Suicide, Happiness and Meaning

The death of Robin Williams highlighted the prevalence of suicide in our society. In this posting I want to consider ways of reducing this prevalence. To start with I should make it clear that I do not consider all suicide to be problematic. I have argued that for some people suicide may be a rational option. For instance I have argued in past postings that suicide would be a rational option for some terminally ill patients, prisoners serving life sentences and people faced by alzheimers and dementia . Indeed in some cases it might even be the morally right thing for someone to do. I do not believe in capital punishment but suicide might be the right moral option for someone who has committed some terrible crime, for instance a father who murders his wife and children. Nonetheless the vast majority of suicides are harmful. Usually if someone commits suicide he harms those he leaves behind and deprives himself of a life he may well have enjoyed had he been able to overcome his immediate worries. Let us accept that most suicide is harmful in this posting I want to consider what can be done to alleviate this harm. In doing so, I do not want to consider specific treatments to prevent suicide such as counselling or drug treatments. Instead I want to consider the elements in someone’s life that decrease the possibility of his suicide. I want consider happiness and meaning.

I will deal with happiness first. It might be thought that being happy inoculates people from committing suicide. It might be thought that happy people just don’t commit suicide. Such a thought is too simplistic. Let us accept that someone doesn’t commit suicide whilst he is happy but no one is happy all the time. Is it true that happy people don’t commit suicide? I will argue it is not. I will nonetheless later argue that cultivating some forms of happiness do help prevent suicide. What do we mean by a happy person? According to Feldman happiness means hedonistic happiness and a happy person is one who experiences a greater degree of happiness than unhappiness over a long period (1). For the moment let us accept Feldman’s view is correct. Let us now consider someone who was never either really happy or unhappy during his childhood and adolescence. Let assume when he was twenty he meet a lover and was blissfully happy for a year. Let us say throughout that year he experienced 10 units of happiness. Unfortunately at the end of the year his lover left his for his best friend. Such a person is now thirty and for the last nine years he has constantly experienced -0.5 units of happiness. According to a hedonistic account of happiness such a person would be regarded as a happy person. Intuitively I believe he would be regarded as an unhappy person. It seems unlikely such a person would commit suicide during his happy period but it is conceivable that such a person might be prone to do so during his unhappy period. It is even conceivable that someone suffering from bipolar disease might be regarded as a happy person provided the happiness he obtains during his manic periods is greater than his unhappiness during his periods of depression. People suffering from bipolar disease suffer from an increased risk of committing suicide. In the light of the above it seems that simply increasing someone’s hedonistic happiness is unlikely to decrease the overall possibility of his committing suicide. It may of course decrease this possibility in the period when he is actually enjoying hedonistic happiness. The above conclusion seems supported by evidence that people who turn to drink in an attempt to increase their hedonistic happiness are also at increased risk of committing suicide.

In spite of the above I will now argue happy people are less likely to commit suicide. I would not class a person, who is regarded as a happy person using the hedonistic definition above, as a truly happy person. I would regard such a person as a person who is happy some of the time. I have previously argued if we regard someone as a happy person we have reason to expect him to be happy tomorrow, see feldman, haybron and happydispositions . We have no reason to expect that someone who is enjoying hedonistic happiness today will be happy tomorrow. It seems to me that an important element in a happy person is a disposition to be happy (2). It seems possible that because someone who has a disposition to be happy is likely to experience being happy for longer periods of time that he will be less prone to committing suicide overall. How then does someone cultivate a disposition to be happy? One certainly can’t just will a happy disposition. Some might argue we simply can’t change our inborn dispositions but I will now suggest there are ways in which we might attempt to increase our disposition to be happy.

Firstly I would suggest being an optimist might increase our disposition to be happy. By an optimist I mean a realistic optimist as suggested by Tiberius (3) and not some Panglossian optimist who may be less happy. A realistic optimist has an expectation of being happy unless there is evidence to the contrary; a disposition to be happy. I believe being a realistic optimist is particularly important with regard to persons. If we meet someone for the first time we should expect him to possess goodwill. We should also demonstrate we expect him to have goodwill. Experience may of course temper our expectations. It follows that adopting a stance of realistic optimism may make someone less prone to committing suicide. I believe everyone irrespective of whether they have suicidal thoughts or not such adopt a stance of realistic optimism. For some this stance may come naturally but for others its adoption may be long and difficult. Perhaps the best way to foster realistic optimism might be to raise optimistic children, see Martin Seligman's book .

I will now argue that if someone has a meaningful life he will be less prone to depression and less likely to commit suicide. Let us assume someone has meaning in his life. He must care about the things that have meaning for him. It is impossible to imagine something having meaning to someone if he doesn’t care about it at all. If someone cares about something he must be satisfied with what he cares about. According to Harry Frankfurt satisfaction entails “an absence of restlessness or resistance. A satisfied person may be willing to accept a change in his condition, but he has no active interest in bringing about a change” (4).  It seems to me if someone has meaning in his life that this means he is likely to have less active interest in bringing about a change in his life. It follows he is less likely to commit suicide. According to Daniel Nettles there are three elements to being happy. Firstly there are momentary emotions such as joy or pleasure. Secondly there are judgements about feelings such as satisfaction and lastly the quality of someone’s life over time (5). Let us assume Nettle’s is correct. It follows provided meaning is connected to satisfaction that someone with meaning in life is likely to have more happiness in his life than someone who does not. It seems probable the greater the happiness in someone’s life the less prone he will be to depression and suicide.

In previous posting I have talked about the unbearable lightness of simply being. That is existing without any aims or direction in someone’s life, a life devoid of meaning. Such a person might be cast as a wanton, he has no fixed boundaries and is amorphous with no fixed shape or identity (4). Of course have no fixed boundaries or identity doesn’t make someone commit, someone may drift along in life in an aimless way for years. However I would suggest such a person has less of a defence if suicidal thoughts arise, he has no reason to combat these thoughts. It follows if someone has some meaning in his life that this meaning should act as an antidote to suicidal thoughts.

Let us accept that having some meaning in someone’s life means he is less likely to commit suicide. How then do we encourage people to have meaningful lives? It seems to me meaning and love are connected. By love I don’t mean romantic love; I mean caring about something. Caring about doesn’t just mean liking. Someone can like an ice cream but this doesn’t mean he cares about it. Someone cares about something if he identifies himself with what he cares about and is hurt when what he cares about is damaged and is benefited when what he cares about flourishes (6). I would suggest that for a meaningful life someone must cultivate loving something. This something need not be a person; it might be a cause, a country or even a love of knowledge. Unfortunately someone just can’t decide to love; can’t just decide to have a meaningful life. However someone by cultivating friendships and paying attention to life might find love grows naturally even if this growth is somewhat slow.

To conclude I want to deal very briefly with friendship. I have suggested if we want to love and perhaps be loved we should cultivate friendship. Robin Dunbar believes we can have at most 150 friends, see Wiki Dunbar's number . However the friends I am concerned are not just people whom we know and know us, not just people we know on Facebook. Friends are people we love. We identify with such friends and are hurt when they are hurt and feel pleasure when they are benefited. Moreover because such friends are people we love we can’t simply choose these friends in the way we choose friends on Facebook, we come to have such friends by sharing aims and ideals. We have to pay attention to the friends we love and this limits the number of such friendships we can have. Cultivating friends we love is not easy but doing so may decrease our propensity to commit suicide which might not be true of cultivating a larger circle of friends.

1.      Fred Feldman, 2010, what is this thing called Happiness? Oxford, page 29

2.      Daniel Haybron, 2008, The Pursuit of Unhappiness, Oxford, page 138.

3.      Valerie Tiberius, 2008, The Reflective life, Oxford, chapter 6.
4.      Harry Frankfurt, 1999, Necessity, Volition, and Love. Cambridge

5.      Daniel Nettle, 2005, Happiness; The Science Behind Your Smile, Oxford, page 8.

6.      Frankfurt, page 114.

Marrying for Love?

  

In this posting I want to consider love and marriage. In the past couples who married, mostly stayed married, but in the last century divorce rates have soared. It is clear that the nature of marriage is changing. People marry for many reasons, convention, it is expected of them and love. In the western world it is generally assumed people marry for love. This was not true historically. In the past marriage functioned primarily as an economic and political unit used to create kinship bonds, control inheritance, and share resources and labour, see Elizabeth Brake . Nowadays it is assumed that couples marry for love. In this posting I want to question this assumption.

What reasons might be given to support the above assumption. I will suggest two reasons why we might marry for love and then examine each of these reasons in turn. At this point it might be objected any such examination would be futile. A couple marry simply because they are in love and that this is the only fact we need to know. I accept that love binds. Love binds a loving couple together, they want to be together, to do things together, wake up together and care about each other. Indeed it is sometimes argued loving creates a new entity. I accept that many couples marry because they are in love. I further accept that if a couple are in love that this love may form a good basis from which to obtain the goods marriage offers. But is love one of these goods? Does being in love give a couple a reason to marry for love? Surely love alone gives them all they want from a loving relationship and marriage adds nothing to this love. Indeed in practice many couples in the western world seem to recognise the above and regard living together as being an equally good option to that of becoming married. They would argue all you need is love and that marriage adds nothing further to their already existing love. In the light of the above it might be suggested that a couple who marry for love are doing something that is completely pointless as love already gives them the goods they seek from their relationship. People of course may have more traditional reasons to marry.

Let us accept that a couple who marry for love and are already in love are doing something rather pointless. However a couple might marry for reasons connected to love. In what follows I will examine two ways in which being married might be connected to love. Firstly someone might marry when he is not in love and wants to love and be loved. Secondly a couple who are already in love might marry in order to bind their love stronger. Perhaps the bonds imposed by marriage will help them maintain their love. It might be suggested a further reason for a couple to marry connected to love is that they believe that if they marry their love forms a good basis for starting a family and that this love is somehow protected by being married. I believe this reason is basically the same as the second reason above and will not deal with it separately.

Let us consider someone who isn’t in love and marries because he wants to love and be loved. In the western world such a situation is unlikely to occur as most people who marry are already in love. Historically this might not have been true as noted above. Such a person has a reason to marry, connected to love, provided marriage leads to love. It seems to me that there is some evidence to support the idea that getting married might lead to love. In some communities some couples enter into arranged marriages and the couples involved are not usually in love prior to marrying. In arranged marriages love can grow. It might grow because marriage means shared interests and this sharing leads to a shared purpose and eventually love. It follows if someone isn’t in love and wants to love and be loved that he has a reason, connected to love, to get married. However it should be noted that most people who enter into arranged marriages do so for family and cultural reasons and do not do so in order to find love.

Let us assume that the majority of couples who marry are already in love. It might be argued love helps maintain a marriage. Indeed it might argued, that sometimes a couple should enhance their capacity for love in order to maintain their marriage, perhaps for the sake of their children, see the structure of love . In this scenario, love helps to maintain a marriage. However the question I am addressing is a different one, does marriage help maintain love? In order to answer this question we must examine the nature of love. I can love where I live, knowledge, a pet, a child and my spouse. Does loving these different things depend only on what we love with the underlying form of love remaining the same or does the underlying form differ? In a previous posting I have love may have some structure. I have suggested we all have a basic ability to love based on ‘caring about’ but as we have evolved evolution has added on some additions to this basic ability. For instance I may love, care about, where I live. I may also love my children by caring about them and feeling empathy for them. Prima facie it appears there are different forms of love. Someone’s love of his mother seems to be very different sort of love to the love of his spouse. Indeed there seems to empirical evidence to support this prima facie appearance, see neurological-differences-between-two-types-love . Researchers at Yale found there are differences between a selfless form of love and more romantic love. They found selfless love actually turns off some of the brain centres associated with romantic love. Romantic love is associated with mate choice and the release of dopamine, see Romantic love: a mammalian brain system for mate choice  .

Let us accept that in most marriages there are two forms of love, romantic love and a more selfless kind of love. I have suggested above if a couple are in love then marrying to obtain love is pointless. I posed the question whether it is possible that for a loving couple marrying might help them maintain their love. This question now splits into two. Firstly would marrying help a couple who are romantically in love maintain this love? Secondly would marrying help a couple who have a more selfless form love maintain this form of love? I will consider each of these questions in turn.

I will consider romantic love first. If romantic love is based on a brain system for mate choice then it seems likely its affects will not be long term. If romantic love is based on mate choice then once a choice is made romantic love becomes redundant and hence marrying will not help to maintain this love. Of course even if the purpose romantic love serves is lost this does not automatically mean this love doesn’t persist. I would however suggest such persistence is unusual. One way someone might maintain romantic love would not be to marry but to make numerous choices by becoming a philanderer. It might be objected romantic love has greater persistence than I am advocating it does. My objector might point out that a great number of people act romantically. In response I would suggest that acting romantically is not the same as loving romantically. Acting romantically is a way of behaving and need not be a way of feeling. Acting romantically is a practice in Wittgenstein’s parlance. It is possible for someone to act romantically based on selfless love rather than romantic love. In the light of the above it seems to me unlikely that marrying to maintain romantic will be successful. Let us now consider a more selfless kind of love. A selfless form of love involves caring about another. In previous postings have made use of Frankfurt’s ideas on ‘caring about’ and will do so here. According to Frankfurt “the notion of caring, implies a certain consistency or steadiness of behaviour, and this presupposes some degree of persistence”. (1) If a more selfless kind of love involves caring about then this form of love has natural persistence and it would appear little would be gained by a couple who marry in order to maintain this love.

I suggested above that a couple who marry for love and are already in love are doing something rather pointless. The above discussion seems to support my suggestion. However love is not unconnected to marriage. Let us assume that a couple wish to marry for traditional reasons then being in love is likely to help sustain that marriage even if it is not a reason to enter into that marriage.

1.      Frankfurt, 1988, The Importance of What We Care About, Cambridge University Press, page 84.

The Structure of Love and Anti-Love Drugs

Brian Earp wonders whether it might be right for someone in certain situations to take an anti-love drug, see should we take anti love drugs? For instance a battered woman in an abusive relationship might take such a drug to help her restore her autonomy and independence. Such an anti-love drug might be seen as an enhancement on a welfarist account of enhancement, see frontiers in neuroscience , because it enhances someone’s overall welfare. I have suggested any such interventions should be treated with the greatest caution as diminishing love involves great dangers. For instance in the above scenario the woman in question might have children and diminishing her love for her abusive partner might also diminish her love for her children. In this posting I will argue that prior to considering any artificial means of diminishing love we must first consider what love is. In particular I will suggest we should consider whether love has some sort of structure.

What does it mean to love? One way of examining what it means to love is to examine what we can love. Someone might love a building, a particular piece of countryside or being a scientist. A mother may love her children and her children love their parents and siblings. Someone may love his friends. Lastly someone may love her beloved in a romantic way. The question I want to pose is this, do we love all these things in much the same way or are there varieties of love and perhaps even completely different ways of loving? What is the nature of the lover’s concern in all the above? According to Harry Frankfurt it is connected to caring about,

“It is in the nature of a lover’s concern that he is invested in his beloved. That is, he is benefited when his beloved flourishes; and he suffers when it is harmed. Another way of putting it is that the lover identifies himself with what he loves. This consists of accepting the interests of his beloved as his own.” (1)

If we agree with Frankfurt then a lover’s concern is compatible with him loving all the above. Someone might be harmed mentally if a building he loves is burnt down. A mother may suffer if her child suffers. A romantic lover will experience pleasure at the success of her beloved. The above suggests that all forms of love have a common basis, the ability to care about and identify with something, and this common basis rules out completely different ways of loving.

Let us accept that all forms of love must include Frankfurt’s basic idea of caring about and identification. Let us also accept that our ancestors possessed the capacity for this basic form of love, they had the capacity to love themselves and their offspring. At this point someone might object that our ancient ancestors didn’t have the capacity to actively identify themselves with what they loved. She might then proceed to argue even today most people don’t actively identify themselves with what they love. In response Frankfurt might argue even if someone doesn’t actively identify himself with what he loves that nonetheless he demonstrates his identification by his satisfaction with what he loves (2). Bennett Helm would argue someone identifies with what he loves by taking pride in what he loves (3). Intuitively there are different forms of love. How might we account for this diversity? Firstly as our ancestors’ lives became more complex the domain of what they loved expanded. That is the basic form of love remained the same but they started to love more things. Perhaps as their increased brains expanded their cognitive powers they simply became aware of the need to love or care about more things. Nonetheless they loved these things in the same way. Secondly as their lives became more complex evolution added or grafted on additional ways of loving onto this basic form. Love acquired some form of structure.

It might be thought that whilst such considerations have considerable theoretical interest they have no practical implications. Such a thought would be wrong. Let us return to the taking of anti-love drugs to enhance an abused women’s life. Now if love has changed simply by expanding the domain of love by cognitive means then any such supposed enhancement would be likely to be counter productive. For as I have remarked above any such so called enhancement would lead her to love her children and things in general, including herself, less. In this context I would suggest that the use of anti-love drugs would be unacceptable.

Intuitively I do not love the place I live in the same way as I love my children. I can feel empathy towards my children but it would be nonsensical to say I can feel empathy for the place I live. Some forms of love might have a structure. This structure consists of the basic capacity to care about and identify with something or someone, plus the capacity to feel empathy. Earp considers love to be based on ancient neurochemical systems that evolved to serve our ancestors' reproductive needs. I have suggested that love has a wider basis. It follows these neurochemical systems served wider needs, the need to love those things that helped us to survive. Nonetheless let us accept that our basic capacity to love is based on a neurochemical system. Let us also accept that our love is defined by a basic capacity to love as I have suggested above plus the capacity to feel empathy. It is possible that the neurochemical system underlying our capacity to feel empathy is distinct from neurochemical system underlying our capacity for basic love. However even if this situation pertains, the use of anti-love drugs would remain unacceptable. Taking an anti-love drug that affects someone’s basic capacity to love would affect her capacity to act as a person. An abused woman taking an anti-love drug which affects her capacity for empathy would damage all her relationships.

However romantic love seems to differ from other forms of love. Most forms of love seem to have more persistence than romantic love. Romantic love might be different from other forms of love. If the above is accepted then some forms of love might have the following structure. Love might consist of the basic capacity to care about and identify with something or someone, plus the capacity to feel empathy, plus the capacity for romantic love. It might then be possible that the neurochemical system underlying our capacity to feel romantic love is distinct from neurochemical systems underlying our capacity for basic love and empathy. If love has this form then it might be possible for an abused woman to take an anti-love drug which affects her capacity for romantic love without damaging her other loving relationships. The above assumes an abused woman’s love for her abusive partner depends on romantic love. In practice many abused women suffer abuse for many years suggesting their love may not be wholly based on romantic love.

I have not been able to answer the specific question as to whether it would be permissible to take anti-love drugs in certain situations. The above however suggests that before we attempt to answer this question we need firstly to investigate whether love has a structure and secondly provided it does investigate whether the neurochemical systems underlying the different elements of this structure are distinct enough to permit the use of these drugs.

1.      Harry Frankfurt, 2006, Taking Ourselves Seriously, Stanford University Press, page 41.

2.      Frankfurt, 1999, Necessity, Volition, and Love. Cambridge University Press. Page 103

3.      Bennett Helm, 2010, Love, Friendship & the Self, Oxford.

Meaning and Happiness

In a recent posting in practical ethics Hannah Maslen considers happiness meaning and well-being. Let us accept that happiness and meaning in life are both part of well-being. There is usually a positive correlation between happiness and meaning. Usually happy people have a more meaningful life and vice versa. However some research by Roy Baumeister, Kathleen Vohs, Jennifer Aaker and Emily Garbinsky shows this correlation is not always positive (1). Maslen wonders if when this occasional incompatibility occurs whether we must make a decision about which of these two goods to pursue. In what follows I will consider this question. I will however use a slightly different approach to what is meant by meaning in life.

Before examining Maslen’s question I must consider what is meant by meaning in life. Firstly I must make it clear I am not going to consider what a meaningful life is from some objective viewpoint. I am going to consider what living a meaningful life actually means to the person who lives that life. According to the researchers’ results meaningfulness involves doing things that express and reflect the self and in particular doing positive things for others. This involvement can increase someone’s stress, worries, and anxiety. Secondly meaningfulness involves being a giver more than a taker. Lastly meaningfulness integrates past, present, and future, and sometimes meaningfulness means feeling bad. I agree with Maslen that these results rule out a purely hedonistic life as a meaningful life. Moreover these results seem to be incompatible with a meaningful life being based on desire fulfilment. For as Maslen points out stress, worry and anxiety are associated with frustrated desire, rather than desire fulfilment. It might be thought that a meaningful life is one that includes a number of objective items, items such as friendship and good health. Personally I believe such items may well contribute to a meaningful life but that they do not define it.

I now want to return to a common thread of this blog. I want to suggest that in order for someone to have a meaningful life he must ‘care about’ or love something. Indeed I would go as far as to suggest that for someone, whose life is totally devoid of any ‘caring about’, he has a life totally devoid of any meaning and as a result is not really a person at all. He is simply a wanton, see (2). In what follows I will treat the terms ‘caring about’ and ‘loving’ as interchangeable in much the same way as Harry Frankfurt does. Someone who ‘cares about’ or loves something identifies himself with what he cares about and makes himself vulnerable to losses and susceptible to benefits depending upon whether what he cares about flourishes or is harmed (3). The researchers’ results showed meaningfulness involved doing things that express and reflect the self. Caring about something means identifying with what is cared about. Identification involves doing things that express and reflect the self. Secondly the researchers’ results showed that meaningfulness can increase someone’s stress, worries and anxiety. Caring about something makes someone vulnerable and so can also increase his stress, worries and anxiety. Lastly these results show meaningfulness integrates past, present, and future. According to Frankfurt caring about involves consistency, steadiness of behaviour, and some degree of persistence (4). It follows caring about must integrates past, present, and future to some degree. In the light of the above it appears accepting that, meaning is imparted to someone’s life by what he cares about or loves concurs very well with the researchers’ results.

Let us accept that meaning in someone’s life is dependent on what he loves or cares about. If someone’s beloved flourishes then he is susceptible to the benefits of this flourishing. He is happy. It is important to be clear that someone’s beloved can refer to things as well as people. Someone’s beloved might for instance be a cause, his religion, or a place. If someone’s beloved is harmed then he is harmed. He is unhappy. At times caring about or meaning is incompatible with our ideas about being happy. Some positive psychologists such as Martin Seligman might disagree. Seligman would incorporate meaning into the meaning of happiness, see PERMA . In such cases happiness seems to mean well-being. Such a meaning seems at odds with our intuitive ideas of happiness and in what follows ‘happiness’ will refer to these intuitive ideas. Let us return to Maslen’s question, must we sometimes make a decision about whether we should pursue happiness or meaning? I will now argue the question is meaningless because if meaning depends on what we love or ‘care about’ we cannot make such a decision.

We cannot make such a decision because we cannot make a decision to love. Someone cannot simply decide to love someone or something. According to Frankfurt the will of a lover is not free. On the contrary he, because of the very nature of loving, is captivated by his beloved and his love. The will of the lover is rigorously constrained. Love is not a matter of choice (5). It follows if meaning depends on what we love that we cannot simply choose to have less meaning in our lives in order to be happier. This conclusion has important consequences for any pursuit of happiness. This pursuit is limited at least for our intuitive ideas of happiness. This limitation means that whilst we may of course seek to modify our life in order to be happier, that these modifications cannot be based on consciously altering or lessening the meaning in our lives. Of course I accept that what matters, what we love or what has meaning, may change over time but this change is not a matter of our own volition. I also accept even if we cannot simply will love we can nonetheless sometimes situate ourselves in situations in which love might grow.

1. Roy Baumeister, Kathleen Vohs, Jennifer Aaker & Emily Garbinsky, 2013, Some key differences between a happy life and a meaningful life, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2013, volume 8(6)
2. Harry Frankfurt, 1999, Necessity, Volition, and Love. Cambridge University Press, page 114.
3. Harry Frankfurt, 1988, The Importance of What We Care About. Cambridge University Press, page 83.
4. Frankfurt, 1988, page 84.
5. Frankfurt, 1999, page 135.

Friendship, Love and Happiness

Positive psychologists such as Haidt and Seligman stress the importance of association and friendship in making us happy. Lonely people are often unhappy. It might appear to follow that one way an unhappy lonely person can improve his happiness is by making friends. In this posting I will argue this is not easy. I will argue the nature of friendship means if someone attempts to make friends solely in order to improve his happiness that his attempt will fail. I will however suggest that association can increase our happiness and may lead to friendship.

I will argue first that the nature of friendship means someone cannot simply choose to become friends with someone else. Let us assume that our lonely unhappy person chooses to become friends with someone else simply in order to boost his happiness. Let us further assume he attempts to share his potential friend’s interests and that she shows no inclination to respond. The resulting relationship is not one of friendship. Our unhappy person might be described as an admirer, a hanger on or perhaps even as a fan but certainly not as a friend. Intuitively it makes sense to talk of unrequited love but it makes no sense at all to talk about unrequited friendship, see Helm . Friendship is of necessity a two way relationship. Someone may attempt to become friends with someone else but he cannot choose to become friends with another in order to make himself happier.

Let us now assume that when our unhappy person chooses to become friends with someone else simply in order to boost his happiness that his potential friend reciprocates. The relationship has now become a two way one. However I will once again argue the nature of friendship means that his attempt will still fail. This relationship can be characterised as one in which the unhappy person is simply attempting to use the other as a means to achieve his own ends. According to Kantian ethics this attempt is morally wrong. However I am not interested in morality here. I am interested in whether such an attempt could actually lead to friendship? According to Aristotle the answer to this question would appear to be yes as he includes friends of utility in his classification of types of friends. However I would suggest that intuitively friends must ‘care about’ each other. It is clear that our unhappy person does not ‘care about’ his potential friend, he cares about being happy. It follows if we accept our intuitions then our unhappy person’s attempt to make friends must fail.

At this point let us assume that the unhappy person further modifies his behaviour and attempts to ‘care about’ his potential friend in order to improve his prospects of achieving friendship and hence boost his happiness. Surely at this point our unhappy person has done enough to become friends and hence boost his happiness. Once again I will argue he has not. I will argue that the nature of caring means this attempt will also fail. Frankfurt argues if someone cares about something then he identifies himself with what he cares about in the sense that he makes himself vulnerable to losses and susceptible to benefits depending upon whether what he cares about is diminished or enhanced (1). Caring about so defined is a form of love. At this point someone may object that loving and ‘caring about’ something are not equivalent and suggest that whilst I may love my wife that I only ‘care about’ eating ice cream. It is important to have a clear understanding of what it means to ‘care about’. I would suggest I simply like ice cream and point out there is a difference between liking and ‘caring about’. There is also a difference between ‘caring for’ and ‘caring about’. A good nurse must ‘care for’ her patients but she need not ‘care about’ her patients. Indeed it might be argued a good nurse or doctor should not ‘care about’ her patients too much. In a clinical setting a nurse or doctor must remain detached or else she might suffer emotional burnout. However if a nurse is also a mother she should ‘care about’ her children. A good mother should identify with her children and if they are harmed she should feel harmed. Caring about in this way is a form of love. However love is not simply a matter of choice. We cannot simply choose to love someone. It follows we cannot simply choose to ‘care about’ someone. It further follows our unhappy person cannot simply modify his behaviour in order to ‘care about’ his potential friend and so improve his prospects of achieving friendship and hence boost his happiness. This conclusion seems to concur with our intuitions that someone cannot force or simply will friendship.

Even if we cannot simply will or force friendship it nonetheless plays an important part in making us happy. What can someone do if he cannot simply will friendship? He should place himself in circumstances that cultivate friendship. In order to do so he must be active and join in association with others. So doing should increase his happiness irrespective of whether it helps him make friends or strengthen any existing friendships because activity alone seems increase happiness. Activity is a form of engagement and engagement helps increase happiness, see Haybron (2) and see also my previous posting. Secondly even if he cannot simply will friendship then perhaps he can attempt to form limited friendships and this limited form might in the right circumstances lead to full friendship. However if this proposal is to be meaningful it must make sense to talk of limited friendship, see Helm’s idea of ordinary friendship (3). If I play golf once a week with someone and we share an interest in playing golf are we limited friends? I would suggest we are perhaps very limited friends. It is important to note the difference between this limited friendship and the attempted friendship of the unhappy person above. The unhappy person attempts to ‘care about’ someone only in order to improve his prospects of achieving friendship and hence boosting his happiness. By playing golf with my golf partner we share an interest in golf. If it rains and we cannot play golf both his interests and mine are frustrated. We ‘care about’ the same thing however modest this caring may be. The same does not apply to the unhappy person who attempts to make a friend simply boost his happiness. He simply ‘cares about’ being happy. Limited friends are persons who ‘care about’ the same things such as playing golf or doing philosophy. Limited friends have common interests. True friends are persons who ‘care about’ each other in addition to ‘caring about’ each other’s interests. If ‘caring about’ and loving are equivalent then true friends are persons who love each other. True friends have a common interest in each of them flourishing. If limited friends and true friends are as suggested above then it seems feasible that limited friendship may in time become true friendship. It might also help explain what Aristotle meant by the friendship of utility and why it is of value.

Throughout this posting I have assumed that friendship helps make someone happy. I have argued that love or ‘caring about’ is an important element of friendship. I have also argued above limited friends or friends of utility may be of value because they lead to true friendship. What is it about friendship that makes someone happy? I would suggest it is because he loves or ‘cares about’ his friend. I would further suggest that loving something makes someone happy. This last suggestion would explain why people keep pets. Accepting these suggestions might mean friendship is important not because it makes someone happy directly but rather because it gives him something, or in this case someone, to love. Loving something is what really makes us happy not friendship. If we accept the above then two things follow. Firstly limited friendship or friendships of utility assume greater importance because they give us an opportunity to love. Secondly accepting the above tells us something about our concept of happiness. Or the relative importance of the various components of happiness. Daniel Nettle suggests that there are three levels to happiness. First there are momentary emotions such as joy or pleasure next there are judgments about feelings such as satisfaction and lastly the quality of someone’s life over time (4). Let us assume what is important for happiness is loving rather than friendship and that loving is connected to satisfaction. Someone can’t love something that dissatisfies him. It appears to follow that satisfaction is more important than momentary emotions such as joy or pleasure and even the quality of life in making someone happy.

1. Frankfurt, 1988, The Importance of What We Care About. Cambridge University Press, page 83.
2. Daniel Haybron, 2008, The Pursuit of Unhappiness, Oxford, page 114.
3. Bennett Helm, 2010, Love, Friendship & the Self, Oxford, page 282.
4. Daniel Nettle, 2005, Happiness; The Science Behind Your Smile, Oxford, page 8.

Self Respect and Love

Kristjan Kristjansson argues too much attention is paid to promoting an individual’s self esteem and not enough to promoting his self respect. Kristjansson is referring to global self esteem, how good we feel about ourselves in general, rather than domain based self esteem, how we feel about our performance in a particular domain. The problem with Kristjansson’s argument is that in practice our ideas of self esteem and self respect easily get confused. In spite of this reservation I agree with Kristjansson that an over inflated ego based on high global self esteem is not useful to someone and may even be harmful. Kristjansson also argues that domain based self esteem is good for someone, once again I agree. Indeed if someone is a good athlete a failure to recognise this fact is a failure to recognise the truth. I further agree self respect is a useful for someone. However if we are to encourage self respect we must be clear about what we should be encouraging. In this posting I want to examine the basis of self respect.

Kristjansson believes we have a real emotionally based self rather than just a self construct. He believes self respect may be defined roughly as a disposition not to act or feel in a way that is unworthy of oneself. In Hamlet Polonius advises Laertes as follows, “This above all: to thy own self be true”. Perhaps this advice reflects what it means for someone to respect himself, to be authentic. However if someone is to be true to himself or to be authentic he must understand the nature of his self.  Kristjansson argues there are two incompatible understandings of what it means for someone to respect himself based two different concepts of a real self. One concept is Kantian and the other Aristotelian. Kristjansson favours adopting an Aristotelian concept (1). Using this concept means what really matters is that someone has certain virtues such as justice, generosity and courage. That he can feel appropriate pride and shame. Lastly he must have the courage of his convictions, he must not be easily swayed from his chosen path, and that his beliefs and convictions must have some persistence. Being true to such a self, respecting oneself, means someone must act virtuously based on his deeply held beliefs and convictions. Perhaps this is what Shakespeare meant by being true to oneself. However someone’s ability to choose his own beliefs and convictions, his autonomy, seems only to have a peripheral importance according to an Aristotelian concept of self. Perhaps then we should adopt a Kantian concept of the self. However if we adopt a Kantian concept of the self we find a self with very little substance except for the ability to choose. Such a self can choose but his self seems an unsubstantial thing giving him very little basis on which to base any choices he makes. To respect such a self we need only accept his right to choose and respect his choices provided these choices do not harm others. However even if we have reason to respect such a self it does not follow we have reason to admire such an insubstantial self.

Kristjansson believes we must choose either an Aristotelian or Kantian concept of the self. Intuitively neither of these concepts completely captures our idea of self. I would suggest that there is a concept of self which combines the idea of an autonomous and substantial self. I would suggest someone’s self is based on what he loves. A self based on what someone loves is not an insubstantial self. Moreover I would further suggest a self that makes choices based on what he loves is an autonomous self, see Frankfurt (2). Indeed if someone doesn’t love anything at all it is hard to see how he can make any meaningful decisions. Anyone who fails to love has no boundaries and has no basis on which to make decisions. He is amorphous with no fixed shape or identity, see Frankfurt (3). Of course I accept someone’s identity can change over time but his identity must have some persistence. I would also suggest that anyone who doesn’t love himself at least to some degree cannot love anything else. To love something according to Frankfurt is simply to be satisfied with what one loves. Satisfaction means someone has an absence of restlessness and has a resistance to change his relation to his beloved (4). If we accept Frankfurt’s definition loving defined by satisfaction then loving something need not involve pride. It further follows someone cannot love himself excessively, cannot respect himself excessively. Pride it seems to me is connected to self esteem rather than self respect. It be suggested at this point self respect need only involve love of self. I would reject such a suggestion. If someone only loves himself he has no substantial self to love. He is trying to love something amorphous with no fixed shape or identity. However an objector might point out that I have suggested someone who does not love himself cannot love anything else and that someone who does not love anything else cannot love himself. My objector might then suggest love so defined is impossible. My response would be that coming to love is a natural process and that when someone comes to love something he comes at the same time to love himself.

I must make it clear that Kristjansson rejects such a concept of the self (5). Personally I believe the concept of a self defined by what he loves need not differ radically from an Aristotelian conception. A self defined by what he loves cannot choose anything his choices are constrained not by others but by what he loves. Moreover it is perfectly possible for a self that is defined by what he loves to acquire some of the virtues by education provided he endorses these virtues by loving them. Such a self might be regarded as an Aristotelian self. What is the relationship between an Aristotelian self and the virtues? Does he simply possess them or love them? I would argue if loving is based on satisfaction then a virtuous person must love any virtues he possesses. It follows if an Aristotelian self must love the virtues then he might also be regarded as a self based on love. However the concept of a self defined by what he loves is a broader concept than an Aristotelian concept. A self defined by what he loves of course need not of necessity love the virtues even if a virtuous person must love the virtues.

What does self respect mean if the self is defined by what someone loves? I have argued above it does not mean someone takes pride in himself. It simply means someone is satisfied with himself. To be satisfied with something someone’s satisfaction must be both persistent and consistent. Let us agree with Kristjansson that self respect is good for someone and that it should be encouraged. Unfortunately if we also accept someone’s self respect depends on his loving something including himself then we cannot directly encourage self respect. Someone cannot decide to love something simply because he decides loving is good for him. Similarly someone cannot decide to respect himself because self respect is good for him. We can however indirectly encourage self respect by creating the conditions in which self respect can flourish. This means allowing someone the freedom to love the things that matter to him, means loving and caring about things ourselves and it the case of children suggesting, but no more than suggesting, that it is good for them to love certain things.

To conclude I want to make some more speculative comments about the importance of self respect especially if it is based on love or “caring about”. These comments are of more speculative nature because I am a philosopher not a psychologist. Many of the perpetrators of murderous massacres such as the dreadful killings in Newtown Connecticut do not seem to be mad. I would however speculate that none of these perpetrators is satisfied with themselves. None of these perpetrators has self respect. Of course it would be simplistic to suggest the reason of such massacres is just a lack of self respect. Nonetheless I would speculate such a lack is one reason for these massacres even if it is a minor one. This is one reason why it is so disappointing that we cannot directly encourage self respect. Nonetheless if directly encouraging self respect is impossible, no matter how disappointing this may be, we should not attempt to do so but instead concentrate our efforts on trying to create the conditions in which self can flourish, see my posting on Riots and the Unbearable Lightness of Simply Being . Secondly I would speculate if self respect is based loving that the search for self respect can also lead to dreadful crimes. Some people in a desperate search for self respect, for identity, for something to love may come to love something in inappropriate ways. I would suggest suicide bombers are such people, see my posting on Terrorism, Love and Self Delusion ; see also Kristjansson (6).

1. Kristjansson, K. (2010) The Self and Its Emotions. Cambridge University Press, page, 154.
2. Frankfurt, H. (1999) Necessity, Volition, and Love. Cambridge University Press, page, 135.
3. Frankfurt, page 114.
4. Frankfurt, page 103.
5. Kristjansson, pages 89 90.
6. Kristjansson page 197.

Biological and Adopted Children

In a posting on practical ethics Julian Savulescu relates the story of Brad and Melissa’s attempts to have a baby using IVF with PGD. They did so in order to avoid having a child with cystic fibrosis or a child who was a carrier of the gene for cystic fibrosis. Both Brad and Melissa were carriers of this gene. If parents have a child with cystic fibrosis this costs the state a great deal of money. Having a child cost Brad and Melissa a lot of money, in addition to their savings they had to sell their car to pay for the IVF. However the money it cost them was a great deal less than it would have cost the state had they had a child with cystic fibrosis. Savulescu argues that the state should bear the cost of IVF with PGD for parents such as Brad and Melissa because it is unjust to expect them to save the state money. In reply Khalid Jan and Elselijn Kingma suggest parents, such as Brad and Melissa, have the option of adopting a child and that because this option involves no extra costs to the state, indeed it may save the state money, that the state has no duty to pay for IVF for such parents.

In the following discussion I will assume for the sake of argument that adoptive children are usually adopted as babies. I will also assume that these babies don’t have any more potential health or mental problems than children in general. In practice these assumptions are not always met. Let us assume couples in a position similar to that of Brad and Melissa can adopt. If such couples would prefer a child of their own, using IVF with PGD, to an adopted child then they must have some reasons for this preference. They must believe there is a difference between nurturing a biological child and an adopted child. In this posting I want to examine what these reasons might be.

One difference between biological and adopted parents is the way they acquire their obligations to care for their children. The vast majority of biological parents naturally acquire an obligation to care for their children simply because they create vulnerable children. They may be certain exceptions such as a fourteen year old mother, who because she is a child herself, may be unable to fulfil this obligation, see deceit and unintentional fathers . Adoptive parents consciously assume this obligation at the time of adoption. However irrespective of how parents acquire the duty to care for their children the actual caring seems to be identical. It follows the difference between the way biological and adopted parents acquire their obligations to care for their children should not make any difference to the relationship between a parent and child. It gives no reason why couples such as Brad and Melissa want a child using IVF rather than adopting one. None the less such couples are concerned with not just with having any child; they are concerned with being the child’s biological parents. After all Brad and Melissa spent a great deal of money and even had to sell their car in order to achieve this aim.

I will now suggest two reasons why parents might want to be biological parents. Firstly parents might want to be biological parents as opposed to adoptive parents simply because they believe they will have a closer bond with their children due to this bond being unique. Adopted children have both biological and adoptive parents. Many adopted children feel the need later in life to seek their biological parents. This need may weaken the bond a child feels for her adoptive parents. It does not automatically follow that the bond the adoptive parents feels for their adopted child is weakened and as a result the first reason fails. A second reason why mothers might want to be biological mothers is that they believe carrying their children will increase the maternal bond. This may well be true but I am doubtful if it is the main reason why many couples in Brad and Melissa’s position seek IVF with PGD. Let us assume such a couple could have a child with donated gametes and that the woman involved could gestate the child. I would suggest such a couple would still prefer IVF with PGD and as a result the second reason fails. The reason for this failure I would further suggest is that they care about having a child of their own. By a child of their own they mean a child who is genetically related to them. I would still further suggest when parents express a preference to be biological parents that this really means they want to be genetic parents. For instance many mothers who are unable to bear children, for health reasons such as having a hysterectomy, might prefer a surrogate to bear their children using her and her partner’s gametes rather than adopt. But why should parents care that they are genetic parents? Once again I will suggest it is because they believe that they will have a closer bond with their genetic children; that they will care about, they will love, their genetic children more than any children they adopt. In what follows I will suggest two reasons why parents might have this belief.

The first reason is simply that evolution designed us to care more for our genetic children than others. Perhaps those people who acquired caring instincts simply raised more children to adulthood. Perhaps also evolution designed us to care and to care more for those genetically related to us. Perhaps then step parents don’t care about their children as much as genetic parents do. Fairy tales and myths abound with stories about wicked step parents. Indeed there might be some evidence to support the claim that step parents care less, see Hofferth and Anderson. Of course some step parents may behave better most than genetic parents. And of course some genetic parents may behave atrociously. Someone might object that even if we do have evolved an instinct to care more for those genetically related to us this does not mean this is what we ought to do. Modern human beings are reflective creature. My objector might then argue that after reflection couples like Brad and Melissa might decide they could care as much for an adopted child as they would for a genetically related child and as a result decide that adoption is the best option. In reply I would suggest coming to care about, coming to love, is not a matter of reflection or choice, see Frankfurt (1). Of course someone may reflect on how to love or even whether her love is prudent but she cannot simply decide on whom she will love and the degree of her love. However at the present time there seems to me there is insufficient evidence to definitely conclude that evolution means genetic parents love their children more than adoptive parents do.

A second reason why parents might care about their genetic children more than any children they adopt is that they will have more common interests. My objector might now suggest that parents and children come to share interests simply by family life. A child’s interests are a product of his upbringing. I agree a child’s interests are partly a product of her upbringing but they are also partly defined her genes. For instance an adopted child may be strong, supple and as a result excel in sports due to her genes whilst her adoptive parents may be intellectuals with no interest whatsoever in sport. Moreover it seems that someone’s personality is partly determined by their genes. It follows parents who bring up their genetic children will have more interests in common with these children than any children they adopt. My objector might suggest this does not by itself show they care about their genetic children more than any adopted children. I agree with my objector that more shared interests does not supply any reason as to why genetic parents should have a greater disposition to care about their children than adoptive parents. It follows in this sense of caring about there is no reason why adoptive parents should love their children any less than biological parents. However there is more to caring about or loving than having a disposition to love; I am here assuming the terms love and care about are interchangeable. I do not actively love when I am asleep or when I am concentrating on my next golf shot. Actively loving someone means sharing her interests, if I have no concern for her interests I simply don’t love her. It is easier to share interests if these are interests I already possess, see aspergers autism and love . It follows there is a reason why genetic parents might be more loving towards their children than adoptive parents. It also follows parents carrying genes for inherited diseases can justify their desire for a child of their own using IVF with PGD.

In conclusion parents such as Brad and Melissa do have the option of adopting but most of them would prefer a child which is genetically related to them by using IVF with PGD. Moreover it would seem they have sound reasons for this preference. Personally I would support their preference. However I am not sure whether or not the State has an obligation to help them satisfy this preference. After all some children might have a preference to be adopted.

1.     Frankfurt, H. (1999) Necessity, Volition, and Love. Cambridge University Press, page 135.

Aspergers, Autism and Love

In this posting I want to explore the way someone loves someone else on the autistic spectrum. This exploration is partly a personal exploration as one of my grandsons is on this spectrum. My exploration starts with Charles Foster’s remark that his son is dyslexic and that he is glad . I’m not glad about my grandson’s aspergers and my reaction is one of indifference. Some might think me a very hard hearted person and that Foster’s attitude is infinitely preferable to mine. But I will argue indifference to my grandson’s condition is the only reasonable position for me to take and that being either glad or sad are inappropriate. My indifference does not mean I am indifferent to him as a person. Prior to making my argument I must examine exactly what Foster is glad about.

Let it be accepted that Foster like all good parents is glad to have his son, is glad his son exists. But is there any connection between his natural gladness and dyslexia? What exactly is Foster glad about when talking about his son’s dyslexia? Firstly, Foster might be glad his son is dyslexic or secondly he might be glad his son has dyslexia? To answer the above questions it is important to differentiate clearly between what is meant by being dyslexic and having dyslexia. Being dyslexic means someone’s character is inevitably tied to his dyslexia; his dyslexia helps determine his character. Having dyslexia means someone suffers from dyslexia and that his character is not inevitably tied to his dyslexia. If Foster is glad his son has dyslexia then it is hard to see what he is being glad about in addition to being glad about having his son. It seems to me that Foster must mean he is glad that his son is dyslexic. In this context it seems if he is glad about his son he is glad about the dyslexia only because he believes his son’s dyslexia is inevitably tied to his son’s character; is inevitably tied to his son as a person. I am by no means convinced that dyslexia is inevitably tied to character as having dyslexia doesn’t appear to alter the underlying emotional structure of the dyslexic. I will not pursue this question further here. Unfortunately, aspergers syndrome affects someone’s underlying emotional structure which I believe means it is inevitably tied to his character.

In the light of the above am I not being both unreasonable and hardhearted with my indifference to my grandson’s aspergers? Am I not being indifferent to his character and perhaps even his essential being? Clearly it seems this is what Foster would believe. Before proceeding I had better clarify exactly what I mean by my being indifferent. Being indifferent means I hope that I am neither hard hearted nor callous, but on the other hand I’m not glad either. Moreover, my indifference is not simply a grudging one because I have no choice and wish things were otherwise. I simply accept my grandson’s condition. My acceptance, my indifference, is not expressed as some kind of emotion but rather as a lack of any desire on my part to change the situation. In addition my acceptance includes a lack of desire that the situation might have been different. In the light of some of my previous postings concerning the philosophy of Harry Frankfurt it is important to make it clear my acceptance is simply acceptance and is not a form of loving or ‘caring about’. Loving or ‘caring about’ involves the agent identifying himself with what he cares about. I simply accept or am indifferent to my grandson’s aspergers, to the cause of his character. However, there is no reason why my indifference should carry over to his actual character. This indifference should give no reason why I should fail to identify myself with him and what he ‘cares about’. I have no reason not to love him and many reasons to do so. Does Foster’s being glad at his son’s dyslexia involve any more than my simple acceptance? I’m not sure, but if it does doesn’t his gladness imply that if his son was not dyslexic he would be less happy?

Intuitively my indifference seems to make more sense than being glad about my grandson’s condition. However, should I be sad about his aspergers? Am I not wrong to be indifferent to this condition? I will argue I am not. Firstly, Foster believes if we could take away his son’s dyslexia he would be a different person. I’m not sure Foster is correct. However, I am sure that if we could take away my grandson’s aspergers he would be a different person. If I was sad about my grandson’s condition what exactly would I be sad about? I cannot be sad about him not being a more social person for this is impossible. As a more social person he would be a different person. Provided I cannot reasonably be sad he isn’t the same person but with additional talents then it would appear if I am sad I must be sad he is not someone else. It appears to follow I must be sad he exists provided that he could be replaced by someone else without aspergers syndrome. However, I love my grandson and I believe this love rules out such a thought. Someone might object that I could love someone else with additional talents instead. It is of course true I could love someone else, perhaps an additional grandchild, but I would argue I couldn’t love someone else instead. Frankfurt argues ‘caring about’ someone is equivalent to loving her. Caring about someone means you identify yourself with that person and become vulnerable to his losses and susceptible to what benefits him (1). Moreover, the lover is not free he is captivated by his beloved and his love. The will of the lover is rigorously constrained. Love is not a matter of choice (2). If I love my wife I can’t simply swap her for a younger woman with a Phd. My objector might counter that this is exactly what lovers do all the time especially rich middle aged men. I would counter argue that my objector is construing the terms ‘lover’ and ‘partner’ as being interchangeable. Partners need not be lovers. A patriot cannot simply swap the love of his country for a bigger and better one any more than a football supporter change his allegiance and support a more successful team. It seems inconceivable that a lover of Newcastle United could simply change his allegiance to a more successful team. It follows a lover cannot easily love someone else instead of his beloved. His love is constrained or captured by his beloved. It further follows that because I love my grandson I cannot want to replace my grandson by someone else. It still further follows that I have no reason to be sad about his aspergers and hence my indifference to this condition is a perfectly reasonable.

Nevertheless, even if it is accepted my indifference to his condition is a reasonable position a personally awkward question arises.  People are easily deluded and perhaps I am deluding myself when I say I don’t see why his condition should make me love him less? Perhaps all I'm doing is adopting a stoical attitude and stoics have problems with love, see why I'm not a stoic. I suggested above if you love someone you identify yourself with him and become vulnerable to his losses and susceptible to what benefits him. You ‘care about’ his interests. Accepting the above my objector might suggest that I must care less about my grandson because his aspergers means his interests make it more difficult for me to ‘care about’ him. This lessening of my ability to care might occur for two reasons. First it might be suggested someone with aspergers has narrower interests than most people. Second it might be suggested that even if someone with aspergers does not have fewer interests than most people that nonetheless he has different interests. This second suggestion seems plausible after all someone with aspergers often has difficulty with social relationships and these are of major concern to most people. Moreover, those with aspergers are attracted by routine and order. My objector might now proceed to point out most people find it more difficult to ‘care about’ routine and order rather than social relationships. This follows because to ‘care about’ requires an emotional response. She might then argue this difficulty causes me to love my grandson to a lesser degree due to his aspergers.

If this is all there is to loving then I have to concede that my objector might well have a point and even if I am not being hypocritical I might nonetheless be deluding myself about the true extent of my love. Perhaps for instance I am deluding myself because I love my daughter. Perhaps however there is more to loving, ‘caring about’, than making yourself vulnerable to your beloved’s losses and benefits. The important question is this, do you simply identify with your beloved and this means you become vulnerable to his losses and benefits? Or do you simply become vulnerable to his losses and benefits? I am inclined to favour the first option. However my objector might well ask me if I could love someone who was in a coma and had nothing that would consciously benefit or harm him. She might proceed to further stipulate this person has always been in a coma in order to rule out my being swayed by anything that would previously have consciously benefited or harmed him. Being truthful I would have to admit I could not identify with such a person. Nonetheless I am reluctant to accept the second option as it seems imply that the lover simply loves the properties of the beloved rather than the beloved. This the position Plato adopted in the symposium.

In order to consider whether I love my grandson to a lesser degree because of his aspergers I want to consider loving from a different angle. Do I love someone when I am asleep or when I am concentrating hard on something else. When sleeping and at certain particular moments it seems clear I am not actively loving, ‘caring about’, my beloved. Does the above lead to the conclusion that at these moments I do not love my beloved? Most people would be reluctant to accept such a conclusion as it is so counter intuitive. If such a conclusion is unacceptable then it would appear loving someone involves both actually ‘caring about’ a beloved’s interests and having a disposition to ‘care about’ these interests. My objector might nonetheless continue to suggest that a disposition to ‘care about’ is not an essential part of loving someone; loving someone should only concern actual ‘caring about’. However, accepting my objector’s suggestion seems to mean accepting that loving someone is really a series of discrete disconnected events separated by periods when the lover’s concentration is focussed elsewhere. It also seems to mean accepting if you love someone today there is no reason why you should love him tomorrow. Whatever my objector may believe love is not at all like this. One of the elements of love is persistence. We question whether a fickle lover really loves or understands the demands of love. If the process of actually loving cannot be sustained continuously over very long periods of time then it seems the demand for persistence can only be met by a lover having a disposition to ‘care about’ his beloved. It follows loving someone involves both being actually ‘caring about’ a beloved’s interests and having a disposition to ‘care about’ these interests.

In the light of the above discussion do I love my grandson any less because of his aspergers? Clearly my disposition to ‘care about’ what he cares about is the same as my disposition to ‘care about’ the things my other grandchildren care about. It follows in this sense of loving I do not love him less. Moreover, when I am actively loving him, ‘caring about’ his interests I become absorbed by this activity and I see no reason why my ‘caring about’, loving, him is of to a lesser degree. Nonetheless because some of his interests may make it harder for him to share these interests with me this might mean that I whilst I always have a disposition to love him that in practices I actively love him less often. This is a highly uncomfortable conclusion for me. However, if I accept it, and after some reflection I am inclined to do so, then I must make a greater effort to make it easier for him to share these interests with me.

1.    Frankfurt, H. (1988) The Importance of What We Care About. Cambridge University Press page 83.

2.   Frankfurt, H. (1999) Necessity, Volition, and Love. Cambridge University Press, page 135.