Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Another Ethical Quandry

royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 5:11:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ok, so suppose within the first month of marriage, your spouse is in a car accident and becomes paralyzed to the degree that he can no longer continue to earn as much as he previously was. You have two options: you can either remain for the rest of both of your lives and continue to support him, in which case it is unlikely that you will have any children on be able to fulfill any of your dreams, or you can divorce him and look for a new spouse. What would you do and why?
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 5:16:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Has his personality changed?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 5:20:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 5:11:19 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, so suppose within the first month of marriage, your spouse is in a car accident and becomes paralyzed to the degree that he can no longer continue to earn as much as he previously was. You have two options: you can either remain for the rest of both of your lives and continue to support him, in which case it is unlikely that you will have any children on be able to fulfill any of your dreams, or you can divorce him and look for a new spouse. What would you do and why?

Would it make more financial sense to divorce? As in, would my spouse qualify for more state support because of earnings?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 5:23:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 5:11:19 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, so suppose within the first month of marriage, your spouse is in a car accident and becomes paralyzed to the degree that he can no longer continue to earn as much as he previously was. You have two options: you can either remain for the rest of both of your lives and continue to support him, in which case it is unlikely that you will have any children on be able to fulfill any of your dreams, or you can divorce him and look for a new spouse. What would you do and why?

If I were the person paralyzed, I wouldn't want my spouse to stay with me or feel obliged to stay.

If I was the other person, who is not paralyzed, I would want to move on -and I would want my spouse to be alright with that. I'd still help them to the extent that they wanted (because it would be the right thing to do), but that is not the sort of thing I could envision a good marriage living through.

However, if my insurance benefits were paying for their rehabilitation/physical therapy (and they did not have the means to pay medical or living expenses) -I would stay.

I also can't see an objectively "right" answer to this situation. Whatever is "right" would depend on the wants/needs of the couple in question.

As a disclaimer, I am not now nor do I intend to in the foreseeable future plan to get married.
Tsar of DDO
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 5:54:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 5:11:19 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, so suppose within the first month of marriage, your spouse is in a car accident and becomes paralyzed to the degree that he can no longer continue to earn as much as he previously was. You have two options: you can either remain for the rest of both of your lives and continue to support him, in which case it is unlikely that you will have any children on be able to fulfill any of your dreams, or you can divorce him and look for a new spouse. What would you do and why?

I don't look at marriage as a financial arrangement, you should marry for love and if that is the case, then the vows are the vows, for better or worse, sickness and health, till death do us part.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 7:10:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 5:54:48 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/11/2013 5:11:19 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, so suppose within the first month of marriage, your spouse is in a car accident and becomes paralyzed to the degree that he can no longer continue to earn as much as he previously was. You have two options: you can either remain for the rest of both of your lives and continue to support him, in which case it is unlikely that you will have any children on be able to fulfill any of your dreams, or you can divorce him and look for a new spouse. What would you do and why?

I don't look at marriage as a financial arrangement, you should marry for love and if that is the case, then the vows are the vows, for better or worse, sickness and health, till death do us part.

I agree with this.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 7:21:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 5:23:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/11/2013 5:11:19 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, so suppose within the first month of marriage, your spouse is in a car accident and becomes paralyzed to the degree that he can no longer continue to earn as much as he previously was. You have two options: you can either remain for the rest of both of your lives and continue to support him, in which case it is unlikely that you will have any children on be able to fulfill any of your dreams, or you can divorce him and look for a new spouse. What would you do and why?

If I were the person paralyzed, I wouldn't want my spouse to stay with me or feel obliged to stay.

So where would you live then? What do you do? Your life is already going to be miserable-do you spend the rest of your life in even more misery pining for your spouse?
If I was the other person, who is not paralyzed, I would want to move on
Why? :(
sadolite
Posts: 8,841
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 7:44:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 5:11:19 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, so suppose within the first month of marriage, your spouse is in a car accident and becomes paralyzed to the degree that he can no longer continue to earn as much as he previously was. You have two options: you can either remain for the rest of both of your lives and continue to support him, in which case it is unlikely that you will have any children on be able to fulfill any of your dreams, or you can divorce him and look for a new spouse. What would you do and why?

It all depends on whether or not marrige and marrige vows have any meaning. Me personally, I've been divorced once, but at the same time she left me thinking the grass was greener on the other side only to have her daughter from a previous relationship sexually molested by her new boy friend. I took my vows seriously then and the second time. Till death do you part. Don't get married if you don't believe this. You will choose your suitor with much more caution and reason rather than spur of the moment lust and end up in an abusive relationship. People can hide their abusive tendencies for awhile but not much more than a year. They will snap and show their true colors.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,841
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 7:47:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 5:54:48 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/11/2013 5:11:19 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, so suppose within the first month of marriage, your spouse is in a car accident and becomes paralyzed to the degree that he can no longer continue to earn as much as he previously was. You have two options: you can either remain for the rest of both of your lives and continue to support him, in which case it is unlikely that you will have any children on be able to fulfill any of your dreams, or you can divorce him and look for a new spouse. What would you do and why?

I don't look at marriage as a financial arrangement, you should marry for love and if that is the case, then the vows are the vows, for better or worse, sickness and health, till death do us part.

"you should marry for love" love don't pay the bills, and when the bills don't get paid there ain't no more love. The number one reason marriges fail, money.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 7:56:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You fall in love with a person, not their ability to work and make money.

If the person's personality was the same then your feelings really shouldn't change that much about them and, in fact, you'd most likely want to take care of them and be with them.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 1:46:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
They're both doomed enterprises, I imagine. If this is more than a thought experiment to you, I'm sorry for whatever's happened.

The problem I confront is the paralyzing fear of loss which structures each option--either you lose much of your future, or you abandon your great love (followed either way by the attendant emotional consequences). I think there are a couple of insights to be gleaned from this kind of scenario, though:

1. What value is your "future"--is it a career? Income? External things (titles, honorary banquets...) and material possessions? Perhaps kids--but, if you're intent on them, you could certainly adopt. People often have dreams of success adorned with superfluous decorations of all kinds. When frustrated or interrupted, these dreams cause a great deal of suffering--anxiety, depression, jealousy. If these are the things you're worried about, your marriage would likely be troubled with or without the paralysis. Seneca's remarks about the capacity of thrift to provide necessities--even on the most meager income--are instructive.

2. I do think time for personal pursuits--reading, cooking, whatever you like--is important, and it's important that you feel like every day is worth waking up to. There are parts of your future--most notably, happiness--which are worth cultivating, and which you should never sacrifice only to maintain a relationship. What fulfillment means to you is your business, but I'm sure you could conjure a mental representation if I asked. Consequently, I don't recommend spending either all or most of your time taking care of your spouse. To prevent your marital promise from coming to resemble Atlas bearing the weight of the world, you would have to take time, not really for the future, but for the right now. Read a book, play a game, go do something--I should point out that your spouse is not only an object of care. This person still has a great deal of love to give, and your disposition should be that of a life partner at least as often as that of a caretaker.

3. Could you really bring yourself to abandon someone to whom you made the promise of a permanent, enduring bond? Certainly, you could admit the lie and get a divorce, or separate yourselves, or whatever you like. This is not what's important: ask yourself, rather, whether this is really the limit of your love, and, if so, why you've drawn this line in the sand. If you would abandon your spouse--your professed love--because of something as trivial as physical disability, I am skeptical that you would have any remaining pursuits worthy of attention. If, in other words, your commitment is so easily upset by misfortune, it is unwise to marry.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 1:56:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I really am irritated that we insist on looking at these things through ethical judgments.

I would stay if I truly loved them. I may even stay if I didn't love them, if I felt guilty enough.

I would be comforted by my knowledge of psychology which suggests that people tend to be just as happy no matter where they actually end up in life.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 2:15:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 1:56:42 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I would be comforted by my knowledge of psychology which suggests that people tend to be just as happy no matter where they actually end up in life.

Well, that isn't exactly true. Set-point theory does tell us that we tend to return to homeostasis after a period of 2-3 months, but it's also worth noting that a) situational happiness, rather than long-term satisfaction with life, is, on average, closer to an even split between environment and congenital influences (e.g., genetics, coloring of circumstances--I do think environment interacts with these too, though); b) people tend to be more loss-averse than gain-pursuing, and, while happiness isn't necessarily buoyed by the stuff we get, it does tend to suffer when we lose what we already had; c) joining this to the malleability of the set point (the fact that your equilibrium can be changed by significant events), serious events--e.g., paralysis, being the spouse of the paralyzed--can have serious consequences in either direction depending on the manner in which one is prepared to deal with what confronts them.

Given that this is true, thinking about this decision as an ethical activity--not an external, normative, "What should I do?" thing, but a kind of ethos, a certain form of life, disposition, type of behavior that guides your choices--seems not just important, but like the only thing.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 2:19:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 7:10:31 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/11/2013 5:54:48 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/11/2013 5:11:19 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, so suppose within the first month of marriage, your spouse is in a car accident and becomes paralyzed to the degree that he can no longer continue to earn as much as he previously was. You have two options: you can either remain for the rest of both of your lives and continue to support him, in which case it is unlikely that you will have any children on be able to fulfill any of your dreams, or you can divorce him and look for a new spouse. What would you do and why?

I don't look at marriage as a financial arrangement, you should marry for love and if that is the case, then the vows are the vows, for better or worse, sickness and health, till death do us part.

I agree with this.

Love-based marriage is a fairly recent phenomenon. and to say it has a rocky track record would be something of an understatement.

I hope I would be strong enough to live up to my vows in this instance, but I know that it's entirely possible that I wouldn't be.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 2:23:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 2:15:31 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 1:56:42 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I would be comforted by my knowledge of psychology which suggests that people tend to be just as happy no matter where they actually end up in life.

Well, that isn't exactly true. Set-point theory does tell us that we tend to return to homeostasis after a period of 2-3 months, but it's also worth noting that a) situational happiness, rather than long-term satisfaction with life, is, on average, closer to an even split between environment and congenital influences (e.g., genetics, coloring of circumstances--I do think environment interacts with these too, though); b) people tend to be more loss-averse than gain-pursuing, and, while happiness isn't necessarily buoyed by the stuff we get, it does tend to suffer when we lose what we already had; c) joining this to the malleability of the set point (the fact that your equilibrium can be changed by significant events), serious events--e.g., paralysis, being the spouse of the paralyzed--can have serious consequences in either direction depending on the manner in which one is prepared to deal with what confronts them.

Given that this is true, thinking about this decision as an ethical activity--not an external, normative, "What should I do?" thing, but a kind of ethos, a certain form of life, disposition, type of behavior that guides your choices--seems not just important, but like the only thing.

I actually had in mind a specific study which involved paralyses. When polled a year afterwards, both those who won the lottery and those who became quadriplegics reported the same level of happiness. Based on other research, I also think that this is genuine and not just the way it's reported.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 2:54:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 2:23:48 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/12/2013 2:15:31 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 1:56:42 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I would be comforted by my knowledge of psychology which suggests that people tend to be just as happy no matter where they actually end up in life.

Well, that isn't exactly true. Set-point theory does tell us that we tend to return to homeostasis after a period of 2-3 months, but it's also worth noting that a) situational happiness, rather than long-term satisfaction with life, is, on average, closer to an even split between environment and congenital influences (e.g., genetics, coloring of circumstances--I do think environment interacts with these too, though); b) people tend to be more loss-averse than gain-pursuing, and, while happiness isn't necessarily buoyed by the stuff we get, it does tend to suffer when we lose what we already had; c) joining this to the malleability of the set point (the fact that your equilibrium can be changed by significant events), serious events--e.g., paralysis, being the spouse of the paralyzed--can have serious consequences in either direction depending on the manner in which one is prepared to deal with what confronts them.

Given that this is true, thinking about this decision as an ethical activity--not an external, normative, "What should I do?" thing, but a kind of ethos, a certain form of life, disposition, type of behavior that guides your choices--seems not just important, but like the only thing.

I actually had in mind a specific study which involved paralyses. When polled a year afterwards, both those who won the lottery and those who became quadriplegics reported the same level of happiness. Based on other research, I also think that this is genuine and not just the way it's reported.

I know the study you're talking about; I had to pore through a dick-ton of happiness science literature for this paper I wrote a few months ago. I think I may have read about it in a journal article, though, rather than looking at the actual study. Do you have a public link or a way to download?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 5:18:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 2:19:01 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/11/2013 7:10:31 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/11/2013 5:54:48 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/11/2013 5:11:19 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, so suppose within the first month of marriage, your spouse is in a car accident and becomes paralyzed to the degree that he can no longer continue to earn as much as he previously was. You have two options: you can either remain for the rest of both of your lives and continue to support him, in which case it is unlikely that you will have any children on be able to fulfill any of your dreams, or you can divorce him and look for a new spouse. What would you do and why?

I don't look at marriage as a financial arrangement, you should marry for love and if that is the case, then the vows are the vows, for better or worse, sickness and health, till death do us part.

I agree with this.

Love-based marriage is a fairly recent phenomenon. and to say it has a rocky track record would be something of an understatement.

Arranged marriage doesn't?
I hope I would be strong enough to live up to my vows in this instance, but I know that it's entirely possible that I wouldn't be.
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 5:35:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 7:21:48 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/11/2013 5:23:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/11/2013 5:11:19 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, so suppose within the first month of marriage, your spouse is in a car accident and becomes paralyzed to the degree that he can no longer continue to earn as much as he previously was. You have two options: you can either remain for the rest of both of your lives and continue to support him, in which case it is unlikely that you will have any children on be able to fulfill any of your dreams, or you can divorce him and look for a new spouse. What would you do and why?

If I were the person paralyzed, I wouldn't want my spouse to stay with me or feel obliged to stay.

So where would you live then? What do you do? Your life is already going to be miserable-do you spend the rest of your life in even more misery pining for your spouse?

I can't speculate on where I would live because I don't know the sort of personal financial situation I would be in at the time that this happened. I do know that my own insurance now would most likely cover the sort of rehabilitation that would be required and I also know that I could perform my job from a wheel chair (even though I would likely be miserable), assuming that cognitive impairment did not stem from the accident that resulted in my hypothetical paralysis. I also want to disclose that I have a signed DNR on file, so that if I were to be incapacitated with no hope of return, nothing would be wasted keeping me alive.

If I was the other person, who is not paralyzed, I would want to move on
Why? :(

Because I know how I would feel I was the person who was paralyzed. Marriage should not be something that people remain in out of guilt, or the fear of guilt from choosing what is best for one's self.
Tsar of DDO
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 1:20:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I actually know someone to whom this happened. She was probably the nicest woman I ever known, and she stayed with him because she loved him very deeply. I wouldn't marry unless I felt the same, so I wouldn't leave the person, unless they were in a coma or some similar state where they were unable to communicate at all. At that point a relationship becomes somewhat impossible, and I think that staying with someone out of guilt is insulting to both parties.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 3:01:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 2:54:20 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I know the study you're talking about; I had to pore through a dick-ton of happiness science literature for this paper I wrote a few months ago. I think I may have read about it in a journal article, though, rather than looking at the actual study. Do you have a public link or a way to download?

Here's a TED talk on it:
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 3:06:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 5:16:29 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Has his personality changed?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 4:12:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'll assume that the answer is no.
At 2/11/2013 5:11:19 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, so suppose within the first month of marriage, your spouse is in a car accident and becomes paralyzed to the degree that he can no longer continue to earn as much as he previously was.
I wouldn't marry for money, so that doesn't really matter.
You have two options: you can either remain for the rest of both of your lives and continue to support him, in which case it is unlikely that you will have any children
Correction: with her.
on be able to fulfill any of your dreams
Why would that be?
, or you can divorce him and look for a new spouse. What would you do and why?
Stay with her. There really wouldn't be that much of a difference other than the fact that she couldn't move.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 4:41:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 3:09:15 PM, Maikuru wrote:
"...in sickness and in health..."

People take marriage too lightly now. This is in the vows for a reason. You can't just bail on someone because they're sick or whatever.

Marriage is a solemn vow.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 7:25:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 5:35:51 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/11/2013 7:21:48 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/11/2013 5:23:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/11/2013 5:11:19 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, so suppose within the first month of marriage, your spouse is in a car accident and becomes paralyzed to the degree that he can no longer continue to earn as much as he previously was. You have two options: you can either remain for the rest of both of your lives and continue to support him, in which case it is unlikely that you will have any children on be able to fulfill any of your dreams, or you can divorce him and look for a new spouse. What would you do and why?

If I were the person paralyzed, I wouldn't want my spouse to stay with me or feel obliged to stay.

So where would you live then? What do you do? Your life is already going to be miserable-do you spend the rest of your life in even more misery pining for your spouse?

I can't speculate on where I would live because I don't know the sort of personal financial situation I would be in at the time that this happened. I do know that my own insurance now would most likely cover the sort of rehabilitation that would be required and I also know that I could perform my job from a wheel chair (even though I would likely be miserable), assuming that cognitive impairment did not stem from the accident that resulted in my hypothetical paralysis. I also want to disclose that I have a signed DNR on file, so that if I were to be incapacitated with no hope of return, nothing would be wasted keeping me alive.

If I was the other person, who is not paralyzed, I would want to move on
Why? :(

Because I know how I would feel I was the person who was paralyzed. Marriage should not be something that people remain in out of guilt, or the fear of guilt from choosing what is best for one's self.

It's not about guilt. It's about love . . .
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 7:51:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 5:11:19 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, so suppose within the first month of marriage, your spouse is in a car accident and becomes paralyzed to the degree that he can no longer continue to earn as much as he previously was. You have two options: you can either remain for the rest of both of your lives and continue to support him, in which case it is unlikely that you will have any children on be able to fulfill any of your dreams, or you can divorce him and look for a new spouse. What would you do and why?

I would stay with the person. Idc what happens, until death when I finally get married to someone its permanent. Thats what vows I would take, and I intend to keep them, regardless. Certainly because I would love them, and love is unaffected by changing circumstances. That is the nature of vows and promises after all, that they are unaffected by changing circumstances.

I remember reading this sweet story of a man who was married to a woman and she ended up getting into a car accident and becoming a vegetable per se. Every day when he was done with work, he'd come and spend time with her, was still married to her, and remained faithful until she died years later when she died. Thats the person I would be
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 8:08:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 7:51:26 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 2/11/2013 5:11:19 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, so suppose within the first month of marriage, your spouse is in a car accident and becomes paralyzed to the degree that he can no longer continue to earn as much as he previously was. You have two options: you can either remain for the rest of both of your lives and continue to support him, in which case it is unlikely that you will have any children on be able to fulfill any of your dreams, or you can divorce him and look for a new spouse. What would you do and why?

I would stay with the person. Idc what happens, until death when I finally get married to someone its permanent. Thats what vows I would take, and I intend to keep them, regardless. Certainly because I would love them, and love is unaffected by changing circumstances. That is the nature of vows and promises after all, that they are unaffected by changing circumstances.
If you found out that your wife killed six people out of cold blood would you still stay married to her?

I remember reading this sweet story of a man who was married to a woman and she ended up getting into a car accident and becoming a vegetable per se. Every day when he was done with work, he'd come and spend time with her, was still married to her, and remained faithful until she died years later when she died. Thats the person I would be
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 10:55:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 4:41:30 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 2/12/2013 3:09:15 PM, Maikuru wrote:
"...in sickness and in health..."

People take marriage too lightly now. This is in the vows for a reason. You can't just bail on someone because they're sick or whatever.

Marriage is a solemn vow.

Word.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 11:50:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 7:25:51 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 5:35:51 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/11/2013 7:21:48 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/11/2013 5:23:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/11/2013 5:11:19 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, so suppose within the first month of marriage, your spouse is in a car accident and becomes paralyzed to the degree that he can no longer continue to earn as much as he previously was. You have two options: you can either remain for the rest of both of your lives and continue to support him, in which case it is unlikely that you will have any children on be able to fulfill any of your dreams, or you can divorce him and look for a new spouse. What would you do and why?

If I were the person paralyzed, I wouldn't want my spouse to stay with me or feel obliged to stay.

So where would you live then? What do you do? Your life is already going to be miserable-do you spend the rest of your life in even more misery pining for your spouse?

I can't speculate on where I would live because I don't know the sort of personal financial situation I would be in at the time that this happened. I do know that my own insurance now would most likely cover the sort of rehabilitation that would be required and I also know that I could perform my job from a wheel chair (even though I would likely be miserable), assuming that cognitive impairment did not stem from the accident that resulted in my hypothetical paralysis. I also want to disclose that I have a signed DNR on file, so that if I were to be incapacitated with no hope of return, nothing would be wasted keeping me alive.

If I was the other person, who is not paralyzed, I would want to move on
Why? :(

Because I know how I would feel I was the person who was paralyzed. Marriage should not be something that people remain in out of guilt, or the fear of guilt from choosing what is best for one's self.

It's not about guilt. It's about love . . .

I think this is an instance where we have different views about marriage, and probably about love too, which is probably fine. I also, as a full disclaimer, have neither been married or even given serious thought to it -I can only answer, then, as best I can imagine myself in a given situation -and if I were paralyzed (and especially if I was brain damaged), I would feel guilty if my spouse stayed with me.
Tsar of DDO
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 3:12:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 5:11:19 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, so suppose within the first month of marriage, your spouse is in a car accident and becomes paralyzed to the degree that he can no longer continue to earn as much as he previously was. You have two options: you can either remain for the rest of both of your lives and continue to support him, in which case it is unlikely that you will have any children on be able to fulfill any of your dreams, or you can divorce him and look for a new spouse. What would you do and why?

you could probably find a scenario where it has actually happened, and observe the results.

...Alternatively, If it has never happened, you might want to take the initiative? O_o
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...