David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Applied Philosophy 9 (2):135-148 (1992)
ABSTRACT This essay advances several interrelated arguments concerning the proper role of the state with regard to marriage and divorce but my main contention is that ‘pure’no‐fault divorce laws are unjust—or, at least, they are unjust if marriage involves a genuinely contractual element, and there seems to be very little doubt that it does. Locke, Kant and Hegel are three eminent thinkers who are alike in viewing marriage as a contract and in the first two sections of the essay I consider their views on the role of contract in marriage. Whilst holding that marriage is more than a contract, I also hold that it is not less than a contract. In section three I consider the implications of this ‘not less than’, the most important one being that ‘pure’no‐fault divorce laws are unjust. I shall contend that whilst the irretrievable breakdown of marriage may be regarded as a suitable ground for divorce, it simply cannot, and certainly ought not to, be regarded as a justificatory basis for the laying aside of rights acquired by individuals as a result of their having entered into a marital contract. However minimal one might wish the role of the state to be, or however averse one might be from allowing the state any role at all in purely personal and confidential relationships, yet to allow the expression ‘the irretrievable breakdown of marriage’to be employed as a olanket to cover over the infringement of personal, contractually engendered and civilly recognised rights, is not to exercise commendable restraint but is, rather, to condone what is simply an abnegation by the state of its basic responsibility to ensure that justice prevails
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Jane F. Gardner (1992). Roman Marriage and the Roman Family Susan Treggiari: Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges Frow the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian. Pp. Xv + 578. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. £65.00. Beryl Rawson (Ed.): Marriage, Divorce and Children in Ancient Rome. Pp. Xiv + 252; 9 Plates, 10 Figs., 3 Tables. Oxford: Clarendon Press/Humanities Research Centre, Canberra, 1991. £35.00. Angelika Mette-Dittmann: Die Ehegesetze des Augustus: Eine Untersuchung Im Rahmen der Gesellschaftspolitik des Princeps. (Historia Einzelschriften, 67.) Pp. 220. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1991. Paper, DM 68. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 42 (02):386-389.
Thomas M. Olshewsky (1979). A Christian Understanding of Divorce. Journal of Religious Ethics 7 (1):118 - 138.
Debra B. Bergoffen (1999). Marriage, Autonomy, and the Feminine Protest. Hypatia 14 (4):18-35.
William J. Gavin (1998). The Woman, the Warrior, and the Wedding: James's Pragmatism, Marriage, and Divorce. Journal of Speculative Philosophy 12 (4):289 - 300.
Anna Garlin Spencer (1909). Problems of Marriage and Divorce. International Journal of Ethics 19 (4):443-465.
Brook J. Sadler (2010). Public or Private Good? The Contested Meaning of Marriage. Social Philosophy Today 26:23-38.
Lawrence Torcello (2008). Is the State Endorsement of Any Marriage Justifiable? Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and the Marriage Privatization Model. Public Affairs Quarterly 22 (1):43-61.
Iddo Landau (2004). An Argument for Marriage. Philosophy 79 (3):475-481.
Claudia Card (2007). Gay Divorce: Thoughts on the Legal Regulation of Marriage. Hypatia 22 (1):24-38.
Added to index2010-08-10
Total downloads16 ( #167,478 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #369,877 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?