Neither - both are morally acceptable - Sometime you need to love because God said to because you can't love the person because that person is reprehensible to you. Aperson can start off loving because God said so and then end up loving the person because of who they are - and vice versa.
Thanks for answering. However, I wonder if you are evading. Without appealing to consequence (i.e., that you may end up really loving the person), can you rank the two choices?
It seems to me you actually think that B. is preferable but you wish that A. were.
If you define love as wanting success, joy, and peace for a person then I choose A. I love you because God tells me to.
B. I love you because of the kind of person you are, is morally limiting. It is easy to love a person who is also loving or giving, or thoughtful. It is easy to love people who I find pleasing. It is difficult but with practice, learning to love someone is a very pleasurable experience and it gives you insights into yourself that you would never bother to unearth.
If person X is a demonstrably cruel and violent person who desires ill for others, is it still right for you to wish him/her success, joy, and peace? For person X, these qualities will surely amount to the suffering of others.
G*3 I see emotions as information. Emotions are just not the best kind of information because emotions/feelings can change and you can voluntarily change your emotions.
If one feels regret or shame then for that person there must be a morality connected to that feeling.
If one feels anger then for that person someone has upset his moral code.
> You think that love is involuntary? Can you explain?
I think that all emotions are involuntary. Let me be clear: you can induce an emotional experience, such as making yourself feel sad by thinking about sad things, but the emotion is an involuntary reaction to the stimuli you are presenting to yourself. You can’t turn an emotion on and off the way you open and close your eyes.
You can voluntarily act towards someone as if you love them. You can voluntarily take actions that you think might induce feelings of love, like spending time with the person and having physical contact with the person (both of which are important to the bonding process). But the actual emotion is an involuntary reaction to stimuli. You can no more control the release of oxytocin when you see someone you love than you can control the release of adrenaline when you’re frightened.
Also (even though you didn’t ask) feeling an emotion is not morally loaded. It would not be immoral for me to hate you. It would be immoral for me to act on that emotion. What’s more, in many situations we would consider it a supremely moral act to be kind towards someone one hates, which shows that it is not our emotions that have moral import, but our actions.
Emet L. said... > If one feels regret or shame then for that person there must be a morality connected to that feeling.
What morality is connected to a feeling of regret that I didn’t take advantage of the opportunity to steal the little old lady’s purse?
> If one feels anger then for that person someone has upset his moral code.
Anger can and often is as much the result of stress and fatigue as it is a reaction to a perceived infraction.
I think you have a much rosier view of people than I do.
Without unit of measure, is impossible to measure, without parameter there is no qualification, without rule the answer is worthless, A, B, both or none are the same. Which is your moral rule against are you comparing both statements?
I would have to ask your definition of the word hate. My definition is - a feeling so powerful that you would want the person destroyed. Since being loving is a desirable quality, exchanging it with being hateful, a negative character trait, changes the question.
As for B - I hate you because of the kind of person you are, I find that morally limiting too. It is much easier to hate than to love.
"If person X is a demonstrably cruel and violent person who desires ill for others, is it still right for you to wish him/her success, joy, and peace?"
I say no. Now we would have to define the qualities of mercy and justice and what society/religious/operating system we are living in.
G*3 I'm not sure I have a rosier view of people but I have come to consider the teaching of a Rabbi who said something like - if mankind realized how interconnected they really are, then peace would be possible.
Which is your moral rule against are you comparing both statements?
ReplyDeletePlease answer the question first.
ReplyDeleteNeither - both are morally acceptable - Sometime you need to love because God said to because you can't love the person because that person is reprehensible to you. Aperson can start off loving because God said so and then end up loving the person because of who they are - and vice versa.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteThanks for answering. However, I wonder if you are evading. Without appealing to consequence (i.e., that you may end up really loving the person), can you rank the two choices?
It seems to me you actually think that B. is preferable but you wish that A. were.
Experiencing emotions is neither voluntary nor morally loaded.
ReplyDeleteIf you define love as wanting success, joy, and peace for a person then I choose A. I love you because God tells me to.
ReplyDeleteB. I love you because of the kind of person you are, is morally limiting. It is easy to love a person who is also loving or giving, or thoughtful. It is easy to love people who I find pleasing. It is difficult but with practice, learning to love someone is a very pleasurable experience and it gives you insights into yourself that you would never bother to unearth.
Interesting set of comments so far. Do preferences change if the questions are altered as follows?
ReplyDeleteA. I hate you because God tells me to.
B. I hate you because of the kind of person you are.
G*3,
ReplyDelete"Experiencing emotions is neither voluntary nor morally loaded."
I'm interested in the first part. You think that love is involuntary? Can you explain?
Emet L.,
ReplyDeleteIf person X is a demonstrably cruel and violent person who desires ill for others, is it still right for you to wish him/her success, joy, and peace? For person X, these qualities will surely amount to the suffering of others.
G*3
ReplyDeleteI see emotions as information. Emotions are just not the best kind of information because emotions/feelings can change and you can voluntarily change your emotions.
If one feels regret or shame then for that person there must be a morality connected to that feeling.
If one feels anger then for that person someone has upset his moral code.
> You think that love is involuntary? Can you explain?
ReplyDeleteI think that all emotions are involuntary. Let me be clear: you can induce an emotional experience, such as making yourself feel sad by thinking about sad things, but the emotion is an involuntary reaction to the stimuli you are presenting to yourself. You can’t turn an emotion on and off the way you open and close your eyes.
You can voluntarily act towards someone as if you love them. You can voluntarily take actions that you think might induce feelings of love, like spending time with the person and having physical contact with the person (both of which are important to the bonding process). But the actual emotion is an involuntary reaction to stimuli. You can no more control the release of oxytocin when you see someone you love than you can control the release of adrenaline when you’re frightened.
Also (even though you didn’t ask) feeling an emotion is not morally loaded. It would not be immoral for me to hate you. It would be immoral for me to act on that emotion. What’s more, in many situations we would consider it a supremely moral act to be kind towards someone one hates, which shows that it is not our emotions that have moral import, but our actions.
Emet L. said...
> If one feels regret or shame then for that person there must be a morality connected to that feeling.
What morality is connected to a feeling of regret that I didn’t take advantage of the opportunity to steal the little old lady’s purse?
> If one feels anger then for that person someone has upset his moral code.
Anger can and often is as much the result of stress and fatigue as it is a reaction to a perceived infraction.
I think you have a much rosier view of people than I do.
Without unit of measure, is impossible to measure, without parameter there is no qualification, without rule the answer is worthless, A, B, both or none are the same.
ReplyDeleteWhich is your moral rule against are you comparing both statements?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would have to ask your definition of the word hate. My definition is - a feeling so powerful that you would want the person destroyed. Since being loving is a desirable quality, exchanging it with being hateful, a negative character trait, changes the question.
ReplyDeleteAs for B - I hate you because of the kind of person you are, I find that morally limiting too. It is much easier to hate than to love.
"If person X is a demonstrably cruel and violent person who desires ill for others, is it still right for you to wish him/her success, joy, and peace?"
I say no. Now we would have to define the qualities of mercy and justice and what society/religious/operating system we are living in.
G*3
I'm not sure I have a rosier view of people but I have come to consider the teaching of a Rabbi who said something like - if mankind realized how interconnected they really are, then peace would be possible.