4 ms·

Arguably one of the benefits of marriage lies expressly in the expense of divorce. It's a way of precommitting people to working through the rough patches in a

Arguably one of the benefits of marriage lies expressly in the expense of divorce. It's a way of precommitting people to working through the rough patches in a marriage instead of splitting at the first sign of trouble. If you look at it strictly from a game theoretic viewpoint, there's definitely value in having a contracted cost of separation. The tough part is in making sure this cost isn't too high (as it used to be) nor too low (that people run immediately).

jelliclesfarm 10y ago
The social benefit of staying together instead of splitting up at the first sign of trouble is to raise progeny together as a bonded pair. Birds do this better than human beings and that's why they are usually bond for life. It is expensive to raise offsprings and it is not worth expending energy to gather resources to raising offsprings that aren't your own. So..from a game theory point of view..it is not about divorces or alimony but the ability or inclination(or lack thereof) to be monogamous. Earliest mention of alimony occurs in the code of Hammurabi..wherein a man shall return the dowry of the woman along with a portion of his property ..but only when the woman has borne his offsprings. And until the children have been reared and the property/monies split evenly amongst mother and children, she cannot seek another suitor or marital partner or have other children. Alimony comes from necessity ..it is necessary in a society that is rife with inequalities. If men and women were equal in a marriage, there would be no need for alimony. In the olden days, a woman entered a marriage with a dowry. In gold or currency or property. The dowry was meant to be her financial nest egg and the man has no rights over it. Entire dynasties and kingdoms were based on marriages and dowries. And then it was the time of churches to decree what is moral and what wasn't. Divorces were all initially only due to infidelity and often by the man. Alimony became a safeguard so a man wouldn't profit from his philandering ways. If the fault lies with the woman, the woman forfeits the right to collect alimony. With no fault divorces in our modern times, alimony became part of the divorce settlement. If we don't have divorces, there won't be alimonies..if we don't have a marriages, there won't be divorces. Therefore, the only way eliminate gender inequalities is to eliminate the institution of marriage. Times have changed. What if..as a thought experiment, we revamp all manners of social contracts. We will have to reconsider the basic human right to procreate to perpetuate the species. It should become a responsibility and a privilege to be earned..not a birthright to be exercised by all. And also eliminate the institution of marriage. Thoughts?
- morgante 10y ago
  I didn't mention alimony at all in my comment and would rather not delve into it, so I'm not sure why you fixated on it. Divorce can be costly even without any sort of alimony (personally, I think it is mostly an outdated concept). That being said, while I agree that historically marriage was all about children I do think there are social benefits to bonded pairs which extend beyond raising children. For example, single people are more likely to commit crimes.
  - jelliclesfarm 10y ago
    Sorry...so what is 'expense of divorce' that you mentioned in your original comment? How else is it 'costly'?
    - morgante 10y ago
      The legal fees alone can be a lot, as can splitting assets even if there is no ongoing alimony.
      - jelliclesfarm 10y ago
        I see. Well..the reason I spoke of alimony was because we were speaking of alimony in the thread before your comment contribution to it. Cheers!
antisthenes 10y ago
> If you look at it strictly from a game theoretic viewpoint, there's definitely value in having a contracted cost of separation. ...explicitly for the woman.

jelliclesfarm 10y ago

The social benefit of staying together instead of splitting up at the first sign of trouble is to raise progeny together as a bonded pair. Birds do this better than human beings and that's why they are usually bond for life. It is expensive to raise offsprings and it is not worth expending energy to gather resources to raising offsprings that aren't your own. So..from a game theory point of view..it is not about divorces or alimony but the ability or inclination(or lack thereof) to be monogamous. Earliest mention of alimony occurs in the code of Hammurabi..wherein a man shall return the dowry of the woman along with a portion of his property ..but only when the woman has borne his offsprings. And until the children have been reared and the property/monies split evenly amongst mother and children, she cannot seek another suitor or marital partner or have other children. Alimony comes from necessity ..it is necessary in a society that is rife with inequalities. If men and women were equal in a marriage, there would be no need for alimony. In the olden days, a woman entered a marriage with a dowry. In gold or currency or property. The dowry was meant to be her financial nest egg and the man has no rights over it. Entire dynasties and kingdoms were based on marriages and dowries. And then it was the time of churches to decree what is moral and what wasn't. Divorces were all initially only due to infidelity and often by the man. Alimony became a safeguard so a man wouldn't profit from his philandering ways. If the fault lies with the woman, the woman forfeits the right to collect alimony. With no fault divorces in our modern times, alimony became part of the divorce settlement. If we don't have divorces, there won't be alimonies..if we don't have a marriages, there won't be divorces. Therefore, the only way eliminate gender inequalities is to eliminate the institution of marriage. Times have changed. What if..as a thought experiment, we revamp all manners of social contracts. We will have to reconsider the basic human right to procreate to perpetuate the species. It should become a responsibility and a privilege to be earned..not a birthright to be exercised by all. And also eliminate the institution of marriage. Thoughts?

morgante 10y ago
I didn't mention alimony at all in my comment and would rather not delve into it, so I'm not sure why you fixated on it. Divorce can be costly even without any sort of alimony (personally, I think it is mostly an outdated concept). That being said, while I agree that historically marriage was all about children I do think there are social benefits to bonded pairs which extend beyond raising children. For example, single people are more likely to commit crimes.
- jelliclesfarm 10y ago
  Sorry...so what is 'expense of divorce' that you mentioned in your original comment? How else is it 'costly'?
  - morgante 10y ago
    The legal fees alone can be a lot, as can splitting assets even if there is no ongoing alimony.
    - jelliclesfarm 10y ago
      I see. Well..the reason I spoke of alimony was because we were speaking of alimony in the thread before your comment contribution to it. Cheers!

antisthenes 10y ago

> If you look at it strictly from a game theoretic viewpoint, there's definitely value in having a contracted cost of separation. ...explicitly for the woman.