Right Wing Discussion Thread XIV: Join the Friendkorps

[Fahran]

My hot take: (romantic) love does not compute.

As NS's resident sad girl and romantic, this is where I draw the line.

In all seriousness, I have some philosophical quibbles with romantic love; namely, it is a form of attachment that clouds one’s impartiality in making moral judgements. Does that make any sense?

It would depend on one's approach to morality. A purely Kantian approach would preclude a person from having friends arguably because a genuinely ethical person has no friends merely a universal predisposition towards friendliness. However, more communitarian models of ethics take it for granted that people will prefer their families and neighbors over strangers. In this case, it would be wildly unethical not to prefer your spouse over someone else in a wide litany of ways - for example romantically, sexually, or emotionally.

From a less theoretical and more practical perspective, it just... doesn’t interest me, and I personally view it as a waste of time, especially given that I am a youth (relatively speaking, of course; I’m currently 18 years of age), and it is my duty as of right now to dedicate myself to my studies so that I may be of use to society later in life, and getting involved with women is a hindrance to that, y’know?

I think this is an issue with a lot of well-educated young people, but I'd argue it speaks more to the deep-rooted materialism and credential-ism in our society rather than to the intrinsic morality of romantic love or eros. In all frankness, I think there is a current shortage of genuine affection and warmth between youths at the moment - one that may prove harmful to society in places like Europe and Japan.

I apologize if I was impolite, btw.

You're hardly ever impolite. No worries.

[Fahran]

Of course, the love of one’s friends and the love of one’s family must be tempered by the love of all humanity, y’know? I mean, it’s the last one from which one’s duties flow. (Ooh, that rhymes!)

I'm not certain I wholly agree. Marriage and romantic love between two people are meant to be a more perfect parallel to the relationship between G-d and his people - at least based on mystical analyses of the Song of Songs. We can draw quite a lot from the fact that this was the metaphor that Solomon settled on to describe the relational experience between Israel and G-d.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

My hot take: (romantic) love does not compute.

As NS's resident sad girl and romantic, this is where I draw the line.

In all seriousness, I have some philosophical quibbles with romantic love; namely, it is a form of attachment that clouds one’s impartiality in making moral judgements. Does that make any sense?

It would depend on one's approach to morality. A purely Kantian approach would preclude a person from having friends arguably because a genuinely ethical person has no friends merely a universal predisposition towards friendliness. However, more communitarian models of ethics take it for granted that people will prefer their families and neighbors over strangers. In this case, it would be wildly unethical not to prefer your spouse over someone else in a wide litany of ways - for example romantically, sexually, or emotionally.

From a less theoretical and more practical perspective, it just... doesn’t interest me, and I personally view it as a waste of time, especially given that I am a youth (relatively speaking, of course; I’m currently 18 years of age), and it is my duty as of right now to dedicate myself to my studies so that I may be of use to society later in life, and getting involved with women is a hindrance to that, y’know?

I think this is an issue with a lot of well-educated young people, but I'd argue it speaks more to the deep-rooted materialism and credential-ism in our society rather than to the intrinsic morality of romantic love or eros. In all frankness, I think there is a current shortage of genuine affection and warmth between youths at the moment - one that may prove harmful to society in places like Europe and Japan.

I apologize if I was impolite, btw.

You're hardly ever impolite. No worries.

Do you mind if I borrow the term “universal predisposition towards friendliness” to describe an aspect of the ethical ideal?

[Fahran]

Do you mind if I borrow the term “universal predisposition towards friendliness” to describe an aspect of the ethical ideal?

I borrowed it myself from a philosophy professor with whom I'm acquainted.

[United Muscovite Nations]

My suffering is absolute and my pain is eternal and I want die.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=285075

I think most people would come to regret taking that approach. The world is an incredibly lonely place without someone to share life with.

I’m fine with the other three forms of love (that is to say, love for one’s friends, love for one’s family, and love of God and/or humanity depending on one’s theology), it’s romance/sex that I take issue with. I guess I just... don’t get the appeal of it, perhaps?

Tbh I just don't think you've thought through the appeal. Mutual romantic love is extremely pleasant.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=285075



I’m fine with the other three forms of love (that is to say, love for one’s friends, love for one’s family, and love of God and/or humanity depending on one’s theology), it’s romance/sex that I take issue with. I guess I just... don’t get the appeal of it, perhaps?

Tbh I just don't think you've thought through the appeal. Mutual romantic love is extremely pleasant.

But morality isn’t necessarily about what is pleasant, or rather, what is pleasant on an individual basis, mate. Does that make sense?

[Fahran]

But morality isn’t necessarily about what is pleasant, or rather, what is pleasant on an individual basis, mate. Does that make sense?

Most conventional moral systems tend to paint romantic love as essentially morally good or morally neutral, in the latter case particular conditions can impact it.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

But morality isn’t necessarily about what is pleasant, or rather, what is pleasant on an individual basis, mate. Does that make sense?

Most conventional moral systems tend to paint romantic love as essentially morally good or morally neutral, in the latter case particular conditions can impact it.

But again, as previously established an ideal moral agent has a "universal predisposition towards friendliness", or as the Mohist philosophers put it (or at the very least, a similar concept): jian'ai.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Tbh I just don't think you've thought through the appeal. Mutual romantic love is extremely pleasant.

But morality isn’t necessarily about what is pleasant, or rather, what is pleasant on an individual basis, mate. Does that make sense?

I tend to think that something benefiting people is indicative that it is good, so pleasantness is a bit of a moral indicator. We accept that (in most cases) pleasure is good for us for the same reason we know that suffering (in most cases) is bad for us. Now, as for whether we ought to do what is good for us, that is another question, but I think it's self-evident that we should do what is good for us and for others from the Great Commandment to love others as yourself.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

But morality isn’t necessarily about what is pleasant, or rather, what is pleasant on an individual basis, mate. Does that make sense?

I tend to think that something benefiting people is indicative that it is good, so pleasantness is a bit of a moral indicator. We accept that (in most cases) pleasure is good for us for the same reason we know that suffering (in most cases) is bad for us. Now, as for whether we ought to do what is good for us, that is another question, but I think it's self-evident that we should do what is good for us and for others from the Great Commandment to love others as yourself.

Ah, but the problem therein lies in making proper judgements according to the Great Commandment/Golden Rule/Whatever-You-Wish-To-Call-It; namely, the question regards whether impartiality or partiality is the perspective to be adopted.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I tend to think that something benefiting people is indicative that it is good, so pleasantness is a bit of a moral indicator. We accept that (in most cases) pleasure is good for us for the same reason we know that suffering (in most cases) is bad for us. Now, as for whether we ought to do what is good for us, that is another question, but I think it's self-evident that we should do what is good for us and for others from the Great Commandment to love others as yourself.

Ah, but the problem therein lies in making proper judgements according to the Great Commandment/Golden Rule/Whatever-You-Wish-To-Call-It; namely, the question regards whether impartiality or partiality is the perspective to be adopted.

Impartiality or partiality towards what?

[Fahran]

But again, as previously established an ideal moral agent has a "universal predisposition towards friendliness", or as the Mohist philosophers put it (or at the very least, a similar concept): jian'ai.

That would almost suggest absolute pansexual free love or monk-like virginity as the only moral choices. I'm not especially inclined to agree given the ethical systems I follow, but I suppose those two conclusions would be consistent with certain interpretations of those two ethical systems.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

But again, as previously established an ideal moral agent has a "universal predisposition towards friendliness", or as the Mohist philosophers put it (or at the very least, a similar concept): jian'ai.

That would almost suggest absolute pansexual free love or monk-like virginity as the only moral choices. I'm not especially inclined to agree given the ethical systems I follow, but I suppose those two conclusions would be consistent with certain interpretations of those two ethical systems.

> Monk-like virginity

I mean, I've already adopted such a position. In fact, an acquaintance of mine once stated that I've the temperament of an "atheistic monk". Of course, I corrected him in that my theological/metaphysical perspective is closer to Spinozan-esque pantheism/panentheism (i.e. a non-anthropomorphic, non-interventionist "Deus sive Natura") than atheism.

EDIT: I must admit, I have immense respect and admiration for those who engage in self-abnegation/self-denial in the pursuit of a philosophical or religious ideal. Is that normal?

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Ah, but the problem therein lies in making proper judgements according to the Great Commandment/Golden Rule/Whatever-You-Wish-To-Call-It; namely, the question regards whether impartiality or partiality is the perspective to be adopted.

Impartiality or partiality towards what?

Whether one should show preference in moral judgements to one's loved ones (friends, family, SO, etc.), or whether one should treat all interests impartially. In essence, how much moral "weight" will an ideal moral agent give to those that they're emotionally attached to?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Impartiality or partiality towards what?

Whether one should show preference in moral judgements to one's loved ones (friends, family, SO, etc.), or whether one should treat all interests impartially. In essence, how much moral "weight" will an ideal moral agent give to those that they're emotionally attached to?

Ideally, all people should be loved equally, even if they're loved in different ways, so there should be impartiality in those judgements.

[Bienenhalde]

In all seriousness, I have some philosophical quibbles with romantic love; namely, it is a form of attachment that clouds one’s impartiality in making moral judgements. Does that make any sense?

It would depend on one's approach to morality. A purely Kantian approach would preclude a person from having friends arguably because a genuinely ethical person has no friends merely a universal predisposition towards friendliness. However, more communitarian models of ethics take it for granted that people will prefer their families and neighbors over strangers. In this case, it would be wildly unethical not to prefer your spouse over someone else in a wide litany of ways - for example romantically, sexually, or emotionally.

Interestingly, I have noticed that some theologians have described the concept of Christian charity in terms that sound similar to Kantian or Mohist ideas of impartial benevolence.

[Conserative Morality]

Whether one should show preference in moral judgements to one's loved ones (friends, family, SO, etc.), or whether one should treat all interests impartially. In essence, how much moral "weight" will an ideal moral agent give to those that they're emotionally attached to?

Ideally, all people should be loved equally, even if they're loved in different ways, so there should be impartiality in those judgements.

Is hate a form of love?

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Ideally, all people should be loved equally, even if they're loved in different ways, so there should be impartiality in those judgements.

Is hate a form of love?

No, hate just causes you to shrivel up like a dried raisin and die alone to be forgotten very quickly.

[Torrocca]

Ideally, all people should be loved equally, even if they're loved in different ways, so there should be impartiality in those judgements.

Is hate a form of love?

Only if it's a consensually-shared kink.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Ideally, all people should be loved equally, even if they're loved in different ways, so there should be impartiality in those judgements.

Is hate a form of love?

[Conserative Morality]

Is hate a form of love?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

We're really going into a philosophical debate over whether romantic love is good lol. Sheesh.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

We're really going into a philosophical debate over whether romantic love is good lol. Sheesh.

Would you like to share your take on the topic?

[West Leas Oros 2]

No CM, horseradish is not a form of love either.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

We're really going into a philosophical debate over whether romantic love is good lol. Sheesh.

Would you like to share your take on the topic?

I think it's dumb to talk about. Love is a net good, end of story.

Idk why I'm so irritated by this, I'm sorry.