Sexual ethics essay A-level OCR

Hello, I was wondering is anyone would be kind enough to read through my essay. I did use my notes but i did it in timed conditions. I am unable to hand it into my teacher as she is refusing to mark practise essays. I am really worried about how I'm going to get the A i need to study philosophy at Uni when i can't even get my practise essays marked. So if anyone is kind enough to mark, i will be highly appreciative and I'll have a look at something of yours if you'd like?

‘Even when a marriage breaks down, the couple should not get divorced’

Divorce is the termination of a marriage; this can either be in the eyes of the law, God or both. Religious believers are very conflicted on their views on whether to allow divorce because of issues including sacrament, the goods of marriage, covenant and fidelity. Marriage as a sacrament is a holy or highly significant religious moment, marriage as a covenant on the other hand, is a formal alliance made by God with a religious community or humanity in general. Fidelity means loyal and committed where as autonomous means self-sufficient and independent. It is important for both religious believers and non believers in a society where women are becoming more autonomous to decide whether divorce is acceptable, or if it should never happen; even if a marriage breaks down. Scholars in this essay include; Matthew and Mark from the bible as well as Aristotle and Jesus. In conclusion, divorce should happen in some cases, and it doesn’t even need to rely on the complete break down of a marriage.

Roman Catholics are against divorce under any circumstances, even if a marriage breaks down. This is because they believe that once rings and vows are exchanged, this signifies an internal change of the couple becoming ‘one flesh’, Mark says this in the bible. This suggests that divorce is not an option, as they are no longer two different people, they are one flesh. Jesus backs this as he says; ‘they are no longer two… what God has joined together, let no one separate’. So Roman Catholics are very clear in their beliefs that divorce is not an option at all, as once two people have married, they are no longer two people who can separate - they are one person. However, in the modern society of today, a married couple is no longer considered ‘one’ by the majority of people. This is largely due to the fact that women are no longer encouraged to be housewives, and rely on the financial support of their husband. Women are becoming much more autonomous, they go to work and contribute as much to their husbands to the household. This means that today, rather than a married couple being one person who relies on each half to fulfil their roles, the man to be the breadwinner and the woman to be the nurturer, they are two separate people who choose to co-exist. So if a marriage breaks down it is much more reasonable to consider divorce than a Roman Catholic believes. So, if a marriage does break down, a couple does have the choice to get divorced.


Some traditional Christians however do believe that there is cases where divorce can take place. Mathews, in the bible, says that ‘everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality, forces her to commit adultery’. This suggests that in most cases divorce is not allowed as it causes adultery which is against the ten commandments, however if there is immorality in the marriage, then divorce is allowed. What this means is that a man can divorce his wife on the grounds of porneia, non-marital sex, so if a woman commits adultery, then divorce is okay. Adultery does break down a marriage in many cases, so this suggests that the statement is false, as if a marriage breaks down a couple can get a divorce. Aristotle however would dispute this by saying that marriage is lifelong fidelity. He says that procreation is the primary purpose of marriage, which leads to two secondary purposes, nurture and control of sex, that are the goods of marriage. Control of sex, means that marriage controls the sex drive, when married a couple should only have sex with each other to keep a stable household for their children. Matthew allows divorce on the terms of adultery, Aristotle however wouldn’t, even though fidelity is one of the goods of marriage, so is nurturing children. If parents separate they cannot nurture the children together and since procreation is the main purpose of marriage, children should come first. So even if a marriage breaks down, if the couple have children, they should never get a divorce.

Roman catholics do allow divorce through annulment on very extreme grounds. Annulment means that you are apart and no longer one flesh, and can happen if a marriage took place with one of both parties having a lack of consent and/or understanding of agreement. This means that the only reason a couple can divorce is if there was a lack or consent or understanding of what marriage is, so they usually cannot divorce. Even if the couple falls out of love, even if one of the partners commits adultery and even if there is abuse or even if the whole marriage breaks down. To a Roman Catholic, annulment can only take place if there was a lack of consent or understanding of commitment. Buddhists however would not hold this view. Buddhists accept everything as impermanent so would understand that nothing lasts forever, not even marriage. Furthermore, a Buddhist would dispute the whole idea of ‘one flesh’ as Buddhists believe in annata which means no self. If we have no self, which Buddhists believe we don’t since we are constantly changing, then there is no ‘two selves’ of the couple to join as ‘one-flesh’. So a Buddhist would allow divorce.

In conclusion, divorce is an option and is even sensible in certain cases, for example on the grounds of adultery or abuse. A marriage does not have to even completely break down in order for a couple to get divorced. One of the strongest arguments for this is that of a Buddhists as the whole Buddhist belief of annata, breaks apart the whole Catholic idea of ‘one flesh’, which is used to argue that marriage is lifelong fidelity.