= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
VoiceOfRa comments on Rational approach to finding life partners - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (127)
The grand-parent's complaint was about being screwed by divorce, which is driven by divorce laws.
Being unhappy about divorce laws post- or during divorce is a very different thing from having one's decision to marry being strongly influenced by divorce laws.
In fact, if you are researching divorce laws before your wedding, you probably should call that wedding off -- regardless of whether you'll find these laws reasonable or not.
Don't tell me you're one of those hopeless "love conquers all and isn't subject to rational laws" romantics.
Do I detect a subtle hint of disapproval in that sneering?
I expect much more from a spouse than just being a business partner bound by a long contract.
As to divorce laws, my suggestion would be to marry good people. That makes divorce laws irrelevant.
Ok, taboo "good person". What kind of evidence do you expect to see to be sure that the person you're planning to marry is "good"? With what probability? What if you're wrong?
I mean entirely traditional old-fashioned virtues like honesty, fairness, and kindness.
LOL. I wonder how you cross streets. Are you quite sure no one will run you down? With what probability? What if you're wrong?
There's a rather acute shortage of people with old-fashioned virtues these days.
A lot less then winding up in a divorce.
Thankfully, I don't need many :-)
I do not believe that marrying good people is sufficient to make divorce laws irrelevant, unless you define "good" so strongly that it's basically impossible to be justifiably confident that one is marrying a good person.
I'm talking on a personal level, not social. In the same way I would suggest that you not rob anyone and if you follow that suggestion, laws about robbery will be irrelevant to you (insert the usual disclaimers).
Yes, I understood that you meant individuals rather than society as a whole. And I am suggesting that a policy of only marrying good people is not sufficient to keep a person from having to care about divorce laws. Unless e.g. you define "good" in such a way as to imply "would never get divorced" or "would, if getting divorced, never have interests that sharply diverge from their ex-spouse's" or something, which I would think highly unreasonable and which would make it even more impossible to be sure of not marrying someone not-good.
... Oh, wait. Is what you're really suggesting a policy of never marrying at all? Because that (1) is probably the only way to be sure of not marrying anyone who isn't "good" and (2) would indeed make it very unlikely that one would need to care about divorce laws.
In such a way as to imply that two civilized people -- even with different interests -- can negotiate and come to an agreement without engaging in lawyer warfare and without getting the justice system involved (other than putting an official stamp on the agreement).
Besides, what both you and VoiceOfRa (heh) care about is probably not so much divorce laws, but rather prevalent practices in the Family Courts which typically have very wide latitude in deciding on the post-(antagonistic)divorce arrangements.
If A and B get married -- even if they are both good people and know one another to be good people -- then there is a non-negligible chance that at some point their marriage will break down. In that case -- even if they are both good people -- there is a non-negligible chance that it will do so acrimoniously and some variety of hostilities will ensue. There is a further non-negligible chance that their marriage will end on reasonably friendly terms but then, in the course of tidying up the legal loose ends, one of them will engage a lawyer who notices that they could do "better" and who strongly encourages them to do so. There is a further non-negligible chance (I think) that when they divorce there will be children involved and it will be necessary to involve the legal system.
In any of those cases, what happens will be influenced by the divorce laws. Or, at the very least, I don't see how A and B can know that it won't without being familiar with the divorce laws.
Furthermore, A may be sure when A and B get married that B is a good person, but s/he may turn out not to be so good after all. Or one or both may become less good over time, which is a thing that sometimes happens to people who are unhappily married and even to people who aren't.
Now, for the sake of good relations at the start of A and B's marriage, it may be best if A doesn't think B is looking up divorce laws just in case and vice versa. The best way to avoid that may be for A and B genuinely not to look up divorce laws before they are married. And the best way to avoid that may be for A and B genuinely not to care about divorce laws, even though aside from the effect on each of thinking that the other anticipates possible divorce they'd be better off knowing. But that isn't the same as saying that if you take care to marry a good person then you will never be affected by divorce laws.
Isn't what you're saying completely contradictory to basic decision theory? A possibility of a personal catastrophe in the future should not be ignored. Marriage introduces that possibility and non-marriage doesn't have it.
You are privileging a particular viewpoint. Both paths have risks, costs and benefits.
Note that researching divorce laws before the wedding has a strong self-fulfilling prophecy flavour.
Explain this.
You are assuming that being not married is the default state of being and any deviations from it must be justified.
What? How?
You are assuming that marriage just adds risks ("possibility of a personal catastrophe") without eliminating other risks.
I think the risk is indeed not worth it. And as far as practical things go, marriage is just a simple contract; I'd guess that you can live happily without it, too
Define practical things.
Sure, but is that anything more than your personal opinion?
That is very clearly false.