Consider this line of thought.
- To decide to marry y for no reason is unreasonable.
- To decide to marry y on the grounds that y will make one happy is selfish.
- To decide to marry y on the grounds that one will make y happy is arrogant.
- To decide to marry y on the grounds that it will make the world a better place is to be full of oneself.
- To decide to marry y on the grounds that God is calling one to it is unavailable to atheists and claims an implausibly good understanding of God's designs.
I am inclined to think that (5) can be rejected: I think atheists can do something because God calls them to it, but they won't formulate the reason in that way. I also think we can have some understanding of what God calls us to. And while (3) and (4) may be true, perhaps all one needs as grounds is the thought that likely one will in a small way contribute to y's happiness and make the world a better place, and one need not be arrogant to think that.
Still, I think that even with these qualifications, something important is being left out of the story. Love, I guess. Love directly justifies the pursuit of a union appropriate to the love, and marriage is the union appropriate to certain forms of love.
8 comments:
To be honest, I don´t see the point of this post ... maybe I don´t understand it
I guess I find 1-5 to be, if not true, close to the truth. And in light of 1-5, the question of what appropriate reasons a person could have for marrying seems tough. But maybe love's unitive component solves this.
@Alexander Pruss:
"Love, I guess. Love directly justifies the pursuit of a union appropriate to the love, and marriage is the union appropriate to certain forms of love."
That was my first answer. But would not this fall prey to 3? For if Love is the willing of the good of the other, is it not arrogance to suppose that the good of the other, the prospective spouse, is accomplished by union, marriage, with her?
Love isn't just a willing of the good. Love has at least three aspects: good will, appreciation and a drive to union.
I'm finally getting around to posting. I've been busy, tending my garden and working in the office too much. So here is my take on the original post:
Why do we have to make things this complicated? If it's this complicated, then it's no wonder why so many of us stay single. I think previous generations had more practical expectations of marriage. Such as can he support a family? Does he drink? Can she cook? Will she be a good mother? Long, long ago, when I first began working as an engineer, I had a supervisor who had this piece of advice for anyone considering marriage - you must be able to say of the person that you are going to marry is that he/she is your best friend. If you can't do that then you shouldn't marry that person.
Dagmara:
That's a very interesting answer! It could well be that it is simpler, as you indicate.
But this answer leaves unanswered the question: Why marry at all, given that celibacy for the sake of the kingdom is better?
Then why were we created male and female with all these hormones and body parts? We could have been created asexual and able to reproduce by cell division as some organisms do. And in the original condition in Eden, Adam had God there for a constant companion. Then God said that it is not good for man to be alone . . .
Not all are called to celibacy. Plus, celibacy involves giving up a natural good, just as fasting does.
Post a Comment