Posts
Every relationship comes with a moral obligation. The trend has been that if that moral obligation is not being met, the obligor is made to pay in lieu of the obligation. So, instead of taking care of the elderly parents, citizens started contributing to the common pool called Social Security. If a husband was not caring for his family, either due to adultery, desertion or both, he was made to pay alimony and child support. If a losing employer isn't able to take care of its employees, they normally offer a severance. So far, the trend of monetarily compensating for a broken relationship makes sense. But the latest turn that the trend took, i think is certainly a cause for concern.
Now, not only is the obligor made to pay when s/he is at fault, but also when there is "no fault" on his or her part - essentially paving way for monetizing the most sacred spousal relationship that is so crucial for civilization to prosper. So, a conniving obligee spouse can essentially trick someone into marriage, spend a few years getting whatever he or she can from the marriage and when the balance just starts to tilt towards the benefits from a separation than staying in a marriage, invoke the privilege of a legal separation. Cleverer are those who would want the money, freedom, and other benefits from a legal separation (or from a "settlement" from criminal case in India) and still would want to enjoy the benefits of a marriage to an unsuspecting, loving, and caring spouse. Sounds unbelievable, but yes, there are such ambitious entrepreneurs of marriage.
The trend has now come to the extent of monetizing spousal, employee and child / parent relationships. But there are many other relationships, which also come with an obligation, though not as significant as spousal or child-parent obligations. For instance, in Indian culture, a brother is bound to entertain and provide some comforts to his sister's family. When i was young, my paternal aunt's entire family used to stay in our home for months at a time. In spite of the problems with them, we all loved it, assuming that it was my father's duty to support them. The time seems to have come now, when the obligations started to contend with each other. "If your sister's family stays even a day more, i'm out of here!" or "You want to lose me for your mother who will die in a few days?" don't sound unfamiliar any more. If the sisters' leagues were as strong as spousal leagues, we probably may have had laws for "sister support" by now. But alas, the issue hasn't been as significant (yet).
What's next? We already heard of the news when subscribers dumped friends on facebook for a whopper. The trend is really catching up. Soon one day, we may have systems and laws monetizing every relationship and possibly the obligations that the relationships entail, relieving, for instance, a neighbor of the obligation to give a ride to the doctor, a relative of the obligation of taking care of someone unwell, and so on. With a law being framed for every little forceful outburst from a section of society, laws may soon replace love on earth, as if money is what will remain forever.
I sincerely hope that the world will start realizing that law is not a silver bullet. Love is. Just that making a law is far more easier than fostering love at such a large scale. But the latter is not impossible either. In my younger days in India, a common man hardly encountered law. Even today, laws do not seem to be having as much impact in India as they should, because people still go by their heart when doing things, until of course, they discover the law on their side.
Now, not only is the obligor made to pay when s/he is at fault, but also when there is "no fault" on his or her part - essentially paving way for monetizing the most sacred spousal relationship that is so crucial for civilization to prosper. So, a conniving obligee spouse can essentially trick someone into marriage, spend a few years getting whatever he or she can from the marriage and when the balance just starts to tilt towards the benefits from a separation than staying in a marriage, invoke the privilege of a legal separation. Cleverer are those who would want the money, freedom, and other benefits from a legal separation (or from a "settlement" from criminal case in India) and still would want to enjoy the benefits of a marriage to an unsuspecting, loving, and caring spouse. Sounds unbelievable, but yes, there are such ambitious entrepreneurs of marriage.
The trend has now come to the extent of monetizing spousal, employee and child / parent relationships. But there are many other relationships, which also come with an obligation, though not as significant as spousal or child-parent obligations. For instance, in Indian culture, a brother is bound to entertain and provide some comforts to his sister's family. When i was young, my paternal aunt's entire family used to stay in our home for months at a time. In spite of the problems with them, we all loved it, assuming that it was my father's duty to support them. The time seems to have come now, when the obligations started to contend with each other. "If your sister's family stays even a day more, i'm out of here!" or "You want to lose me for your mother who will die in a few days?" don't sound unfamiliar any more. If the sisters' leagues were as strong as spousal leagues, we probably may have had laws for "sister support" by now. But alas, the issue hasn't been as significant (yet).
What's next? We already heard of the news when subscribers dumped friends on facebook for a whopper. The trend is really catching up. Soon one day, we may have systems and laws monetizing every relationship and possibly the obligations that the relationships entail, relieving, for instance, a neighbor of the obligation to give a ride to the doctor, a relative of the obligation of taking care of someone unwell, and so on. With a law being framed for every little forceful outburst from a section of society, laws may soon replace love on earth, as if money is what will remain forever.
I sincerely hope that the world will start realizing that law is not a silver bullet. Love is. Just that making a law is far more easier than fostering love at such a large scale. But the latter is not impossible either. In my younger days in India, a common man hardly encountered law. Even today, laws do not seem to be having as much impact in India as they should, because people still go by their heart when doing things, until of course, they discover the law on their side.
