Why Divorce Is A Good Thing

Why Divorce Is A Good Thing We owe all the wonderful aspects of modern marriage to one thing: divorce. You will hear just the opposite, of course. Religious fundamentalists and politicians will tell you that divorce is crumbling our society, ruining childrens lives, and weakening the moral character of the nation. Dont listen to them. They know perfectly well why divorce is a good thing, they just dont want you to ever find out. Divorce means choice. Divorce means that two people do not have to remain bound to each other until the grave, as society dictated until the 20th century. Divorce means that human beings can determine the path their life will take. And at its very root, divorce provides for that most crucial, most valuable of human experiences: happiness. Divorce is also the great equalizer, and the hallmark of a truly advanced society in terms of womens rights. No woman can ever claim to feel like property or subjugated by men where are there are equitable divorce laws in place. When we look back at ancient civilizations, the ones that stand out are the ones like ancient Egypt which provided equitable treatment for women and the accessibility of divorce as a way to end a legal marriage. Even in the modern world, the best countries for women are those that allow them to divorce freely and without social stigma. But the freedom to live your life how you please, without affecting how others live theirs, is something that a great number of people dont want you to have. Religions in particular seem devoted to making sure that you donà ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚ ¢t live how you please, that your every action is analyzed and criticized and ultimately judged. Whether its a stern and moralistic God or a harsh and judgmental society you claim as your higher power, be aware that both of them have one central belief at their core: personal happiness is bad, and personal choice is worse. The Catholic Church, for example, maintains that if you marry someone while your first spouse is still alive, you are committing adultery and will go to Hell. You are not allowed to put aside one spouse and find another, no matter what the reason. They dont like the idea of your having sex with more than one person in your life, even if you want to marry each person that you have it with. Or do they? If your spouse dies they have put no such hex on you. Widows and widowers are given the full blessing of the church to marry again. The limit seems to be three marriages, although Im not sure how stringently this rule is applied. It may be that the widowed are allowed marrying as often as they wish. But even if the church absolutely forbids a widowed person from re-marrying more than twice, it still means that the church would rather sanction youà ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚ ¢re having sexual relations with three people in your life, rather than let you be married to two if the first one is merely divorced from you. Its adultery and fornication if you divorce one spouse and remarry even once, but legitimate carnal relations if you marry three times because the other two died. This cant possibly indicate a desire to limit the number of sexual partners you have, or to stamp out the sin of sex. I couldnt understand this breach in logic. As much as I disagree with the premise, if youre going to claim that all sex outside the bonds of your first marriage is sinful, then surely you have to call the widowed fornicators too, as much as the divorced are. But the church doesnt. And for years, neither did the public at large. Widowed people were pitied but respected. Divorced people caused scandal, were looked down upon by respectable people, were shunned and considered morally bankrupt. Now I know why. Its a question of choice, of volition, a unique human quality. The church, and society, simply wouldnt allow you to exercise your volition beyond that first choice of partner you made a choice, by the way, that was often made for you by your parents and had nothing to do with what you wanted. Nothing would justify wanting to make another choice later in life. Only God could do that, it seems. If God took your partner away from you, you had no choice in that, and therefore, you were allowed to choose again. If God decided to take that spouse from you too, that wasnt your choice either. As long as you yourself werent thinking and choosing and making your own decisions about your life, the church would be lenient on you. The minute you decided to affect change in your own life, to undo something you regretted doing or something that no longer served a purpose in your life, you were branded a sinner. So for centuries, miserably married people could only find freedom in the grave. Many people killed their mates to be free of them. It was not uncommon for aristocrats, attempting to climb the social ladder, to arrange for their no-longer-advantageous spouses to fall down stairs or eat poisoned meat so that they, the aristocrats, could marry someone higher up in the echelon of the nobility. For those without the stomach for murder, there was no option. There may have been unofficial separations as there are today, but the medieval mind was so accustomed to accepting discomfort and sacrifice that most unhappily married people stayed together because they felt it was their lot in life to suffer. Its a sentiment that carried through to our grandparents, and even our parents to some extent, many of whom lived out lives of unhappiness and dissatisfaction, bound for life to someone that contributed to the misery of their life, all under the guise of respecting the sanctity of wedlock. It was only when people started believing that their happiness was more important than a vow to God, that they had choice in life and were free to make choices responsibly, that marriage was a voluntary, mutually agreed upon partnership of respect and love that could dissolve if that love and respect disappearedit was only then that people started seeing marriage as an expression of joy and started enjoying the marriages they had. There is nothing sacred about a loveless marriage. Whats sacred is having the freedom to enjoy the best kind of marriage possible, the kind freely entered into by two people who understand that it could end if they neglect or abuse their partner, or that it could last a lifetime if they both want it to. Whats sacred is knowing that a satisfying, happy marriage is always possible, no matter who you find yourself with at the moment or how many times youve tried to make it work and failed. Whats sacred is saying to yourself, and your children, that happiness in love is a crucial component of a healthy life, that sacrificing that happiness for some fuzzy morality is an insult to the human mind. People who divorce and remarry respect the institution of marriage, and respect themselves. As difficult as divorce may be, as painful and unpleasant as it may be, it is necessary to preserve the essential beauty of marriage. People are much more likely to respect and honor each other, to stay in love, when they know that if they dont earn their partners love and admiration, constantly, their marriage could end. People who are bound, inextricably, to each other for life have no incentive to be good to each other. Children and Divorce But what about the children? Its a cry we hear constantly, in protest against everything from adult sites on the internet to garbage dumps to government cutbacks. Future generations, it seems, are far, far more important than this one. But I digress. I will discuss the issue of children and their relationship to marriage in a later page. Yes, children are often hurt by divorce. Yes, it can be painful for a child to see his parents split up. But I believe it is far more damaging for an adult to have grown up in a household where love has disappeared from his parents marriage, and therefore the only experience he has with it is that its a doomed institution, a miserable partnership, something he never expects will give him joy. One of the biggest mistakes parents make in child rearing is in putting their marriage last. It is imperative that you put your marriage first, not only for yourselves, but also for your children. Show your children what a marriage is, what they can expect and look forward to when they grow up. Show them a couple who are deeply in love and committed to each other, show them a man and woman enjoying being in love, respecting each other, living with each other, loving each other. If they see this, they will want and expect this for themselves. They will know what a good relationship is, and wont get drawn into bad ones. So what happens if you arent that blissful couple? What happens if you dont love each other, if your marriage isnt good? Then is that something you want your children to emulate? Even if your partner is the best parent in the world, it will do your child a great disservice if the two of you fight and hurt each other and then turn around and behave sweetly to your child. It will make your child feel uncomfortable, like they are somehow usurping love from one of their parents. Children plainly understand that their parents are supposed to be in love. Its what assures them that when they grow up theyll be in love as well. If you dont have a loving model to show your children, you are doing them no favors by staying married. Divorce. Separate yourselves from each other, and continue to be good, if separate, parents. Marry again, choosing carefully, so that your children can see that it s alright to want happiness for yourself and to go after it. Show them its alright to leave one marriag e if its bad and start another one thats better. Give them some idea of what to expect for their own happiness in the future. Divorce isnt easy. And naturally a happy marriage is preferable to divorce any day. I dont blame anyone for being afraid of divorce or for not wanting their marriage to end. But if we really want to understand what makes free, unfettered, romantic marriage possible, we have to embrace that which makes it possible, and give it the quiet respect it deserves.

Gods Nature vs. Mans Free Will Essay -- Philosophy Religion Essays

God's Nature vs. Man's Free Will The reconciliation of God's nature and Man's free will has long been a subject of debate for philosophers and theologians. Christianity rests upon certain ideas about the nature of God and the universe. The Bible speaks of God as eternal, all-knowing, and as the very author of reality. The concept of God as a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent entity is rooted in thousands of years of church tradition. This tradition is so ingrained in Western culture, that, when one mentions "God", these ideas almost invariably come to mind. The idea of Man's free will is also a well-established tradition in Christianity. The very need for Christian redemption is based upon the choices made by Adam and Eve at the very beginning of history. There is an idea that Man either chooses to sin against God, or chooses to obey Him. This ability to choose between two options allows good and evil to exist as opposites on the spectrum of morality. This in turn necessitates a need for an atonement process by which Man can be redeemed for the evils that are committed. Without this doctrine, Christianity is unnecessary. Redemption is not required for those who commit no wrong. The above ideas seem relatively straightforward when presented as independent beliefs. A great deal of confusion does arise, however, when the ideas are brought together as a system of beliefs. Some parts of God's nature seem to disallow the possibility of free will. How can God's knowledge of all actions - past, present, and future - allow any human to make a choice of his own volition? By its very nature, omniscience is infallible, therefore it seems that one is not free to choose anything other than that which God knows. Th... ...sions in order to be 'all-good', and He chose to allow us to choose. In conclusion, I suggest that there is a big difference between saying, "God can't do X and be consistent", and, "I don't know how God can do X and be consistent." As common sense suggests, ignorance of a solution does not take away from that solution's existence. Soli Deo gloria. Works Cited Augustine. "Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will." Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology. 259-261. Mackie, John L. "Evil and Omnipotence." Ibid. 186-193. Pike, Nelson. "God's Foreknowledge and Human Free Will Are Incompatible." Ibid. 261-271. Plantinga, Alvin. "God's Foreknowledge and Human Free Will Are Compatible." Ibid. 271-275. Plantinga, Alvin. "The Free Will Defense." Ibid. 194-212. Pojman, Louis P., ed. Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology. New York: Wadsworth, 1998.

Causes And Effects Of Deforestation In Myanmar Environmental Sciences Essay

Harmonizing to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations U.N.FAO, there are about 31,773,000 hour angle hectares or 48.3 of woods in Myanmar. An norm of 372,250 hour angle or 0.95 % of wood have been lost yearly between 1990 and 2010. The organisation states that within the period of 20 old ages ( 1990-2010 ) , around 7,445,000 hour angle or 19.0 % of the entire wood has been cleared in Myanmar. Myanmar is one of the top 10 states that are go oning highest deforestation rate in the universe, and its rank is seven. The Rangoon-based Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Association ( BANCA ) alerts that Myanmar is run intoing a deforestation crisis because of natural catastrophes ( hurricanes, inundations, drouth and fires ) , human activities ( logging, slash-and-burn agribusiness, cutting trees for fuel, mining operations, dike edifice, uncluttering land for farm animal graze and oil extraction ) and overpopulation. If deforestation can non be controlled by authorities, the consequence could be really black. It has negative impacts on environmental debasement and direct biodiversity loss. Exporting lumber and human population are the chief causes of deforestation in Myanmar. The Global Witness Non-Governmental Organization ( NGO ) manipulated that Myanmar shipped at least one million three-dimensional metres of lumber into China in 2002. Between 2010 and 2011, authorities exported 864,000 metric dozenss of lumber and got US $ 600 million from it. Furthermore, harmonizing to the UN FAO study that Burma ‘s rural populations of around 70 % or at least 30 million rely on woods for their basic demands in 2009. Government and people do non aware if they cut a batch of trees for their net incomes ; it will impact on ecosystem and go on a batch of natural catastrophe in Myanmar. The intent of this paper is to demo causes and effects of deforestation in Myanmar. In peculiar, the impact of clime alterations is really serious job in Myanmar due to deforestation. This paper will discourse the programs of authorities to work out these jobs, and it will besides supply some possible suggestions to protect the woods.1.0 CausesThe significance of deforestation is cutting, uncluttering and taking of trees for assorted grounds such as logging, slashing-and-burning agribusiness, uncluttering land for farm animal, constructing dike. Sometimes, natural catastrophes can highly destruct woods. For case, Cyclone Nargis destroyed a batch of trees in Myanmar on 2 and 3 May 2008. Myanmar is developing state, so the authorities and people are highly depend on woods. They cut down a batch of trees for assorted grounds, but the chief point is for short-run economic benefits ( Putatunda, 2011 ) . Deforestation can be caused non merely human activities, but besides natural catastrophes. In Myanmar, authorities exports a batch of natural resources to other states, but they got more money by exporting lumber. Harmonizing to the parliamentary Natural Resources and Environment Conservation Committee, Myanmar exports a batch of teaks by legal or illegal. The London-based Environment Investigation Agency claims that Myanmar exported 1.6 million tones of teak per yearly to neighbouring states such as India, China, Bangladesh, Thailand and Malaysia. hypertext transfer protocol: //www.itto.int/files/user/mis/mis % 20charts % 20homepage/snap20111201.gif The bureau states Myanmar got $ 5.7 billion by exporting 18 million three-dimensional metres of wood log between 2000 and 2010. Harmonizing to statistics, Myanmar has more than 16.32 million hectares of wood, and the country of teak is 24,300 hectares while the country of hardwood is 324,000 hectares. In Myanmar about 1.98 million three-dimensional metres of hardwood and 283,000 three-dimensional metres of teak are used in Myanmar per one-year. As a consequence, cutting a batch of trees for exporting is endangering Myanmar woods. Overpopulation affect on woods because they destroy a batch of trees for their net income. In Myanmar, the population is increased about one million yearly. The population Myanmar is 54,584,650 in 2012.According to UNFAO, 70 per centum of the Myanmar people live in rural country, and they rely on woods for their basic demands and nutriment and income. Similar to Indonesia, people who get less than US $ 1 cut trees to acquire a few income for short-run ( Stolle, 2008 ) . Deforestation can be caused by non merely semisynthetic, but besides natural catastrophes. In Myanmar, forest fire is one of the chief jobs to destruct woods. Union of burma lost up to 10 dozenss of forest fuel because of forest fire. As a consequence, every 30 to 70 dozenss of top wood dirt are destroyed in Myanmar. Myanmar is confronting natural catastrophes such as cyclones, landslides, temblors, tsunami, fire and drouth. They are besides existent menaces to Myanmar ‘s environment.EffectssBurning trees and uncluttering forest highly affect on environment. A batch of nursery gases including C dioxide are emitted from deforestation. Hence, the temperature of planetary is lifting, so climate alterations and dirt eroding go on in Myanmar.2.1 Climate ChangesA batch of natural catastrophes are endangering Myanmar ‘s forest such as cyclones, temblors and inundations ( Moe, 2009 ) . Cyclone Nargis destroyed trees and support of people more than temblor and inundations. Cyclone Nargis was the top deadliest and most acerb tropical cyclones to of all time strike Myanma r ( The New York Time, 2012 ) . The cyclone notably affected a sum of 37 townships. The UN predicts more than 2.4 million people were affected by Cyclone. Harmonizing to official figures, 53,800 were losing, and 84,500 people were killed. It besides destroyed a million estates of rice Paddies, trees and killed three-quarterss of the farm animal with its saltwater rushs.2.2 Soil eroding and dirt birthrate lossIn Myanmar, dirt eroding is one of the most serious jobs, and authorities can non be controlled until now, so the agricultural merchandises of Myanmar are falling. The birthrate of the dirt will cut down if the surface dirt is eroded, and it can turn agricultural land into desert land. To forestall dirt eroding, Myanmar should continue woods and grasslands. If soil eroding can non be preserved, it will take to deluging. Weather and agricultural experts argue that they get 4 inches of rain from the inundation countries, but deluging jobs ne'er go on with this sum of rainfall in t he yesteryear. Not merely alimentary depletion but besides ecological, societal and economic job can be happened because of dirt eroding.SolutionsA batch of natural catastrophes are endangering people in Myanmar. Most catastrophes are caused by deforestation. So, the authorities are seeking to cut down deforestation. They have three programs for that. First of all, they will wholly censor exporting lumber to other states in 2014 ( William Boot, 2012 ) . However, it is hard to halt illegal logging and exporting to China. The ground is China ‘s boundary line is really close with northern portion of Myanmar. Most hapless autochthonal people are trusting on wood for their basic demand. Although the authorities does non let to cut trees, they may make go on, but their strategic is a few positive effects on halting illegal logging and exporting to non merely China but besides other states. The 2nd is re-afforestation. Every June or July, the authorities order to works trees in the w hole state. Furthermore, the authorities has dictated its citizen between the ages of 11 and 60 must works five trees per yearly in China. The authorities references that the consequence of their plan is they have been planted at least one billion trees since 1982. Although the authorities of China ‘s program win, in Myanmar, their programme failed since after seting trees, cipher attention about them. In the people ‘s head, their duty is merely seting trees. The last scheme is coaction with UN organisation. It established The National Commission for Environment Affairs ( NCEA ) which purpose is to back up the environmental protection and cut down the environmental debasement. The authorities expects this coaction can forestall deforestation in Myanmar. The best solution is giving occupation to hapless people. If they have adequate money for their basic demand, they will non destruct the woods. They will non care how many catastrophes happen and the authorities announces the regulations because money is more of import than retaining the environment for them. Furthermore, recycling and recycling points are besides the best solution. For illustration, industries are utilizing a batch of bamboo to bring forth paper. If people and pupils reuse the recycling paper, they may cut down utilizing bamboo. These solutions may worsen deforestation in Myanmar.DecisionIn decision, Myanmar was covered a batch of woods in the past, but today, the coverage of woods decreased significanly in Myanmar. Exporting teaks and overpopulation are the chief causes to be confronting deforestation in Myanmar. Myanmar is hapless state, so authorities budget depend on exporting teaks to other states. About 283,000 three-dimensional metres of teak and 1,98 0,000 three-dimensional metres of hardwood are used for exporting in Myanmar per twelvemonth. Increasing population is besides the chief job. Approxima tely one million people are incresing per yearly. Most of them are hapless, so they rely on woods for their basic demands. The consequence of destructing woods is breathing a batch of nursery gases. As a consequence the temperature is lifting, and it affects on clime and dirt of Myanmar. By altering clime, a batch of natural catastrophes are go oning in Myanmar such as Cyclone Nargis, temblors, inundations and drouth. Cyclone Nargis destroyed a batch of trees and affected more than 2.4 million people, and it was nightmare for people. Myanmar has no many good topographic point for agribusiness due to deforestation. Government tried to work out deforestation, but it did non impact on the job. Reducing unemployments and recycling points may forestall destructing the woods. If the authorities can non command deforestaionthe, a batch of utmost natural catastrophes will happen in Myanmar. If there is no adequate trees, the temperature will be higher and higher, and the decease rate of peo ple will aggressively increase in hot season. Health jobs and economic system jobs will besides go on. It is believe that if there is no trees, animate beings can non last. If there is no animate beings, all people can non besides survive. By keeping the environment, the universe will be beautiful.

How to Prove an Argument Invalid by a Counterexample

An argument is invalid if the conclusion doesnt follow necessarily from the premises.  Whether or not the premises are actually true is irrelevant.  So is whether or not the conclusion is true.  The only question that matters is this: Is it  possible  for the premises to be true and the conclusion false?  If this is possible, then the argument is invalid. Proving Invalidity The counterexample method is a powerful way of exposing what is wrong with an argument that is invalid.  If we want to proceed methodically, there are two steps: 1) Isolate the argument form; 2) Construct  an argument with the same form that is obviously invalid. This is the counterexample. Lets take an example of a bad argument. Some New Yorkers are rude.Some New Yorkers are artists.Therefore Some artists are rude. Step 1: Isolate the Argument Form This simply means replacing the key terms with  letters, making sure that we do this in a consistent way.  If we do this we get: Some N  are RSome N are ATherefore some A are R Step 2: Create the counterexample For instance: Some animals are fish.Some animals are birds.Therefore some fish are birds This is what is called a substitution instance of the argument form laid out in Step 1.  There is an infinite number of these that one could dream up.  Every one of them will be invalid since the argument form is invalid.  But for a counterexample to be effective, the invalidity must shine forth.  That is, the truth of the premises and the falsity of the conclusion must be beyond question. Consider this substitution instance: Some men are politiciansSome men are Olympic championsTherefore some politicians  are Olympic champions. The weakness of this attempted counterexample is that the conclusion isnt obviously false.  It may be false right now, but one can easily imagine an Olympic champion going into politics. Isolating the argument form is like boiling an argument down to its bare bones--its logical form.  When we did this above, we replaced specific terms like New Yorker with letters.  Sometimes, though, the argument is revealed by using letters to replace whole sentences or sentence-like phrases. Consider this argument, for instance: If it rains on election day the Democrats will win.It wont rain on election day.Therefore the Democrats wont win. This is a perfect example of a fallacy known as affirming the antecedent.  Reducing the argument  to its argument form, we get: If R then DNot RTherefore not D Here, the letters dont stand for descriptive words like rude or artist. Instead, they stand for an expression like, the Democrats will win and it will rain on election day.  These expressions can themselves be either true or false.  But the basic method is the same. We show the argument s invalid by coming up with a substitution instance where the premises are obviously true and the conclusion is obviously false.  For instance: If Obama is older than  90, then hes older than 9.Obama is not older than 90.Therefore Obama is not older than 9. The counterexample method is effective at exposing the invalidity of deductive arguments.  It doesnt really work on inductive arguments since, strictly speaking, these are always invalid.