In my last two postings I have argued the love of inanimate objects may not be same as the love of persons and that loving someone might simply be a disposition to feel empathy for beloved. However I will now present two examples which appear contradict my previous view. My first example is of a mother’s love of her baby and my second is self-love. I will firstly consider a mother’s love and attempt to show this love is incompatible with love being regarded as a disposition to feel empathy and I will then repeat the exercise with self-love.
Empathy is defined by the Cambridge Online Dictionary as
follows; empathy is the ability to share someone else's feelings or
experiences by imagining what it would be like to be in their situation. Let it
be assumed that loving someone simply means having a disposition to feel
empathy for her. It follows if a mother loves her baby she is able to share her
baby’s feelings or experiences. I accept a mother may share her child’s
feelings or experiences but it seems inconceivable to me that a mother could
share her baby’s feelings or experiences. A baby’s experiences just aren’t
available to others. Moreover it would seem to be impossible for a mother to
share her baby’s feelings by imagining what it would be like to be a baby. She
might of course be able to imagine what it would be like for her to
be a baby but this is by no means the same thing as imagining what it is like
to be a baby. It follows if we accept the premise that love is simply a
disposition to feel empathy it follows that mothers are unable to love their
babies. Mothers clearly do love their babies. It follows the above conclusion
is false and we must reject the premise it is based on.
Are there any counter arguments which would enable us to
accept the above premise and also accept that mothers love their babies? If
empathy is defined as above it seems to me the answer is clearly no. However
let us consider a real case in order to clarify our concept of empathy. In 2007
the Washington Post reported that a colonel in the US army called off a test
using a land mine sweeping robot because it continued sweeping after losing
several of its legs. The colonel declared the test was inhumane. What might be
the reasons behind the colonel’s decision? His decision was clearly not based
on pure rationality. It follows the colonel’s decision was at least in part
emotionally based. People have a tendency to anthropomorphise in such
situations. It seems likely this was happening in this case, the colonel was
treating the robot as if it was something like a human being. It further seems to
me the colonel was doing so because he attributed feelings or emotions to the
robot. The colonel felt sympathy for the robot. I believe feeling sympathy is
connected to some degree with feeling empathy. Sympathy is defined by the
Cambridge Online Dictionary as; an expression of understanding and care for
someone else's suffering. It seems to me one cannot possibly understand someone
else’s suffering unless one has some ability to share that person’s
feelings or experiences. Admittedly this sharing does not need to be very
precise. For instance a child may share a sense of unease with his mother who
has lost her partner. The mother feels uneasy but it would be more accurate to
say she feels grief. I believe for sympathy to take place between persons there
must be some basic sharing of feelings, or at the very least moods, between the
persons involved. I believe understanding how someone feels must involve
emotion. I cannot use pure logic to understand someone’s grief. Moreover the
emotion involved must be an appropriate emotion. It makes no sense to say I
understand someone’s grief if the only emotion I feel is happiness. Accepting
the above means sympathy of necessity involves some basic form of empathy.
Accepting the above also means the colonel felt some basic or primitive form of
empathy for the robot. Clearly this scenario is nonsensical. However it might
be suggested this difficultly might be overcome if a primitive form of empathy
was defined as the ability to experience what you believe to
be someone or something else's feelings or experiences by imagining what it
would be like to be in their situation. It might then be argued that whilst a
mother cannot feel full blown empathy for her baby she may nonetheless feel
some primitive form of empathy based on what she believes her baby feels. And
her disposition to feel this primitive empathy can form a basis of her love for
her baby.
The question I now wish to address is whether the primitive
form of empathy defined above really is a form of empathy? Does this primitive
form of empathy even exist? It seems clear to me the concept of empathy can be
stretched and that the feeling of empathy is to some extent a matter of degree.
For instance I may have the ability to share some of someone else's feelings or
experiences but not others. This is probably particularly true of the sharing
of some feelings and experiences between men and women. However is describing,
the ability to experience what you believe to be someone or something else's
feelings or experiences as empathy, stretching the concept of empathy too far?
Let it be accepted that the feeling of empathy depends on our ability to experience
emotions as well as place ourselves in someone else’s situation. The connection
between the emotion and the situation cannot be purely arbitrary. I believe
empathy should not be regarded as the feeling of any emotion but the feeling of
an appropriate emotion. The feeling of a shared emotion
is an appropriate emotion. It follows the feeling of a believed shared emotion
is not an appropriate emotion and for this reason, the ability to share what
you believe to be someone or something else's feelings or experiences, is not a
genuine form of empathy. Let us accept that mothers do love their babies. Let
us also accept that mothers cannot feel or have a disposition to feel empathy for
their babies. It follows that loving someone cannot simply be a disposition to
feel empathy for the beloved.
It might be pointed out in response to the above that
loving friends, partners and children differs from loving babies. It might then
be suggested that loving someone other than babies means loving persons. Young
babies might be regarded as human beings and potential persons rather than
actual persons. It might then be further suggested that loving a person simply
means having a disposition to feel empathy for her. Accepting these suggestions
would not mean we don’t love babies, for clearly we do, but rather that we love
babies in a different way to the way we love persons. I would be reluctant to
accept to this suggestion. For they imply either we love babies in the same way
as we love cities, landscapes or a particular piece of music. Or that we love
babies in a completely different way to the way we love both inanimate things
and the way we love persons.
My second example of why it is hard to accept that loving,
someone is simply a disposition to feel empathy, is connected to self-love. Let
it be accepted that I cannot feel empathy for myself. It follows if loving
someone simply means having a disposition to feel empathy for that person that self-love
is impossible. Intuitively we can love ourselves. If our intuitions are correct
we must reject the premise that loving someone simply means having a
disposition to feel empathy for her.
Let it be accepted the two examples I have used show that I
was wrong to argue that loving someone might simply be a disposition to feel
empathy for the beloved in a previous posting. However the idea of self-love is
interesting and I now wish to examine self-love further in order to try and better
understand the nature of love. Some people believe that the self-love is not at
all bad even if it runs counter to accepted morality. They might use Nietzsche
to justify this belief. However I would argue such a belief is based on a false
view about the nature of love. This false view seems to connect loving purely
with satisfying our desires. Nietzsche would have approved of the strong
satisfying their desires. However let us consider a mother who desires chips,
cocaine, cigarettes and large quantities of alcohol. Let it be assumed she
neglects her child and indulges in all of the above. If loving one-self is
purely a matter of satisfying one’s desires then clearly this mother loves
herself. It might be objected my example only shows that self-love based on the
rather basic desires, I introduced in my example, is not genuine self-love. My
objector might then be suggest that the satisfaction of noble desires is a form
of self-love. Once again Nietzsche might well have approved of this objection
seeing the desire for power rather than gluttony as a form of self-love. My
reply to this objection is simple. I do not deny love can be connected to our
desires. Indeed I believe love must be connected to our desires. I do however
believe love cannot be only connected to our desires.
If love can be based on noble but not base desires then there must be some way,
of differentiating between noble and base desires. Furthermore any way of
differentiating between noble and base desires cannot itself be a desire.
Returning to my example I would suggest that the mother in question not only
neglects her child but that she also neglects herself. I would further argue
anyone who neglects herself does not genuinely love herself. My reason being I
believe loving is linked to caring about and it follows loving oneself involves
caring about oneself.
I accept Harry Frankfurt is correct when he states that
love is a form of ‘caring about’ and that love concerns the will rather than
being a simple emotion. Love has persistence and desires and emotions however
noble need not. This persistence was
the main reason for my suggestion that love might be defined as a disposition
to feel an emotion. It in order to better understand the nature of love we must
understand the nature of caring about. What then does caring about consist of?
Frankfurt argues a lover is benefited when her beloved flourishes and this
means accepting the interests of her beloved as her own (1). Let it be accepted
‘caring about’ ourselves is the same as ‘caring about’ others. It follows if we
‘care about’ ourselves we must be concerned with our flourishing and our
interests.
Let us accept that if I love someone that I must be
concerned with my beloved’s flourishing and furthering her interests. It seems
to me this concern must contain two important elements. Firstly this concern
cannot be a passive concern but must involve action. If my beloved needs help
and I fail to help for no good reason then it must be questioned whether my
love is genuine. Secondly this concern must involve some reflection. If I am
genuinely concerned with someone’s flourishing and interests I must concerned
with how my actions will promote this flourishing and these interests. It
follows loving defined as ‘caring about’ someone must involve our cognitive
powers. Accepting that love involves cognition does not of course imply that
love does not also involve the emotions. Personally I would argue love must
involve the emotions. I pointed out in my posting ‘love revisited’ some
philosophers would argue emotions are intentional and as a result must have a
cognitive element. If this is correct then love might be regarded as an emotion
which includes a cognitive element. However I myself am doubtful as to whether
emotions contain a cognitive element. Emotions might of course act as alarms
calling for reflection by our cognitive elements, see Brady (2). Our emotions
might alert us to consider the needs of our beloved. It seems to me that any
meaningful actions, including loving ones, must depend on both a cognitive and
affective element for without any affective element we have no reason to act.
I have argued loving someone must include a reflective
element. This conclusion seems at odds with some parts of Frankfurt’s concept
of love. Frankfurt argues a lover,
“is not free. On the contrary, he is in the very nature of
the case captivated by his beloved and his love. The will of the lover is
rigorously constrained. Love is not a matter of choice. (3)
Clearly reflection serves no useful purpose if someone’s
will is rigorously constrained. Am I wrong to argue love involves reflection or
is it possible to reconcile these two views? Frankfurt’s defines loving in
terms of what a lover cares about. He also defines autonomous decisions as
decisions the agent cares about. Cuypers believes Frankfurt’s concept of
autonomy and hence his concept of love is a hybrid concept. He believes this
hybrid as a combination of voluntaristic and non-voluntaristic components. He
argues that the harmonious agreement between a person’s second-order volitions
and his first order desires defines the voluntaristic component. He then
further argues that the non-voluntaristic component consists of what the agent
cares about (2). I have some sympathy for Cuypers view. However I believe
these two views might be better reconciled by differentiating
between the way someone loves a beloved and comes to love a beloved.
I believe the way we love someone involves reflection. We
must consider the interests of our beloved. The way we come to love someone
might not. The way we come to love someone is constrained. It seems ridiculous
to me to say I choose to love Jennifer, Newcastle United or philosophy. Do the
emotions play any part in the way I come to love someone? Frankfurt would argue
not. According to him the emotions have no persistence whilst love does. Indeed
it might argued that he believes what defines coming to love someone is a lack
of emotion. A lover might be defined as a satisfied person, perhaps willing to
change her beloved, but also one who has no active interest in bringing about
such a change. Intuitively however coming to love someone does involve emotion.
If I come to some love someone I identify with her and as a result I become
vulnerable to any harm that befalls her and become distressed as a result. It
might be suggested coming to love someone means coming to have a disposition to
feel empathy for her. However my example of the love between a mother and her
baby seems to make this concept of coming to love difficult to accept. For this
reason it
might be suggested that coming to love someone simply means coming to be pleased
when she is pleased and distressed when she is distressed. It might
be objected that accepting this suggestion seems to conflate coming to love and
actual loving. In response I would argue that someone cannot come to love
someone without actually loving her. Loving someone of necessity must involve
some emotion, if I love someone and she becomes distressed I must also become
distressed. It follows coming to love does involve the emotions.
However I can feel distress for a lot of people I hardly
know. For instance I may feel distress at seeing the distress of famine victims
on TV, victims I don’t really know. It follows if my suggestion is accepted
that I love these famine victims. It might then be pointed out this love seems
counter to our intuitions of love. I am however prepared to argue that I do in
fact love these victims to some degree. The degree to which I love my wife,
children, friends and neighbours varies greatly. I see no reason why I should
not feel at least some slight degree love for these famine victims. Indeed it
might be a natural default position for most people to feel some degree of love
for others. Optimistically considering the last century one of the defining
characteristics of persons might be a natural tendency to love. People lacking
this tendency such as sociopaths might be seen as damaged persons.
There is one final question I wish to address in this
posting; does coming to love come to involve our rational faculties in any way?
Clearly we may choose who we wish to marry but not who we love. Prima facie if
it is accepted that our love is constrained it might be concluded our rational
faculties play no part in our coming to love. I will argue such a prima facie
conclusion is unjustified. What is meant by our will being constrained when we
come to love? It certainly doesn’t mean our will is constrained by others. It
means we cannot choose whom we come to love, our will is constrained by forces
which are part of us, we like Luther can do no other. However these
constraining forces are our constraining forces and hence our will seem likely
to shaped by our perceptions of the world. These perceptions include our
beliefs. Our rational faculties shape these beliefs. My perceptions of a
situation surely partly determine the emotions I feel as I pointed in my
posting love revisited. In this posting I pointed out if I am fearful, because
I perceive a tiger approaching me, my perception is the cause of my fear.
Moreover part of my perception must include the concept that tigers are
dangerous. It might now be argued our perception of someone, which includes
cognitive elements, frames our coming to love that person and reason indirectly
affects our choice of a beloved.
- Harry Frankfurt, 2006,Taking Ourselves Seriously, Stanford University Press, page 41.
- Michael Brady, 2013, Emotional Insight; The Epistemic Role of Emotional Experience, Oxford University Press.
- Frankfurt, 1999, Necessity Volition and Love, Cambridge University Press, page 135.
- Stefaan Cuypers, 2000, In Defence of Hierarchy, , Canadian Journal of Philosophy 30(2).