Although romantic love is an emotion that cannot be directly controlled, as suggested by Halwani (2010, p. 90) in his book Philosophy of Love, Sex, and Marriage: An Introduction, I agree that romantic love is a moral issue not because of love per se, but because of what romantic love makes people do. It causes people to feel different kinds of desires, which when, acted on, can make such actions either morally right or wrong.
As Halwani (2010, p. 90) suggests, love is permissible and not obligatory. He implies that
romantic love is often something that just happens, that, just like hatred, it is borne out of reason, that is, we cannot hate someone when we have no reason to hate them nor can we stop hating someone unless they give us a reason to stop hating them (Halwani, 2010, p. 90). Romantic love also works in much the same way, that is, we cannot force ourselves to love someone unless we have reason to love them and we cannot force ourselves to stop loving someone unless that person gives us reason to stop loving them.
This brings me to the question of illicit love affairs that lead to the breakup of marriages and eventually to divorce. Divorce is legal in most countries but how moral is it? As asserted by Halwani (2010, p. 90), being in a relationship comes with certain obligations. However, he also suggests that romantic love is not obligatory (Halwani, 2010, p. 90). Surely, a divorce or annulment can dissolve the obligation that spouses have towards each other. Does this mean then that the extramarital romance that one of the spouses had was moral because, after all, the obligation that bound the spouses could be dissolved? Also, if romantic love and the absence thereof cannot be forced or imposed, does this give a spouse excuse to stop loving their spouse and start loving another? If a wife suddenly starts nagging too much, is this enough reason for a man to stop loving his wife? In the same manner, if the “other woman” starts giving the man the love and attention that the wife fails to give, is this enough reason for the man to love that other woman and hence lead to the filing for divorce? Although there are undoubtedly other reasons –perhaps more valid reasons, such as spouse abuse – that can make the grounds for a divorce valid or even moral, this paper pertains to the aspect of divorce that involves romantic love, that is, the loss of romantic love for a spouse and the existence of romantic love for another person.
This also leads to the question of whether love is moral or not because of the preferential treatment that results from romantic love. Aside from Halwani’s (2010, p. 91) assertion that humans are not cold and rational creatures, but are instead biological and emotional creatures that are social and political in nature, I think that the preferential treatment that comes with love actually helps keep love moral when given to a certain degree. Although anything excessive is harmful and can be considered immoral, the right amount of preferential treatment that results from love makes love moral. For example, if John treats Melissa, his girlfriend, just as he would any other person or girl, then it defeats the purpose of being in love. This negates the benefits that being in love brings. People in love feel happy because they feel special, because they have someone in their life whom they can turn to when they need someone or who understands them. It brings about this sense of belongingness, which is an innate social and psychological need of humans. It is because of this feeling of belongingness – of being one – that people decide to get married and commit for life. It’s what makes them want to start a family and procreate, which in turn leads to the continuity of the human race. Without preferential treatment, what then would make romantic love different from other forms of love or relationships? I think that preferential treatment, in a way, leads one to feel more intimate with their beloved. As such, if there were no preferential treatment then how could our relationship with our beloved be different from our relationship with the next person or even with a stranger? Similarly, if parents didn’t give preferential treatment to their children then who would look out for their children’s best interest? It goes without saying that our resources are limited and so are the resources of parents. As such, it is only right that they use their resources to give their children the best as long as it is within reason and does not become excessive. For example, there’s nothing wrong with parents giving their child gifts for Christmas. If they have limited resources then there should be nothing wrong with them not being able to give to charity or the poor. However, if the parents happen to be rich and buy more presents than their child can handle without giving to the needy then preferential treatment in this case becomes immoral.
I also think that preferential treatment is not selfish for as long as we give people what they are due. For example, our romantic partners expect a different kind of preferential treatment from us than our parents or our neighbors do. For example, our romantic partners may expect us to make time to go out on a date with them thrice a week, but surely our parents or our neighbors don’t expect the same. If our neighbor expects us to look after their pets while they are away, surely our siblings who live in another state won’t mind that we’re not able to look after their pets while they are away, that is, we are not able to give them the same preferential treatment that we’re able to give our neighbors.
That said, I think that preferential treatment makes relationships stronger and that it is impossible to give absolutely the same amount of love and attention to everyone or else we’d be spreading ourselves thin, which, in the long run will not be good for ourselves and others. In the same regard, I don’t think that the preferential treatment that results from romantic love or any form of love is selfish. On the contrary, I think that it does conform to the utilitarian concept of benefitting the most number of people (Halwani, 2010, p. 93). By giving our beloveds the right amount of preferential treatment, our bonds with them become stronger. This leads to stronger marriages and stronger familial relationships, which makes for a healthier and more stable society. In this way, preferential treatment between or among certain people actually leads to the betterment of the whole society.
On the contrary, a moral issue would likely arise if preferential treatment were completely eradicated. For example, if John treats any woman the same way he treats his girlfriend, Melissa, then this will likely lead to feelings of jealousy on Melissa’s part, which can lead to the breakdown of the relationship. While preferential treatment fosters loyalty and faithfulness among the people involved, the lack of preferential treatment can lead to feelings of estrangement and discord. Moreover, preferential treatment helps ensure that we treat our beloveds as not merely a means to an end but as the end in themselves as advocated by Kantian ethics (Halwani, 2010, p. 95). This is because preferential treatment, in some ways, helps us ensure that we are able to make our beloved happy, that we are able to help them reach their goals, and that we are able to fulfill our obligation towards them.
Finally, I am made to think about the moral issues that come with romantic love that’s unrequited. Such a type of love brings the one who loves inspiration and happiness in the beginning, but as the hope of the love being returned diminishes, the person whose love is unrequited becomes depressed and may become negatively affected in both their physical and social well-being. The consequentialism theory asserts that people should be allowed to pursue their lives as they see fit as long as they don’t cause any harm towards others (Halwani, 2010, p. 93). As such, can unrequited love be considered moral as the person hurts no one but themselves? Since utilitarian ethics advocates for the greater good, can unrequited love be considered moral on the basis of utilitarianism? For example, the reason for the love being unrequited is probably because the other person is already married or because they want to focus on their careers, both of which are bound to benefit more people. In this case, would the unrequited love be considered moral?
Indeed, there are many facets to romantic love on which its morality or immorality can be based. It is a very subjective concept that leads to many conflicts that in the end, its morality or immorality will have to depend on the persons involved. However, a general consensus that can be derived from the various theorists is that as long as nobody is being harmed then romantic love should be considered moral.
References
Halwani, R., 2010. Philosophy of love, sex, and marriage: An introduction. Routledge.
