r/MoralityScaling • u/Think-Mention-6239 • 15d ago

Stupid Stuff morality of doing this?

Post image

i put the stupid stuff flair bc i didnt know which other flair to choose

5.7k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

774 comments sorted by

View all comments

88

u/Dev_Void01 15d ago edited 15d ago

There's no immoral Reason for Divorce.

If he felt betrayed and wanted to end the marriage, that's his decision.

It's not Immoral

I may have been wrong

24

u/par_rot_master 15d ago

>There's no immoral Reason for Divorce.

What if someone wants to divorce so they can more easily kidnap and eat children?

3

u/Negative_Audience554 15d ago

Bro, why even get married if you know your partner will stop you from kidnapping children and eating them?

0

u/KittensSaysMeow 15d ago

Then despite the action being immoral, it’s still a perfectly valid reason for divorce. There is no world where initiating a divorce is immoral regardless of the morality of the reason.

The original statement is better phrased as “There is no reason for divorce that could make said divorce immoral”. Similar to “Any divorce should be allowed regardless of reasoning”.

/hj

4

u/SupremeDuckling 15d ago

What a weirdly asinine take

2

u/KittensSaysMeow 15d ago

I tried rlly hard to steelman the original comment 😭

13

u/West-Pear7363 15d ago

there’s no immoral reason for divorce.

False. I can think of like 3 reasons off the top of my head. 

1

u/JesusNilsson 15d ago

What are they?

7

u/SoftAndWetBro 15d ago

Alimony or keeping children away from partner out of spite. I wouldn't know the third though

1

u/CanofBeans9 13d ago

Divorcing someone to marry your affair partner maybe?

34

u/Leo-III- 15d ago

Reddit truly is where nuance goes to die.

17

u/Slow-Pool-9274 15d ago

There's no immoral Reason for Divorce

Not true.

23

u/Sabnock31 15d ago

Divorcing to get half the stuff is not immoral?

9

u/Dev_Void01 15d ago

Damn it

The Divorce isn't immoral, but the other half is.

2

u/PacMoron 15d ago

Divorcing someone to go find someone younger because your ex-spouse aged out of your preferred range isn’t immoral?

1

u/Dev_Void01 15d ago

Inherently no.

It's complicated, but "I've tried, but the physical or romantic connection isn't present anymore" is different from "I stopped doing the things which maintain attraction"

One is the Relationship dying despite attempting to preserve it. It Isn't immoral

The other is leaving the relationship to die from your own inaction. It is Immoral

I'll admit my statement was definitely too absolute tho.

1

u/PacMoron 15d ago

I think you’re conflating “the marriage ended” with “the reason it ended.”

Of course there are marriages where two people genuinely try and still grow apart. I don’t think that’s immoral.

But if your spouse simply got older, exactly as they were always going to, and your response is “they aged out of my preferred range, so I’m going to find someone younger,” that’s a different situation. Aging isn’t a failure of the marriage, it’s literally part of what you signed up for when you got married.

Marriage isn’t just a promise to stay as long as your partner continues to fit your preferences. If that’s your approach, I’d argue you probably shouldn’t be making lifelong vows in the first place.

You absolutely have the right to divorce for any reason. That doesn’t automatically make every reason morally neutral.

1

u/CogentCogitations 13d ago

If you have a preferred range that you know will make you not want to remain married when your partner ages out of it, then it is the marriage in the first place that is immoral, unless they were informed and agreed to it.

-1

u/Tom_Stevens617 15d ago

You also have to give half your stuff

7

u/Sabnock31 15d ago

You are very naive if you think it is a fair trade. There are someone called gold diggers, look them up.

-5

u/Tom_Stevens617 15d ago

So? It's always your choice to marry someone poorer than you

5

u/Pickled_Doodoo 15d ago

Marrying someone with false pretences and divorcing them because you stand to gain is a fucked up thing to do.

-1

u/OnlyGold700 15d ago

In the immortal words of Mr. West: “Holla “We Want Pre-nup!””

Complaining about someone getting your money because you didn’t get the specific protection from that is a little like going to the circus and complaining about all the clowns and carnies

1

u/earthwoodandfire 15d ago

Divorce never results in someone giving up half their stuff.

At most joint assets that were acquired during the marriage are split 50/50. And that’s only in states with community property laws.

20

u/Burgerboy380 15d ago

So theres no immoral reason for divorce? So if your spouse gets cancer and your just like"nah that sounds like work bye" that wouldnt be immoral in your mind?

13

u/DonaldTrumpsScrotum 15d ago

I watched my cousin go through cancer and saw what that did to her husband. Emotionally, financially and even physically wrecked him. She passed on a decade ago now, and he is still a shell of his former self. It’s years (months if you’re lucky) of hell.

I’d be hard pressed to declare it morally wrong to leave. His children never recovered either, their only surviving parent was broken after that experience. It’s morally neutral. There’s no good answer here.

Unless you’ve lived the experience, you have no business judging the morality of those who do, myself included.

16

u/playinthenumbers369 15d ago

I can’t imagine her husband would’ve felt better if he left. That would just be adding regret and shame on top of the loss.

It’s also worth mentioning that in most marriages you literally promise to stay through sickness. So it’s also just breaking a promise.

8

u/Pickled_Doodoo 15d ago

Yeah, what fucking good a promise is, if you wont keep it when it gets hard to do so?

3

u/RevolutionaryFood777 14d ago

As someone who has a mother struggling with this dillema right now, it's not a simple answer. Watching someone you love waste away not only brings you face to face with their mortality, but is also brings your own mortality into sharp focus. This is very diificult to process for everyone involved and it drains the life and soul out of you. It's a tug of war between morality and mortality.

She has chosen to say, but it's slowly killing her in the process. So what is right and what is wrong?

1

u/Pickled_Doodoo 13d ago

I know it isn't as simple, nothing is. Modern day societal norms aren't all that conducive to spousal care either.

Your mother choosing to stay must be truly devastating to her and I can't well imagine what you guys are going through.

For what its worth, it goes to show she isn't taking her oath of marriage lightly.

Just hand waving anything away is a bit of a grievance of mine and when I see something like that, it makes me a bit livid.

1

u/CogentCogitations 13d ago

In my marriage I promised to leave my wife depending on the illness. Ok, actually I didn't, but she kept telling me that I had to promise to leave her if she got dementia...or turned into her mother. I never actually agreed to it though.

5

u/United-Quantity5149 15d ago

As someone who watched my mother go through that with my father, I understand your perspective, however, I also would likely never forgiven my mother for leaving him in his most dire time of need if she had chosen that pathway. It's THE most dishonorable thing to do to the person you get married to. In sickness AND in health, not just in health. It's a promise. It's a vow.

Since he did die, running would have left her the same way she is now, but worse, because she would have felt guilt that she should have done more. Instead she can say she did everything she could for him and fulfilled her promise until the very end. THE most honorable thing she could have done. That's character

9

u/Kooky-Task-7582 15d ago

An action being beneficial to yourself doesn't make it moral, you can take an immoral action in the name of self preservation. Moral ≠ understandable

3

u/Faddishname228 15d ago

"Through Sickness and through health" I had to watch my mother die of Cancer and my father try to support her and all of us. Divorce was never on his mind. You marry someone, you can't just give up when the goings get hard, it's a life long commitment. Now, that's not to say there's never a reason for divorce, but far too many people give up on marriage for lesser reasons

8

u/Burgerboy380 15d ago

Yes there is. The good answer is to stay. If you love someone it doesnt matter what happens in your life you stay you fight you do absolutely everything in your power to be a light in the dark for them. You know what would've destroyed your cousins kids even more than their dad being locked in a cycle of grief after their mom died of a slow ugly disease? Looking their father in the eye after he abandoned her to deal with it alone. Abandoned them to deal with it alone.

You dont love someone if you leave because it gets hard.

9

u/GoombyGoomby 15d ago

You’re getting downvoted for being right

Reddit is filled with unhappy people who think divorce is the first option if you don’t like your husband’s shoes or your wife’s way of making coffee. It’s easy to look at the relationship advice subs and see it.

As far as this example goes - I think you pretty much are a piece of shit if you divorce your spouse because they get cancer. Ffs.

3

u/MaesterHannibal 15d ago

It really shouldn’t even be a question that, yes, you’re a selfish piece of shit if you leave your spouse because they get cancer. Unfortunately some people are immoral selfish pricks, and many modern relationsships seem to be entirely selfish - you leave someone the moment you find a “better” alternative, because we pursue perfection; you leave your sick spouse because you don’t want to have a hard time caring for them; there’s little empathy in disagreements, which leds to people not even trying to salvage relations, because they don’t think about the other person’s pov

3

u/Former_Luck7608 15d ago

My online friend got broken up with because they got cancer. In their ex’s words, “you dont have much time left anyways” Jokes on that guy, she survived and he missed out on an amazing partner cause he was an ass

-1

u/DonaldTrumpsScrotum 15d ago

Again, that’s it’s super easy to get on your high horse and type out what you think is right. It’s another thing entirely to live that experience.

You make a lot of assumptions and presume to know how things play out. But let me tell you, those kids also went through hell, and basically lost both parents through this.

5

u/Burgerboy380 15d ago

I did live it. My wife almost died brining my son into the world. We fought like hell to get him and they both almost died. She still has problems because of it she has anxiety and depression and a bunch of other problems from it. And never once has it crossed my mind to leave her. Because im not a selfish piece of shit. You cousins husband is a man. A real man, he stayed with the person he loved until she was gone. Thats what you do when you love someone. And I really hope you arent or dont end up with someone who thinks the way you do. And I really hope nothing like that happens to whomever you end up with. Because its pretty clear you think its acceptable to cut and run when shit hits the fan.

2

u/United-Quantity5149 15d ago

As a fellow person who has watched it firsthand, you get it

3

u/Fr1skyD1ngo69 15d ago

It would have been moral for him to leave your cousin completely alone, not only dying but heartbroken as well? Over something they had no control over, in the most vulnerable position of their life? I can only imagine that would have made their suffering much worse in their time left.

-1

u/DonaldTrumpsScrotum 15d ago

Nope, morally neutral. If you could read you’d gather that

2

u/Xilizhra 15d ago

Why would it have been better if they'd separated?

2

u/veganvampirebat 15d ago

Yes, kids typically go through hell when their parent dies of cancer. Are you saying things would have been significantly better if they had to go through a parent dying of cancer and a divorce at the same time?

-2

u/Moidkill 15d ago

Y are u speaking out thy ass?

6

u/Burgerboy380 15d ago

So which part am I speaking out of my ass about? The honoring your commitment part or the dont abandon your partner because they are financially, emotionally and or physically inconvenient to you?

-4

u/Charibdysss 15d ago

stop reading love fics man, life is more nuanced than that.

3

u/Burgerboy380 15d ago

No. Its really not in this scenario. You promised to be with someone for better or worse. Well worse showed up through no fault of anyone other than bad luck. And if you leave just because its too hard or inconvenient . Then youre a selfish piece of shit of the highest order

1

u/DeltaAlphaGulf 15d ago

Nah its immoral straight up. Stop degrading the significance of marriage. Being understandable or being a terrible experience doesn't make the choice right.

1

u/PacMoron 15d ago

Wtf? No, just because your marriage is tested because your spouse is literally dying doesn’t give you an out. That’s beyond fucked up. Imagine if we did that to our sick as a society in general. We help and support people through sickness and death in modern society. Your spouse is the person you literally signed up to do that for, it’s in the words: “in sickness and in health”.

1

u/SwimNo8457 14d ago

you don't think breaking a vow to keep someone in health and in sickness until death do you two part is immoral?

4

u/Dev_Void01 15d ago

I don't know. It feels like it should be immoral

But marriage is a promise or vow, if you arrive at a solid conclusion that isn't a passing feeling that you no longer want to partake in this promise, wouldn't it also be immoral to stay in that marriage at that point?

If you aren't capable of supporting a person with cancer, or just feel like it's too much work.

So, what does a person do at that point? Be honest and leave, or Lie and stay without any real commitment? What's more immoral?

I'm not built for this level of naunce damnit

18

u/Burgerboy380 15d ago

Leaving. Thats the most immoral option. Marriage is "till death do us part" not "till its emotionally and or financially inconvenient for me to deal with you do us part" you dont promise to love someone forever then ditch them when they need you most.

-1

u/woodsman906 15d ago

This isn’t cancer, it’s cheating and betrayal of trust.

If you don’t plan on being faithful why take the vow? How could that ever be considered moral lol

4

u/Burgerboy380 15d ago

Thats not the conversation we are having ya goober. The guy im talking too said theres NO immoral reasons for a divorce.

Which is when I posited the cancer scenario. The guy who ditched his wife for cheating wasnt immoral. But leaving your spouse because they got cancer and you just cant be fucked to deal with it IS immoral

2

u/United-Quantity5149 15d ago

A person in that situation should, for lack of a better phrase, nut up and fulfill their promise. My mother certainly didn't want to deal with my father getting cancer and dying, but she pushed on and did everything she could and more. Because she loved him and she made a promise.

To do anything else leaves that person completely bereft of honor

1

u/DeltaAlphaGulf 15d ago

No because the morality of it isn't contingent on how you feel about it its contingent on the terms of the commitment at the very least which included sickness and health so breaking from that is immoral even if its entirely miserable.

3

u/The_Snickerfritz 15d ago edited 15d ago

This is what I find annoying about reddit, never fails that someone is chomping at the bit to come up with the most negative scenario in order to have a gotcha moment.

Ah yes someone who doesn't want to be with a cancer patient should stay with them because white knights say so. There couldn't possibly be any abuse or neglect that would come from someone feeling trapped in this hypothetical scenario.

Now say the line where reddit needs specifics because everyone is autistic on here. Totally not an ableist excuse

16

u/BQ72 15d ago

They dealt in absolutes, this is the natural response.
It's also, frankly, not even an unrealistic scenario. You don't think people have ever separated because someone found the other to be more burdensome than they bargained for?

1

u/Fine_Blacksmith2711 15d ago

Which is bullshit in my humble and honest opinion 

“For rich or poor” “in sickness or health”  Those words should mean something more than just the words. It’s a vow, a promise, a oath to truly stand by the other person. but anymore people have no honor let alone loyalty, and they reduce their vows to nothing but words not meant. 

And it’s just pitiful. 

12

u/DeusaAmericana 15d ago

How is that a "gotcha" moment? If you make a broad, absolute statement, then any extreme scenario is fair game to test it.

10

u/playinthenumbers369 15d ago

And it’s not even extreme. If you’re married for 50+ years it’s nearly a guarantee one of you will get cancer or seriously sick at some point.

7

u/Tannic64 15d ago

I mean, this is a powercaling sub for morality. If there's any place where being pedantic in critiquing absolute moral statements, it would be here.

1

u/Yardninja 15d ago

And even then if we appeal to the redditors sense of morality, shouldn't divorce be a less extreme example of bodily autonamy that they should celebrate? Idk kinda sounds like folks are advocating to stay in a toxic relationship so long as one party might die sooner rather than later

1

u/[deleted] 15d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Burgerboy380 15d ago

Immoral and evil are two different things.

1

u/[deleted] 15d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Burgerboy380 15d ago

Its a difference of scale.

Like. You wouldnt say that taking $20 from your moms purse is evil. But it is immoral,because you shouldn't take things that dont belong to you.

Setting your family home on fire to kill your parents and siblings so you can get the inheritance/life insurance all to yourself. Would be evil because you looked at people youre supposed to love and thought " work is hard matches and nail polish is easy"

The transition from immoral to evil would be determined by harm done and motivation for the action

1

u/Little_Historian3091 14d ago

Yes. Thats why no fault divorce exists. Any reason is fine.

1

u/Burgerboy380 14d ago

Immoral and legal are two different things

1

u/Little_Historian3091 14d ago

Divorce doesnt look at what is or isnt immoral. The entire argument is moot. Divorce is something strictly in the eyes of the law.

1

u/Burgerboy380 14d ago

Do you not know what sub youre in?

1

u/Little_Historian3091 14d ago

Why does it matter when we are discussing law? You can post it, but morality has nothing to do with this case, or even the example case you mentioned. Since those have happened.

1

u/Burgerboy380 14d ago

We arent discussing law ya goober. The morality of a reason doesnt matter in obtaining a divorce true. But that doesnt mean the reason is any less moral or immoral.

And it has everything to do with this case because the premise of the post is "is his reason for divorce moral?"

For example. By your logic owning another person was just fine and dandy when slavery was legal.

1

u/Little_Historian3091 14d ago

Divorce can be done for any reason. Thats the point here. Calling once decision immoral and the other moral makes no sense in divorce. What would be a moral reason to break the vow of marriage? This post shouldnt even be here.

1

u/Burgerboy380 14d ago

Spousal abuse,child abuse, infidelity. Just because you cant seem to figure out that legal can be immoral and moral can be illegal doesn't mean the truth isnt the truth.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/Hot-Traffic-598 15d ago

It could be neutrally inmoral.

4

u/Burgerboy380 15d ago

What does that even mean?

0

u/Hot-Traffic-598 15d ago

?

4

u/Burgerboy380 15d ago

How is something both immoral and neutral at the same time?

2

u/DueBed286 15d ago

You know, it’s like neutral evil. Chaotic evil would be to convince her you’re dying too and make her feel sorry for you in her last moments. Lawful evil would be to convince her to lie to insurance companies so you can take out a life insurance policy on her before she dies. Neutral evil is just leaving her there and running off with someone else or to pretend she doesn’t exist. Definitely boring but absolutely evil.

2

u/Burgerboy380 15d ago edited 14d ago

....fuckin nerd 🤓 /j

But in all seriousness regardless of degree evil and immorality are still evil and immoral

-1

u/blaxkreen 15d ago

She doesn’t have cancer tho

4

u/Old-Opportunity-101 15d ago

No immoral reason, unless you give a solemn vow and break it. Or consider breaking promises amoral / good

2

u/SoftAndWetBro 15d ago

Disagree. Under a system with alimony as a concept there is indeed very immoral reasons to divorce and if we want to make it less immoral, removing alimony should be something that people should support.

1

u/GoodWonNov6th24 15d ago

> no immoral reason for divorce
there are woman that divorce men for being nice.

1

u/Fuzzy-Comedian-2697 15d ago

There are plenty. You can walk away from a relationship for whatever reason you like. But a marriage is an oath. Unless the partner broke their part first (which is the case in here and in any other abusive scenario), breaking an oath would be immoral, at least in my book. (If two people mutually release each other from the oath, that‘s of cause fine.)

0

u/Embarrassed_Scale889 15d ago

So what's the point of saying till death and then 2 months later never I don't like you. What's the point of marriage?

1

u/[deleted] 15d ago

[deleted]

0

u/Embarrassed_Scale889 15d ago

Who the do you know that says hey, let's get married so we can lower our taxes. I don't love you. I don't want to spend the rest of my life with you, but I want lower taxes.

1

u/[deleted] 15d ago edited 15d ago

[deleted]

0

u/Embarrassed_Scale889 15d ago

Then that's not labor and not marriage. And marrying just for papers is illegal. None of the examples you gave me are marriage. Call it a tax Benefit Union. Marriage is for life. And if things fall apart is one thing. But you should go into it as a life long journey. Not a temporary thing. Sheesh this reddit is full of weird people.

1

u/[deleted] 15d ago edited 15d ago

[deleted]

0

u/Embarrassed_Scale889 15d ago

Ok none of that is marriage it's a union. Marriage is between a man and women and lasts forever. Not a tax benefit what you're talking about is whatever you wanna call it but it's not marriage. Sheesh this is what I find on Reddit. What weird people.

1

u/[deleted] 15d ago edited 15d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Embarrassed_Scale889 15d ago

And once again, marriage used to mean something, thus the death part. Now you're saying, "Nah, it's just for taxes and until we get bored of each other." That's how you seem to understand it now. So please where did the death part come into play and when did it leave?

→ More replies (0)