What is Russell's reason for saying that adultery itself should not be a divorce?

In most times, in most countries, divorce is allowed for some reasons. People have never regarded divorce as a substitute for monogamous families. It is only because of special reasons that people can't stand the continuation of marriage that they will use divorce to alleviate their pain. At different times and places, the laws on divorce are very different. Now, within the United States, States are also different, and the differences can range from extremely forbidden divorce in South Carolina to extremely lenient divorce in Nevada. In many places with non-Christian civilization, it is easy for husbands to divorce; In some places, wives are also prone to divorce. Moses' law allows husbands to file for divorce; According to the law of China, as long as the property brought by the wife when she got married is returned, she can get a divorce; Because marriage is sacred, Catholicism does not allow divorce for any reason, but in fact, because there are many reasons why marriage is invalid, the severity is slightly reduced, especially for big people. In Christian countries, the leniency of divorce is directly proportional to the degree of people's belief in Protestantism. Everyone knows that Milton once wrote an article in favor of divorce, because he is an extreme Protestant. When the church in Britain claims to be a Protestant, it can divorce if it agrees, but not for other reasons. Nowadays, most priests in the Church of England are opposed to all divorces. Scandinavia has laws that are easy to divorce, as do most Protestant areas in the United States. Divorce is easier in Scotland than in America. In France, divorce is easy because of the anti-Christian movement. In Soviet Russia, as long as one party requests, it can be divorced; However, because adultery or illegitimate children in Russia are neither condemned by society nor punished by law, marriage has lost its pain in other places, which is also material. By seeking something related to pleasure and avoiding something related to pain, behavioral habits are born. Children's crying is sometimes a painful reaction, but sometimes it is a performance for pleasure. Of course, it was the former at first. But as long as possible, the real pain suffered by children will be alleviated, so the crying of children is bound to be linked with happy results. Soon children will cry, because they want to be happy, not to feel pain. This is one of the first victories of children's intelligence. But no matter how hard he tried, he couldn't cry as if it really hurt. A careful mother knows the difference. If she is wise, she should ignore this crying, which is not a manifestation of physical pain. It is simple and fun to coax children by shaking or singing with their arms, but children learn to ask for more and more entertainment at an alarming rate, and soon this way interferes with the necessary sleep-children have to sleep all day except eating. This canon seems harsh, but experiments show that it is beneficial to children's health and happiness.

The entertainment given by adults should be kept within a certain limit, while the self-entertainment activities of infants should be encouraged as much as possible. From the beginning, babies should have the opportunity to kick and exercise their muscles. It is incredible how our ancestors used drowning to bind babies for a long time. It shows that even the love of parents can't overcome laziness, because babies with free limbs need more attention. Once a baby can concentrate on his vision, he will be very happy when he sees moving objects, especially when he sees things swaying in the wind. However, before the baby learns to grasp what he sees, his recreational activities will increase. Since then, happy things have increased dramatically. For a period of time, mastering practice can ensure that the waking time is full of joy. The fun of rattle-like noise also happens at this time. Conquer toes and fingers earlier. First, the movement of toes is purely reflective, and then the baby finds that toes can voluntary movement. This makes the baby feel all the happiness of imperialist conquest of colonies: toes are no longer foreign countries, but become a part of themselves. From now on, as long as there is something suitable for the baby to play with, he can find many ways of entertainment. Most babies' entertainment is exactly what they need for education. I believe that if divorce is easier, adultery will be easier to reduce. Therefore, since the marriage in Protestant countries is easy to dissolve, people have extreme aversion to doing good deeds; In countries that do not recognize divorce, even divorce is still regarded as a sin, at least as far as male adultery is concerned, everyone turns a blind eye and turns a deaf ear. In the Russian Empire, divorce was very difficult in Russia. No matter what people think of Gorky's political views, they have never looked down on his private life. In the United States, on the contrary, although people do not object to his political views, he is deeply criticized for his moral problems. When he was in America, no hotel would allow him to spend the night.

Protestants and Catholics have no rational basis for their views on divorce. Let's discuss the Catholic point of view first. If the husband or wife is insane after marriage, a madman is not suitable for having children. If they already have children, children should not live with lunatics. Therefore, even though people with mental disorders may be awake for a long time or a short time, it is best for parents to be completely separated for the benefit of their children. In this case, it is really unnecessary and cruel to prohibit the sane party from having any legally recognized sexual relations, and it is not good for the public. A rational spouse must make painful choices. He or she may be determined to approve of abstinence, which is expected by law or public morality; Maybe I had a secret relationship with others without children in private; Perhaps it is the so-called public crime of having children or not having children. All these methods have reasons for serious opposition. It is very painful to completely control sexual desire, especially for a married person who is used to sexual intercourse. Abstinence tends to make men and women lose their nerve before they get old, and when trying to contain it, it is easy to make his character eccentric and jealous. There is another serious danger for men. His self-control will suddenly disappear, which will make him do all kinds of animal behaviors, because if he really believes that all extramarital sexual intercourse is evil and he still wants to do such a thing, he will easily feel that stealing lambs will be hanged just like stealing sheep, so he might as well put aside all moral constraints and do whatever he wants and be happier.

In this case, the second method, that is, the secret relationship of not having children, is actually the most common, and this method also has serious opposing reasons. Everything you do in secret is not good. If you don't have children and live a normal life, sincere sexual relations can't develop their best possibilities. Besides, if a man or a woman is young and strong, it is not conducive to society to say "you are not allowed to have another child". If, like the current law, it is actually equivalent to saying to them, "Unless you choose a madman as their father or mother, you are not allowed to have another child", which is particularly unfavorable to the public interest.

The third option is to live an "open evil" life. If it can be implemented, it will do the least harm to society and individuals, but economically, it is impossible in most cases. If doctors or lawyers want to live an open and sinful life, they will lose all their clients. A person who is engaged in any educational career will lose his position immediately. Even if the economic situation does not prevent people from committing crimes openly, most people will shrink back because of social punishment. Men like to join social groups, while women like other women to respect and visit them. If they are deprived of these pleasures, they obviously think it is a great distress. Therefore, except for the rich, artists, writers and other people who are easy to lead a dissolute life, public evil is difficult to implement.

Therefore, in countries that refuse to use insanity as a reason for divorce (like the current situation in Britain), men or women whose wives or husbands become insane are in an unbearable situation. There is no explanation for this situation except theological superstition. Mental disorders are like this, as are sexually transmitted diseases, habitual crimes and habitual alcoholism. All these, from all angles, make marriage impossible. They make the friendship between partners impossible, the children born unhappy, and the reunion of children with guilty parents inevitable. In this case, the only reason against divorce is that marriage is a trap. Since a careless person has been caught and cheated, he has to suffer a little to achieve abstinence.

The real abandonment of nature should be regarded as the reason for divorce, because the marriage has actually ended, and the law only recognizes this fact. But from a legal point of view, this is difficult. If abandonment becomes a reason for divorce, people will try to use it, so abandonment will appear more than when it is not used as a reason for divorce. In addition, there are many reasons for divorce, which are completely sufficient in law, and the same difficulties will occur. Many married couples are so eager for divorce that they will take any method that is legally beneficial to them. Suppose a man commits adultery and maltreats his wife, and the law allows him to divorce-this used to be the case in Britain, so people often discuss with his wife in advance and beat his wife in front of servants, and then they can produce evidence of abuse when they go to court in the future. Whether two couples who desperately want to divorce have to put up with each other's partnership because of the pressure of law is another question. But to be fair. You know, no matter what reasons are legally allowed for divorce, people will try their best to make use of them, and many people will even act on those reasons deliberately in order to achieve their goals. Now, regardless of the legal difficulties, let's continue to study those situations that are actually not conducive to maintaining marriage.

In my opinion, adultery itself should not be a reason for divorce. Unless people are bound by bans and strong moral scruples, it seems difficult for them not to have a strong adultery impulse occasionally all their lives. But this impulse does not necessarily mean that their marriage is useless. There may still be strong feelings between husband and wife, but I hope their marriage will last forever. For example, suppose a man has to leave his family for several months because of something. If he is strong, no matter how much he loves his wife these months, it is difficult for him to control his sexual desire all the time. If his wife doesn't fully believe in the morality of customs, it will be the same when she is in the same situation. Infidelity in this case should not constitute any obstacle to later happiness; In fact, any husband and wife can not mind that there is no need to make a fuss, so their future happiness has not been damaged. We can further say that as long as the fundamental feelings between husband and wife are not shaken, either party should be able to tolerate those temporary thoughts that are easy to happen. Habitual morality holds that in monogamous countries, people have been attracted to one person, and it is impossible to have sincere feelings with another person at the same time-this concept makes people unable to understand the truth of adultery. Everyone knows that this view is false, but because of jealousy, they always like to rely on this incorrect theory, making much ado about nothing and making a big fuss about small things. Therefore, adultery is not a reason for divorce unless the husband or wife deliberately loves others.

Naturally, when I say this, I assume adultery and no children. As soon as you have an illegitimate child, the problem is much more complicated. If the children are born to a wife and someone else, the problem is particularly complicated, because if their marriage continues, the husband must raise other people's children with his own children, and if he wants to avoid scandals, he must raise them like his own. This violates the biological basis of marriage and has almost unbearable instinctive tension. Therefore, in the period before the invention of contraception, adultery may be as worthy of attention as before. But since the birth control method, it is easier to distinguish between having sex simply for sexual intercourse and getting married and having children than before. According to this truth, now we don't have to pay attention to adultery like customary ethics.

There are two reasons for divorce. One is because of the defects of the husband or wife on the one hand, such as insanity, alcoholism and illegal crime; Another is based on the relationship between husband and wife. The couple who may get married are not at fault, but they can't live in harmony, or they have to make some major sacrifices to live together. Maybe both sides have their own important jobs, and they have to live in different places because of their jobs. Maybe one of them doesn't hate each other, but he fell in love with another person so deeply that he felt that his previous marriage was an unbearable combination. In this case, if there is no legal relief, it is easy for couples to have hatred. In fact, as we all know, this situation is prone to murder. If the marriage goes bankrupt because of disagreement, or because one party can't help falling in love with someone else, it can't be blamed as it is now. Therefore, when this happens, the reason for divorce is mutual consent. Only when the marriage fails because of one defect, can you divorce on other grounds.

It is really very difficult to make laws about divorce, because no matter what the law is, judges and jurors are always dominated by their own emotions, and couples can always try to do anything that can deceive the original intention of legislators. According to British law, divorce is not allowed with the consent of husband and wife, but as we all know, divorce in Britain is mostly with the consent of husband and wife. In New York State, the situation goes further. People often bribe others to make false statements under false vows to prove the legal crime of adultery. Abuse is a sufficient reason for divorce in theory, but people can interpret it as absurd. Once, one of the most famous movie stars was asked by his wife to divorce him on the grounds of abuse. One of the evidences of abuse is that he often invites friends to talk about Kant at home. Husbands sometimes hold academic talks in front of their wives, which is even a reason for divorce. I really don't believe this is the intention of California legislators. In order to avoid such confusion, sophistry and absurd jokes, anyone who wants to divorce unilaterally can't find a clear and verifiable reason, such as insanity, and is only allowed to divorce with the consent of both parties. In this way, all financial negotiations between divorced couples will be handled outside the court; Neither side needs to hire smart people to prove how wrong the other is. At present, the law stipulates that marriages that cannot have sex are invalid. I think we should go further. Once divorce is requested, all child marriages should be allowed. In other words, if the couple have no children, if they want to break up, they just need to hand over the doctor's certificate to prove that the woman is pregnant, and they can divorce. The purpose of marriage lies in children, forcing people to stay together in childless marriage, which is a cruel deception.

The legal issue of divorce ends here; As for customs, that's another question. As mentioned above, although laws can make divorce easy, customs often make divorce difficult to achieve. I think the reason why Americans divorce so frequently is partly because people want marriage, not what they should want, and partly because they can't tolerate adultery. Marriage should be a two-sided partnership. Both sides intend to continue, at least until their children grow up. Neither side can regard it as a temporary passion-led thing. If this temporary ambiguous relationship is not tolerated by public opinion or the conscience of the parties, then every ambiguous relationship will blossom and become a marriage. The influence of this incident may easily destroy the two-parent family completely, because if a woman changes her husband every two years and every time she changes her husband, she will give birth to a new child, and the child will actually be deprived of her father, and the marriage will lose its reason for existence. We recall Sao Paulo again. As Galindo's first book of Apostles said, American marriage is regarded as a way to replace good communication. Therefore, when a man behaves well because he can't divorce, he must divorce.

If you think that marriage has something to do with children, you should apply a completely different ethics. If couples have a little love for their children, they will pay attention to their own behavior and ensure that their children get the best opportunity to develop happily and healthily. This often requires considerable self-control, and both sides should know that children's demands are far more than their own romantic feelings. However, if parents' love for their children is sincere and hypocritical ethics does not arouse their jealousy, then all the above things about children's happiness happen by themselves and are totally unnatural. Some people say that if couples stop loving each other passionately and don't stop each other from having sex outside marriage, they can't fully cooperate to educate their children. Therefore, Mr. walter lippmann said: "Spouses who are not lovers will not really cooperate with each other in raising children as Mr. Russell thinks;" Their hearts will be scattered and insufficient. Worst of all, they have only one responsibility relationship with their children. "The first thing to point out is that there is a small or unintentional mistake in this sentence. Couples who can't fall in love naturally can't cooperate to have children; However, Mr. Lipman seems to imply that if they have a child, they will dispose of that little life-this is impossible. As for raising children, even after the love between husband and wife disappears, anyone with natural feelings can do it, which is not a superhuman thing. On this point, I can prove it with many examples that I personally know. If this kind of parents have a "dutiful heart" for their children, they really didn't think of their feelings for their children-if they are real and strong, even if the physical lust between husband and wife has faded, their relationship can still remain unbreakable. People must wonder, hasn't lippman heard of the situation in France? In France, although communication is free, French families are still very stable and parents are responsible for their children. In the United States, family feelings are very weak, and frequent divorce is the result of this fact. In places with strong family feelings, even though divorce is easy in law, divorce is rare in fact. Divorce is so easy in the United States, we must regard it as a transitional phenomenon from a two-parent family to a pure mother family. In this transitional period, children will inevitably suffer a lot, because in today's world, children want to have parents; Perhaps before the parents divorced, the child had developed deep feelings with his father. If the two-parent family is still recognized as a universal law, then in my opinion, apart from major reasons, divorced parents have not fulfilled their responsibilities as parents. I don't think the law can remedy the fact by forcing people to continue their marriage. I think, first of all, both parties should have considerable freedom, which can make the marriage more lasting. Second, we should realize the importance of children; In the past, influenced by Sao Paulo and the Romantic Movement, we put too much emphasis on sex and completely ignored it.

Our conclusion seems to be that when divorce is too difficult in many countries-Britain is one of them-divorce is easy and can't really solve the marriage problem. If we want the marriage system to continue, the stability of marriage is very important for the happiness of children. But the best way to achieve this stability is to distinguish the difference between marriage and pure sexual relationship, and emphasize the biological love of marriage, not the romantic love of marriage. I don't pretend that marriage can get rid of heavy responsibilities. In the system I recommend, it is true that a man can not bear the obligation of loyalty between husband and wife, but in exchange, he should also bear the obligation of restraining jealousy. Humans can't live a good life without self-control, but it is better to restrain narrow hatred such as jealousy than to restrain generous development emotions such as love. The morality of custom is wrong, not because it should not require self-control, but because it requires self-control in inappropriate places.

Bertrand Russell (1872- 1970), a famous British philosopher, mathematician, writer and social activist, has taught in world-renowned universities such as Cambridge University, Harvard University, University of Chicago and University of California. He is the most famous and widely read thinker in western society in the 20th century, and is called "the wise man of the century". Einstein once said, "Reading Russell's works is one of the happiest times in my life." In 1960s, Russell gave his masterpiece "History of Western Philosophy" to Mao Zedong, a great man in China, on which the wisdom of the west was based.