1.5.8.5 The Good that Love Promotes

Version 1.0 October 2022                             (Previous Version)

Controversies arise when some unique quality is selected as the good that Love promotes.  If we choose happiness (as many utilitarians do) then philosophers and ethicists debate whether there are different kinds of happiness.  Are some worth more than others, or are they all equivalent?  Is the happiness a bovver boy obtains from listening to heavy metal music equivalent to the happiness a classical musician obtains from listening to the opera?  Is the pain often associated with giving birth better than the pain from having a leg amputated?  The light hearted happiness one feels during a great party or festival is different from the kind of happiness that comes with being quietly content.  Similar arguments are raised if the goal is simplistically defined as pleasure.  There may be no general resolution of these controversies: we can be very pragmatic about this, and still openly value Love.  

It’s generally OK to rely on a vague definition of happiness or well-being and apply common sense on a case by case basis.  In the cases when this approach seems to fail or it leads to inconsistencies then we can do a special analysis to clarify those cases, but we expect these to be relatively rare.

Some may suggest as the ultimate good that valuing Love promotes is compliance with God’s law.  In REALigion®, this Reasonable Global Way, we see no reason to believe in God(s) and benefits in not believing in them. As Section 15.3 indicates, we can't determine what is good from God anyway. 

Similarly valuing Love does not entail soppy or mawkish behaviour and continual repetition of phrases such as ‘Love you’.  Regular expressions of love may be useful with children and lovers, but to us valuing Love is more about taking action, making choices to reduce suffering and increase well-being.

Some may say that the good that love promotes, however well or badly it is defined, is the ultimate goal, according to this subsection, so that (the good that love promotes) is the real core value. 

●   This may be just semantics.  

●   We value Love, not as a thing, not because it is a positive feeling, but as a guide for behaviour: to choose actions that are beneficial (minimize harm and suffering and promote happiness or well-being).  We make a balanced judgement about an action by its intent and its outcomes.

●   If a core value is a guide for behaviour then Love, as we define it, is a guide to choose actions that are beneficial.  If the core value definition were changed to minimizing harm and suffering and promoting happiness or well-being, then the action we choose using that as a guide is unchanged.  If the core value definition were changed to (say) well-being rather than promoting well-being, then the action we choose using that as a guide is again unchanged.  Perhaps the different wordings are functionally equivalent: we do the same thing either way.  So calling Love the core value doesn’t involve any circularity and isn't hiding behind another notion of what we really value.

●   Suffering and happiness are feelings: they may not be the opposite ends of one dimension (the pleasantness dimension say, from extremely unpleasant to extremely pleasant).  Perhaps people can be harmed without actually suffering (eg have a kidney removed while they sleep, then keep the other kidney which remains healthy, until they die).  Perhaps people can be happy without self-fulfillment.  Does this suggest we need at least four core values that we are targeting? 

●   So we choose to value Love, as we define it, and believe we can justify that choice. We also believe that most adherents of the rest of the world’s major traditional religions agree with us, as we point out in the next subsection.