Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
The vows to the prior husband has already been abandoned. Returning to him does not change the past. However, the vows to the second husband have not yet been abandoned.
I'm not convinced that this is a reasonable approach to the moral dilemma. It seems to indicate that the only the most recent vow is active. That creates a very problematic view of what a vow is and how one should behave with respect to vows. Specifically, it would allow someone to override an inconvenient vow by making another one, and then declaring the old vow to have been abandoned and the new vow to be active.
Quote:
This is not what I was thinking of (I was just remembering remarks by a professor in a psych class), but here is an article that is relevant to the subject. Essentially, it tests two hypotheses to explain why children that have unstable family structures are more likely to have developmental problems (so, not necessarily single-parent vs. two-parent, but the criticism would still apply in this case). Either one of the proposed hypotheses would apply here as a reason to not change.
That's an interesting article.
However, I do not see how the selection hypothesis supports keeping the family together. The selection hypothesis merely states that the outcomes are dependent upon the attitudes and behaviors of the parents. The study, at best, shows that there are some circumstances in which behavioral outcomes may be related to the stability of the family structure (white kids only, not black kids). I would say that the article is somewhat weak with regards to the data you would need to support your position.
Quote:
Also, you seem to be making more assumptions here than I am. Yes, the mother could still be responsible for the financial and emotional well-being of her children when she leaves. That doesn't mean that her carrying out of that responsibility will be as well done if she leaves.
I agree with the last sentence, but only somewhat. I believe that if she leaves, the nature of her responsibility shifts, and it depends on which parent is given primary custody. I think we run into problems of not having a pre-determined set of specific outcomes for the parents to strive towards. For example, does the mother commit a moral error if she makes a decision that leads to a different set of behavioral outcomes for her children? That would create a very difficult standard for other parenting decisions. For example, if you choose one type of punishment that is not as effective as some other type of punishment, do we declare that to be a moral error as well, and with it do we assert some level of moral responsibility similar to the mother leaving the family? I don't think that's a good direction.
Quote:
Just on a personal level, I would also be suspicious of someone who contemplates leaving her husband for this kind of reason as well.
I don't doubt that this is the case. I might counter by saying that I would be suspicious of someone who left her first husband in the first place. But I don't think either observation really gets us anywhere if our challenge is to discuss the idea of the morality of returning to the first husband.
