of this fear is "we are in charge and we control people's sexuality and we don't want to relinquish our grip". Maybe I can go one further to stir things up a little "We are held in thrall by the fear of hell and because we are happy to let someone else make our moral decisions for us, and we will not allow people to be free and think for themselves".
I for one am happy to think for myself and bear whatever consequence this may lead to.
Not at all.The effect will be deep and lasting and in my opinion for the better. The biggest changes will be that we will become more tolerant of difference, more people will be able to fulfill themselves and we will do away with the hypocritical middle ground of "seperation", which is divorce with all the cons and no pros . From a child's point of view there is no difference between seperation and divorce. The latter will give their parents a chance to move on, and hopefully be happy. Surely nobody disagrees that happy parents rather than frustrated stuck ones are better for children!
We should not fear change, we should embrace it as an opportunity to develop and grow and while it is not without risk, we would do well to acknowledge that sometimes risk is essential for society and the individual to progress and develop.
Furthermore not everybody wants to live by the Catholic standard. Any true Liberal would have no issue with people who wish to enter a Catholic marriage and live up to it's stated obligations. Why is it so hard to reciprocate? Live and let live....
Only people who still believe that God would punish us for allowing gay marriages would fear legislation for secular gay marriage.
Now here's a question: If the number of people having a valid case for the annulment of mariage are too few or too many, would the church stop giving annulments?
That's what I meant when I said that statistics are irrelevant to the divorce debate, while being very relevant in the debate on what should be done to save more marriages (or rather to prevent people from getting married without proper preparation).
When I wrote that statistics are irrelevant to the argument, what I meant was that if marriage failures and starting of new families outside marriage are too few, then divorce would not disrupt society.
If on the otherhand, statistics show that marriage failure numbers are huge, this will change nothing in any case, since, like I explained, people still start new families with or without divorce.
Regarding social policies, what's the big deal? Since people are already separating without divorce, social policies will not change with divorce.
As to the extent of the "evils", they are irrelevant to the divorce debate because in some cases they are unavoidable, and in others, they are only relevant to the question of what should be done to strenghten marriage, which, though related, is a separate issue.
I think our basic disagreement is because the "evils" you see as resulting from divorce actually result from marriage failures and separations, not divorce. If any of perceived "evils" stem uniquely from divorce, and not from its precursor (marriage failure and separation), I would appreciate an explanation of what these "evils" are, and how they stem from divorce.
You write that “divorce and homosexual marriages are issues related to the individual.” Do you really mean to say that such a radical transformation to the paradigm of marriage (especially in the case of gay marriages) does not have deep and lasting effect on society?
I definitely do not agree with him that knowing the situation of marriage and the family is irrelevant to the argument. It is not. How can one plan social policies and strategies without knowing what the situation is? He refers to “evils” that already exist without divorce. What is the extent of these “evils” is a relevant question if we want to address them. Perhaps divorce can be an answer; perhaps it is not. Without knowing the situation we can never tell.
I never compared divorce, gay marriages, euthanasia, abortion etc. They are quite different. It's obvious, insn't it, that they are? What I compared is the fact that several use basically different nuances of the same fundumental argument to justify them. It's my life and i do what i want. It's my body and i do what I want with it, It's my sexuality and I use it as i wish. It's my life and I end it when I want. I am simplyfying a bit, or perhaps, more than a bit. But the basic drift of the argument is valid. .... I think.
I also said that one can make an argument in favour of the legalisation of divorce without going down this path, which I consider slippery.
I know that you were not referring to youths, or specifically to the question of divorce. My comment still stands, and it was also a comment on personal freedom. Basically, my previous reply is also an answer to your last comment, if you would like to have a calm, second read.
I still think you are being overly pessimistic in your views about today's people's morality or immorality.
Some issues cannot simply be pigeon-holed into moral or immoral, but depend on the circumstances. That's what modern people have come to recognize.
Also, modern people have perhaps discarded dogma, and expect valid justifications for rules. If a moral justification cannot be provided, the rule is seen as arbitrary, and so, is discarded unless they are compelled to obey it by force.
However, most people generally still uphold the golden-rule, being that one should act with others as one would wish others to act with oneself in similar circumstances.
You say that ' feel that in contemporary society, there has been a loss of responsibility in general which has gradually resulted in a lowering of standards.' In my opinion, this is untrue. In my view, the difference today is that people have become more and more 'honest' with themselves and with others. People no longer hide their true feelings; you would be surprised how open-minded an 88-year old relative would be, due to the experiences s/he went through. In the past, according to this person, wickedness/evil was also present; it was also carried out but not as openly as it is today. Hence, respectfully, your assertion does ot hold water. If we think that today there is this 'slippery slope', one has to admit that this slope knows its origins to the past and not to the present.
I still maintain that we, Maltese, being Maltese, still prefer to keep marriage problems under the carpet and allow either one or the other partner to be submissive, rather than admitting the failure of a given marriage.
@Franco Farrugia. Fr Joe has indeed put "various social issues in one whole bag" but I think that what it all boils down to is how we respond to these issues, using our own personal freedom of choice in a responsible way.
I feel that in contemporary society, there has been a loss of responsibility in general which has gradually resulted in a lowering of standards. Where there are no standards, everything becomes acceptable. And where anything is acceptable, no one can be held responsible. Meanwhile, the traditional moral code undergirding our society continues to fray. Of course, freedom alone is not sufficient to create a good society, but it is an essential ingredient in doing so.
While all youths pass through that rebellous phase, I don't believe that the majority see freedom as doing as one wishes irrespective of morality.
However, when the topic is, for instance, whether divorce is immoral, amoral, or moral, someone who claims that people putting forth arguments in favour of divorce (for instance) are simply asking for the right to do what they want no matter the consequences, is to prejudge the case without even attempting to refute the arguments.
Of course, I'm not saying that Christine Galea is necessarily such a person, since she did not give an opinion either way.
I do however agree with her when she says that "to make responsible commitments is not to negate our freedom". In fact, to be free includes being allowed to freely choose to limit one's freedom by entering into contracts (civil marriage) with others. But this freedom should include the freedom to agree to terminate the contract, otherwise one would not be freely limiting one's freedom anymore.
True freedom is not the power to do whatever we like but to voluntarily embrace the true human good. Morality is not a barrier to our freedom but a condition of authentic self-realization.
I think Jean-Jacques Rousseau was mistaken when he wrote, “Man was born free.” We are born in almost total dependence on others, but, by education and practice, we gradually expand our zone of freedom.
In the deepest sense, freedom is a gift of God because we cannot liberate ourselves from our illusions and selfish desires without divine grace. Jesus can therefore say: “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (Jn 8:32). Yet God does not force his truth and grace upon us; He simply appeals to us to accept it.
Fr Borg has put various social issues in one whole bag - divorce and homosexual marriages together with issues such as euthanasia and abortion which as we know, have to do with the taking of life, the culture of death! It is grossly unfair, and you would be manipulating the readers, to put these two sets of issues together.
I need no lessons inlogic, or in comprehension from Maria Gauci. Nor does the more intelligent reader, such as those who have commented in similar fashion.
Borg continues saying: 'I am not saying that those advocating the introduction of divorce in Malta are in favour of the legalisation of all these things I just mentioned. On the contrary, most I know are not.'
And that's exactly it: It's not that those advocating the introd. of divorce in Malta are also in favour, Heaven almighty, of the legalisation of gay marriages (for one!). But the point HAS been made, in a mild, subtle manner that all these form part of a 'slippery slope'.
I was not attacking your comments since you seem to be doing it all by yourself. I simply quoted the next sentence which was “very obvious for all to see”.
You accuse Fr. Joe of manipulation when you do exactly the same by quoting one sentence and omitting the next! First you speak of manipulation in terms of discussing very different "social issues" together and in the next sentence you speak about manipulation of truth!! Make up your mind which one it is.....
Do you still think your argument needs attacking?
Fr Joe, I think the slippery slope argument is very weak in this argumentation. As much as it can possibly be plausible, I an of the opinion that it’s a non sequitur.
Maria Gauci, in response to Franco Farrugia, wrote that "the article continues: 'I am not saying that those advocating the introduction of divorce in Malta are in favour of the legalisation of all these things I just mentioned. On the contrary, most I know are not'. "
Apparently Fr Garvin Grech missed that sentence. It would have been more useful had Fr Grech given his reasons why (and how) divorce (and not marriage separation) is harmful to society instead of prejudicing the issue by associating it with issues it has nothing to do with.
As the slippery slope argument applies to the "libertarian", in the sense that one may ask: where do individual rights or liberties end?, it also applies to the communitarian.
Since the communitarian argument is based on the premise that anything the individual does will inevitably effect others to an extent, one may ask: Where will this end? If, for instance, village festas annoy me (and others) due to closure of roads, noise etc, is this a good argument for abolishing village festas if those who enjoy them are a minority?
Extreme libertarians would perhaps say no. The answer from the extreme communitarians would depend on how extreme they are and whether they like village festas. Those who hold the middle-way, irrespective of whether they like village festas or not, would say that festas should be tolerated (if not enjoyed), since they only happen once a year.
Q: In the present situation of the family and marriage in Malta will the introduction of divorce be for the common good?
A: Since the "evils" are already here despite having no divorce option, what the introduction of divorce would add is the good to the individual who would wish to start a new life with a different partner after a failed marriage (unless one is a Catholic) with the relative (as opposed to simply cohabiting) stability and security that a new marriage would bring. This leaves a net balance on the positive side.
Q: Do we really know what the situation is?
A: Given the answer to the first question, this question becomes irrelevant.
Q: Are we doing everything possible to strengthen the family and the institution of marriage?
A: Definitely not. Education on the virtues and responsibilities of married life should start as early as possible - in schools. A lot (though definitely not all) of failed marriages are due to the fact that not enough is being done in this regard. However, even in a perfect society where all people are adequately prepared for married life, some marriages will fail.
While quite a bit of what you are saying is making sense, you still uphold that divorce would have a bad effect on the community, while not offering any reasoning why this would be the case.
I do like the approach of seeing us humans as interlinked and the need to work together to straighten out the planet is becoming a necessity more than anything else. I also do agree with the church's focus on the family, which is a central unit of mankind, but disagree completely with the narrow view of the family unit held by it, as well as it's self imposed authority over it.
The mistake to think that the liberterian/communitarian views are either-or in all situations is a huge fallacy, as they are applicable to different situations. There is virtue in moderation.
While the effects of one's actions on society cannot be ignored, one treads on individual liberties at one's peril. After all, one can only eradicate another's liberties while in power. But what happens when power changes hands? A culture of tolerance benefits everyone, and ensures that when power changes hands, minorities will be guaranteed their rights.
Of course, there are limits to tolerance. For instance, while promiscuity may be tolerated (provided that the promiscuous is prepared to bear any consequences), murder can never be tolerated.
Now back to divorce. It is an established fact that it is marriage separation (not divorce) that breaks down families, and that where divorce is not an option, many separated people still choose to start new families with other partners.
Now, unless one would propose legislating against separated people starting new families, the whole argument against divorce crumbles down.
Any ill-effects to society/children does not come about from divorce. They come from separated people choosing to start new families. The question is: Shall we make this illegal? I sure hope not.
So basically if this is going to be a debate about divorce I would be glad to participate. Otherwise I have no wish to fall for this trick and end up debating everything else from euthansia to stem cell research while justifiying a liberal position according to Fr. Joe's misguided definition. Neither do I have any desire to spend time countering non-arguments such as the "inevitable slippery slope" when it is presented with absulutely no basis and justification. I'd rather listen to The Animals!
How can such a categorical claim be made? Divorce and homosexual marriage are issues related to the individual. . Euthanasia, abortion and stem cell research introduce the thorny subject of the "self" and are less clear cut. I can say that while I am in fully in favour of the former (divorce, gay marriage) my position on the latter is different. What is implied in this blog is that I will inevitably end up advocating the latter! How can you possibly say this? How about we reverse it and say that denying rights to gay people to get married will inevitably lead to denying the rights of other minority groups? I am not making such a claim but I think you can see the pattern, and its inherent fallacy.
Let's try and stick to the subject shall we?
BTW it's Springsteen, and the song was actually written by The Animals.
Also please don't confuse "libertarian" with "liberal". And not all liberals think the same way. Thats the mark of the conservatives actually! Groupthink...
libertarians versus communitarians. Drop the versus. Balance between communal spirit and individual liberty is the key. It is not healthy to liberally eat all the foods in the world as much as it is not healthy to just eat apples. You need a balance.
We are the first generation in the history of humanity that has seen Mother Earth as a tiny sphere floating in the enormous cosmos...no way, study the pyramids to realise the awareness of immense spaces the builders had at the time.
'One freely decides to eat junk food and then we are asked to finance the health services spiralling costs as a result'. Verrrrrrry dangerous argument. This will lead to an argument ' you fall in love and marry a person whos genetic profile contrasts with yours meaning huge medical complications throughout. Why should we finance the health service when a simple genetic profile would have exposed these costly weaknesses?
'The real issue facing us is the choice of the kind of value system and world view that we should adopt to build on the legitimisation of our society'.
Why not value systems?
Secondly, you, who advocate so much about the quest for truth and for all to be respectful and all that, do a very serious disservice to that cause (of truth) by putting various issues in one whole bag . The effect of this is a subtle but apparent manipulation of the subjects in question.
In fact, you write:
'The libertarian arguments about the introduction of divorce are those which are used by other libertarians to legalise abortion, homosexual marriages, stem cell research, embryonic manipulation and euthanasia. Let me be very clear.'
I note here that you choose to carefully manipulate people's minds by putting social issues such as divorce, homosexual marriages, stem cell research, embryonic maniplation together with two very negative issues, which are abortion and euthanasia.
Personally, Father, I find this manipulation of truth as a disgusting approach on your part. Very similar to someone who smiles at you, yet tries to stab you at the back.