From: Jeff Bone (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Sep 14 2000 - 08:33:08 PDT
Here's a thought experiement.
Assume: (a) You believe that the progression love -> marriage -> kids is "morally
superior" to the progression love -> cohabitation -> backpacking. (b) You're deeply in
love with a wonderful woman. (c) Let's stipulate that, following Tom Whore and others'
earlier comments, that "true love" is unconditional, which I take to mean inherently
tolerant, which in my book presupposes "nonjudgemental." (d) True love results in
wanting nothing but happiness for your loved one. (e) Your lover wants love ->
cohabitation -> backpacking, and believes that love -> marriage -> kids would lead to
What do you do? Try and persuade "her" that the kids option is correct? Well, that
could lead to unhappiness, so maybe you don't really love her. Or do you decide that
since you don't share goals, you shouldn't be together? Again, I'd say that means you
don't really love that person. In either case, you're putting your own selfish goals
(not a bad thing, necessarily, remember, just inconsistent with the definition of "love"
above) ahead of what she wants. Or, perhaps you accept her goals, but maintain in your
own mind a belief that she is somehow "morally inferior" because she doesn't want to
take your "high road" to life.
Where's the inconsistency? Is it in believing that "true love" is selfless? Or is it
in believing that such a thing as "unconditional" love is possible? Is it in the notion
of "morals" as being different somehow from consent? Or something else entirely?
I don't know the answer. It's a fascinating question, though.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 14 2000 - 08:51:37 PDT