#but even from an amoral perspective any solution should not be worse than the problem it's supposed to solve

[crapeaucrapeau]

To add to this (and hoping not to intrude or derail the post), two things : something that's been said already, but which should be stressed, is that not only are fascist regimes inefficient, lawless and corrupt, they are terrible at winning wars, which is a big priority for fascists themselves and those attracted by them. Fascist regimes either lose wars (e.g. Germany and Italy during WW2) or actively go out of their way to avoid them to actually last (e.g. Franco's Spain). I first came across this perspective in this blog post by military historian Brett Devereaux, which I encourage you to read for the full argument.

Second, the obvious counter-argument from bootlickers would be : okay, but what if we get a real savior type, a strong hero who's infallible ? Not the dysfunctional idiots like Hitler and friends. To this I'd say : a) I sincerely believe fascism can't produce or attract anything but deadly, dysfunctional idiots, for hard-baked ideological reasons already outlined by others above. Ironically, it's an "ideology" of ressentiment.

Moreover, b) even if you look at authoritarian (not fascist) regimes with actual competent people running the show, the problem is at least twofold : 1) no one rules forever and no one is competent at everything. Even the most competent strongman can't know everything, do everything, run everything, and when they need to be replaced, it's a horror show : during power transitions, you're statistically likelier to get various shades of incompetency than in a democracy, if the regime survives, and it usually gets violent fast. Primogeniture in European-style monarchies (eldest male kid gets the funny hat) was a huge improvement over the Roman Empire's form of power transfer (e.g. none, i.e. down the line, whoever has the biggest legion left standing gets the funny hat), because there was no doubt as to who was gonna be king and no way for outside players to subvert the system ; to my knowledge, it's literally the one and only thing old-style monarchies are good at, and even then sometimes that fails (e.g. when your only heir is your adult brother, or the heir can't be defended from the spare, etc).

And 2) to come back to the subject at hand (people in charge of military policy in authoritarian regimes who are also competent at what they are doing), I'll take one of my fave examples, certified competent™ man French Cardinal de Richelieu from the horror show that is 17th century Europe. If you want a good start, I suggest reading this extreeeeeeeeeemely long essay/article on Richelieu's policies and principles, but basically, at the time Richelieu becomes chief minister of king Louis XIII, the main problem he's facing is : how do I keep France's long-standing enemies, the Habsburgs, from invading and conquering us, when a) they are currently the leaders of the biggest and wealthiest colonial empire with frankly unbelievable amounts of wealth paid in blood by the conquered Natives, and b) just about 100% of France's land borders are snugly next to Habsburg lands — meaning that France is quite literally surrounded by a hostile power with considerably more resources ?

The long and short of it is that, at great cost to the French people, and because Richelieu was quite competent, and because Spain's decision-makers were very unlucky, France wasn't subsumed by the Habsburgs. But a close examination of the situation will reveal that, at every single point, Richelieu was undermined by the various military officers he chose, because he was faced with the problem every single authoritarian leader has to face (and which is my entire point) : you need to give power to incompetent people who are loyal to you over competent people of questionable loyalty. Because in authoritarian regimes, the person in charge needs first to survive politically in order to be able to direct wars, and since your power is personal rather than institutional (i.e. you could be replaced at any time if you look weak enough to enough people with power of their own), staying in power in the medium-to-long term overrides what should be the only concern for winning wars : actually winning wars. Meanwhile, in a liberal democracy, your institutional position is stable, since the only way you can lose power is either by waiting out the end of your term or by quitting.

tl;dr : fascism is terrible at winning wars and at staying in power, it attracts and produces deadly incompetent idiots, and even if, by some frankly unthinkable happenstance a competent person was in charge (again, that's with obvious ethical and logistical failures aside), that Strong Independent Hypercompetent Man would run into the problems hard-baked into all autocracies — the need to have competent delegates and the inability to appoint them. If only there was a regime whose creation had been largely kickstarted by the intrinsic failures of autocracies, and in response to them— OH WAIT

The supposed efficiency and effectiveness of fascism was always propaganda: in reality, fascist regimes were deeply inefficient, hobbled by interpersonal rivalry, had institutions weakened or totally subverted by the personalist nature of leadership, and were deeply corrupt and lawless.

So it really, really bugs me how so much speculative fiction and even casual discourse since has taken WW2 era propaganda about fascism at face value, and depicted authoritarianism generally and fascism in particular as an intrinsic tradeoff between the chaos and disorder of liberty and the order of repression. Fascism is not orderly! That was always a lie. There is a reason right-wing authoritarian regimes have mid performance at best and at worst collapse due to infighting and military defeat—they suck at running states!

Democracy is the ideology of order and stability. Democracy provides for stable succession and can sustain rule of law in ways personalist rule cannot. Democracy can create avenues of accountability to reduce corruption that authoritarian (or even one-party rule) could never contemplate. “Democracy is chaos” is a lie invented by fascists to try to discredit liberal principles, and the apparent “chaos” of interwar democracies was often caused by the fascists themselves because they did not believe in liberalism.

I think of this most often in the context of video games about politics where it is assumed that authoritarian governance gives you efficiency bonuses at some cost to happiness or freedom—but I think these mechanics are backward. Fascism and authoritarianism are good for the narrow ruling clique at the top, the people they personally enrich, but they make for brittle and weak states, and they often fuck over even the narrow ethnic group or core citizenry whose will they are supposed to be channeling. Starting World War II was very bad for almost all Germans and Italians!

By contrast political scientists debate if a consolidated liberal democracy has ever deconsolidated, and the biggest challenges to democratic systems of government have tended to come when those systems are illiberal (as before the American Civil War), or being sabotaged by most participants (as Weimar Germany, where neither the left nor the right were really interested in democracy).

[askthedespairkids]

Conflicting Views Part 2

Kyoji: At what point, does someone become unforgivable? In your opinion.

Sly: I’m not sure. I think there’s a different point for everyone. Relationships play a big part in it though I believe. Different reactions are given to different people based on previous interactions.

Kyoji: Do you consider me unforgivable?

Sly: I personally believe you are forgivable. Though that’s me.

Kyoji: What about Enoshima?

Sly: This may seem quite strange but I believe Enoshima to be rather intriguing.  Not only has Ms. Ikusaba convinced me to not kill her but I somewhat wish to have a conversation with her. Get a feel for her mindset. Though to answer your question as of now, yes I believe I can forgive her for all she’s done.

Kyoji: What about Maverick?

Sly: I’ve never heard anyone vouch for him. Seems to me like he’s been the way he is since he was young and has no emotional attachment to anyone besides his mother. I don’t think anyone can save him. He doesn’t have a Ms. Ikusaba or a Ms. Nevermind or a Hinata. The man won’t stop until he’s considered a god of this world.

Kyoji: Exactly.

Sly: I don’t think we’ve seen the worst from him yet.

Kyoji: No, but what we have seen is damn horrific. This is the guy who put Miaya in a wheelchair, and who’s killing off all our old classmates.

Sly: I heard. His goals go beyond Enoshima.

Kyoji: What about Fuyuhiko and Peko? Do you consider them forgivable for their actions?

Sly: I have no issue with them. Though he did threaten to kill Ryouko.

Kyoji: When did that happen?

Sly: Well he didn’t say her specifically but during the games we had to play he said he would take away someone I cared about as revenge against me. Obviously, it won’t be Ms. Ikusaba or Graves and he’s not dumb enough to go after Naegi. Koizumi maybe but with Ryouko coming back it gives him a perfect target to get at me. He’s a Yakuza. It’s how they would normally think.

Kyoji: (You’re one to talk) What about Peko?

Sly: I don’t think I’ve ever spoken to her.

Kyoji: I see. But you are aware of what they did, correct?

Sly: I’m very aware

Kyoji: What about Mondo?

Sly: I have no issues with him.

Kyoji: I don’t think anyone would disagree he should be forgiven for what happened with his brother. Unless they were very stupid.

Sly: It was an accident. Though he is an example of what holding on to a burden and not accepting a mistake can do to someone.

Kyoji: With all due respect Sly, I wish you’d have a little more tact. You talk like accepting something like this is easy.

Sly: It isn’t but it’s something that eventually has to be done or it’ll tear at you more and more until you hate yourself entirely

Kyoji: I know that from personal experience. What about Mukuro? I think she may have the highest body count out of all of us.

Sly: Ms. Ikusaba is the best friend I got.

Kyoji: So, you consider her worthy of forgiveness as well?

Sly: She’s the closest thing to myself. She’s accepted everything she’s done but she’s also trying to be a better person.  Nobody has more of my respect than her. Nobody has more of my admiration than her. Of course, I forgive her. It was never a question.

Kyoji: I see.

Sly: She’s someone I’d protect with my life

Kyoji: Same here. I can tell how much she wants to protect everyone here. And with everything she’s worked to accomplish, she’s more than earned forgiveness.

Sly: She told me she never wanted to kill anyone ever again. I will protect that dream. I’ll make it so she won’t have to. I’ll make sure she’s happy.

Kyoji: I intend to do the same. Not just for her, but for everyone.

Sly: Hmph.

Kyoji: If someone dies because of your actions or inactions, you can never take it back. You’re the one who has to live with that knowledge for the rest of your life. The circumstances may differ, and that can be a deciding factor, but killing is ultimately still killing. But those who take the necessary steps to make amends for it can earn forgiveness and respect.

Sly: ……. If you say so.

Kyoji: You know, I’ve been willing to listen to your perspective on this whole thing. The least you could do is try and see things from mine.

Sly: I’m listening. I don’t know what you want me to say.

Kyoji: Based on your worldview, do you think I’m crazy?

Sly: I don’t think you’re crazy. I think you are optimistic and you want everything to be ok. I think your fine and honestly you dislike me a lot more than I “dislike” you. I just want you to realize that you can’t deem the possibility of killing as impossible.

Kyoji: Yeah? Well, I want you to know something. None of this has been naive optimism or a misguided sense that everyone can be saved. I know it may not be possible, but that’s no excuse not to try otherwise. I choose to believe there are other ways of dealing with situations that don’t involve killing.

Sly: There are. Though that doesn’t apply for every situation.

Kyoji: Maybe not. Doesn’t mean we can’t accept that as a certainty though. Things often need to be handled on a case-by-case basis. If the world really worked in solid, easy-to-recognize patterns, our jobs would be much easier. But it never has and never will, hence why we need to be open to as many solutions as possible.

Sly: Do you not believe killing to be a solution. If you do, then you must take that it’s something you may have to do.

Kyoji: I’ll never see killing as a solution. Not again. The environment you were raised in clouded your perception of what is and is not acceptable. You need to open your eyes and see the reality of the situation: not everything can or has to be resolved with killing. Oftentimes, killing can lead to even more problems.

Sly: You aren’t getting a word I’m saying. All your taking from me is kill, kill, kill. I’m not saying that. That’s nothing close to what I’m saying. You’re taking my profession and mixing it with my words. I’m saying it’s something that has to be considered in certain situations. There are many solutions to problems. Not all of them are taking a life and all solutions have their own consequences but if taking a life is the best possible solution and you refuse to take it you and the other person may not be the only people that have to deal with the consequences. In our daily lives in this world killing isn’t always a first option but it’s not something you should say is impossible. Saying something isn’t impossible solution and saying it is our only option are two different things.

Kyoji: And yet you fail to realize that killing can send the wrong people after you. It can send shock waves down the wrong path that come back to hurt you, the people you care about, or anyone caught in the crossfire. You assassinate an oppressive dictator, that doesn’t mean their country turns into a democratic utopia. It leaves a power vacuum for someone potentially worse to take over. You kill someone’s kid, then their parents might come after you for revenge. In the world today, there are so many unknowns and variables we can’t account for. You don’t seem to realize that. Furthermore, this isn’t just about a choice not to kill. It’s about the morality behind it. We call people like the despairs criminals, but how can we expect to hold ourselves to a higher moral standard if we stoop to the same tactics as them? If anything, murdering a murderer make you worse than them. It means you judged someone for a crime, then performed that crime yourself and called it justice. And where does it end from there? Why hold any standards if you’re willing to break them like that? He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. But that’s the thing. I did become a monster, and I can never undo those things, no matter how hard I try. But what I can do is ensure people don’t make the same mistakes I did. And I’ll make sure they don’t make the same mistakes people like you make.

Sly: We’re fighting bears lead by a fashionista and her group of people that includes a bunch of people that were already dead and your speaking to me about morality like the sky is blue and everything is ok. The justice system is bad, everyone is the same, the standards are the same. The results of things aren’t the same as they were back then. The world has changed. Nobody cares about morals. It’s about survival. If it’s you or someone else, you can’t help anybody if you die right then and there. A monster back then isn’t the same as a monster now. The reason people are dying now aren’t the same as they were back then. This isn’t the same situation and not everyone is gonna be ok.

Kyoji: I care about morals. Mukuro cares about morals. The entire reason she refuses to kill is because she believes in morals. You say you respect her, but then you turn around and spit in her face with this kind of thinking. You’re a disgrace. I’m a doctor and a scientist. It’s my job to save lives, protect people, and help them survive. I will not lose sight of that, nor will I let you turn other people into killers. Not everyone is like you, you amoral hypocrite. Not everyone can handle killing, even if it is in the name of survival. And you can go on and on and on about how we’re the good guys and they’re the bad guys. But if you’re doing the exact same things as them, how does that make you any goddamn different? Because you say you are? People can always just say things. They can say how their motives are pure or holy or whatever. But it doesn’t change anything. It doesn’t change the fact that the line between you and the people you’re fighting is completely arbitrary. The people here are not soldiers, assassins, or anything like that. They’re refugees. They shouldn’t be molded into faceless killing machines and then told to gun down their own friends and family. Not everyone can handle that. Some people are simply more sensitive to stress and trauma than others. It’s basic genetics.

Sly: First of all, you’re completely wrong about Ms. Ikusaba. Her dream was to be solider. The thought of killing isn’t what stops her now. It’s her Sister. She doesn’t want to be like Enoshima. Enoshima made her feel like that was her only purpose in life. She’s stopped because Enoshima was wrong and she’s more than what Enoshima says she is. Don’t compare her to yourself because you aren’t the same. Nowhere close. And who is this “we” you speak of. I have never claimed to be a good guy. You know why? Cause I’m not and I never will be. Don’t get me twisted, if it weren’t for specific people and my class I wouldn’t even be here. I’m not pure. I’m not holy. And there you go again speaking as if it’s the only option. I will say it one last time. Killing is not the only option but it may be a necessary one. Not everybody needs to be a killer. But everyone must be ready to do what they may have to do. Any situation is possible. Which means things may happen in which people don’t want to or wouldn’t usually do. If somebody isn’t ready for that the consequences become greater and greater. Why do you think Kizakura asked me to teach her how to use weapons? What about Ryouko watching me train everyday so she can pick up how to fight? Or Naegi giving it her all to get stronger. They all understand that a time may come when they have to use what they know to protect the people they care about. Nobody is asking anyone to go kill hundreds and hundreds of people just because. Nobody is asking for anyone to take the lives of the ones they care about. What they are being asked to do is to be ready in case something happens and you need to take a life. Also, that isn’t a doctor’s job. There have been plenty of doctors who have experimented on people knowing they’d die. A doctor is a qualified practitioner of medicine. Nobody said the medicine had to be helpful or healing. A doctor doesn’t have to save anyone. In fact, they can condemn people to death. Just because those are the things you want to do doesn’t mean it’s your job.

Kyoji: …You know, you should be thanking me. I’m the reason you have Ryouko in your life. I’m the one who saved the only people who give a shit about you. I did everything in my power to save the students at that rotten shithole of a school when Slutko and her army of murder bears came through to kill everyone. You have no right to say this isn’t my job and I shouldn’t have to save anyone. That’s ALL I can do. That’s the only thing that will ever matter in this meaningless of mine. Helping people is the only thing that will ever matter. Don’t you dare- don’t you fucking dare- say a doctor doesn’t have to save everyone. And even then…hehe….it still wasn’t enough. Teheheheh.

Sly: Aren’t you suppose to know a bunch of history too? Saying a doctor’s job is to save everyone is a lie. Being a doctor doesn’t mean you are a good person. Slavery across the world, The Holocaust, etc. there had been plenty of certified doctors who experimented and have purposely killed their patients all across time. You make the complaint all the time that everyone just wants you for what you can do like you have more to offer and now you sit and say it’s all your good for. You want to judge me but there’s a reason you’re the only person upset right now. This conflict you feel within yourself. Then you say I should be thanking you? Ryouko died. She died in that school and when she was brought back her goal was to see me again. If we wanna play the “if it wasn’t for me game” I can say not only would she have been killed by Katayama if not for me but she would still be one of the most dangerous people, the Despairs have. She didn’t go into the game looking for you she went in there looking for me. Then even now she wouldn’t even talk to you if it wasn’t for me saying she should. I also think you should know my life extends outside of just this island and the people on it. I had people before I came to the school and if I would’ve graduated and never seen anybody again I still would’ve had people.

Kyoji: Then why don’t you just fucking kill me then? What’s stopping you?

Sly: What would be the purpose?

Kyoji: Nothing. Same as any murder. But why not do it? It’s what you do, right? So, what’s holding you back? If I came at you right now, you’d do it without hesitation. I know you would.

Sly: Well for one you’re the only person upset right now. Upset with me sure but mostly with yourself and your own past. Killing you wouldn’t benefit me, Ryouko, or anyone else. You say you won’t kill but I don’t believe it. You’ll have to. No ifs ands or buts. I have no feeling of dislike regarding you obvious I don’t like you either. You’re just there, suffering inside your own body trying to make up for something that you were tricked into doing. You aren’t threatening to me and I know you wouldn’t risk anyone’s life here if it came down to a decision. There’s no purpose in me killing you at the moment.

Kyoji: grabs Sly by the shirt collar Say that again, I dare you. Say it to my fucking face.

Sly: Am I supposed to be scared? Cause I have no issue speaking up. I don’t care about your mutations Nakamura. You are never going to be something I look at with fear. Even if you were to hit me right now it would be pointless. If I didn’t just dodge I wouldn’t be stupid, enough to kill you. You’re trying to provoke me and it isn’t gonna work that way.

Kyoji: After a few moments, he lets go of Sly’s shirt …yeah. I don’t want to be seen like that anyway. You may be right. I am upset. I do suffer from an internal conflict. And you wanna know why? Because I have fucking killed people. Not by accident, not out of anger-induced vengeance, not on a battlefield. I killed innocent people who couldn’t fight back. Because I was told to by those I considered a higher authority. I haven’t slept peacefully in almost four years. Every time I try to forget about it, something comes back around to remind me of it all. Like you. I never want anyone to feel like this. And this is what you risk doing to others. You risk turning them into me. Not everyone is cut out for this. Not everyone is gonna sleep soundly with the knowledge that will come about from killing people. That’s why I gave myself these mutations: so, I could take the place of other people on the battlefield. I don’t intend to kill, but I also don’t intend to stand idly by. Case and point, I will not sit back and let you traumatize innocent people by forcing them into these situations. You think Enoshima wouldn’t take advantage of that?

Sly: I’m not forcing. They’re being prepared to deal with situations when people like you and I aren’t there. Also, not everyone is like you. Matter of fact probably a third of the people in FF have killed before. Out of those people probably 75% of them accept what they did and have moved on. Then probably 50 percent of the people who haven’t killed have someone they would kill for with no regrets.

Kyoji: And you think that’s a good thing? We need to be better than this, Sly. We can’t succumb to base instincts like all the other psychopaths out there. We need to work together. We need to be smarter than this. Otherwise, there’s no real difference between us and the despairs.

Sly: I disagree. Actions have different meanings depending on who does them and the purpose in which they are done along with the situation that results in the doing of the action.  I see it as everyone being human and realistic. Loyal to their comrades and friends. Willingness to protect those that matter to them most.

Kyoji: What’s the rest of the world gonna care? We’ll just look like two groups of assholes warring with each other. *Sigh* No matter how hard I try, I can’t understand your logic. But…I do get what you mean. I want to protect what matters to most to me.

Sly: We are at war with each other though. A huge game of chess and really right now we’re losing. The rest of the world knows the situation. They know what happens if Despairs win. The people care about the results of this war more than anything.

Kyoji: I know too. You know what, forget this. Forget I said anything. I should’ve figured you wouldn’t care about what I have to say.

Sly: Not something I was really trying to imply.

Kyoji: Sure, sure. But before I go, I have one last question to ask you.

Sly: I’m listening.

Kyoji: You told me there would be a time when I had to kill. Conversely, there could be a time where you have to save a life. But maybe you won’t have the necessary skills or knowledge to do it. In which case, what would you do then?

Sly: You mean I can’t save them no matter what?

Kyoji: Not necessarily. What I’m saying is that there may eventually come a time when the killing stops and rebuilding begins. With your skill set, will you have a place there?

Sly: I would believe so. Even when there is rebuilding there will be people that wish to destroy the process. Along with dealing with that I’m still due to take over my agency when I turn 18.

Kyoji: Fair enough

Sly: If I don’t make it though. I know everything is in capable hands.

Kyoji: …

Sly: There’s this guy back at the agency. Though I suppose he was more of a mentor. I’ve always known him as K.I.. He was the right hand man to my father and he’s taught me tons of things and not just about fighting. He may not be blood but I consider him my only family. Actually, after my father died he took over the agency. It’s supposed to be that way until I’m 18 and I can take over. We’ve built a connection with Future Foundation and Munakata. We exchange supplies, medicines, intel, etc.  Though the two factions try not to intervene with each other’s plans or day to day doings. Of course, I oversee everything but K.I. is really good at being a leader, though if I were to die out here he’d probably hand everything over to someone else if she asked.

Kyoji: …must be nice.

Sly: Sigh She’s probably still really upset with me though. I made sure she didn’t know where I was after everything went down and that K.I. wouldn’t tell her. Though he did make the mistake of telling her I was alive. He chuckles If she found me she’d probably kill me for what I did and for keeping my location from her for all this time.

Kyoji: She?

Sly: Mhm. If I died a girl would take over. Is that surprising?

Kyoji: No, but you didn’t really mention her.

Sly: Try not to worry about her. What do you plan on doing when the world goes back to normal?

Kyoji: Fixing things, helping people, decontaminating the environment. Probably gonna have to assist in redrawing borders.

Sly: What place does Enoshima have in this? What will she do? Rot in jail for the rest of her life?

Kyoji: Not sure. That’s not my jurisdiction.

Sly: What would you do?

Kyoji: …. Honestly, I’m not sure. I’m a doctor, not a judge.

Sly: ……

Kyoji: What? It’s not my place to decide.

Sly: He laughs Oh nothing. I’ll accept your answer.

Kyoji: Hmm. Well, anyway, I really need to get back to the 4th branch. Got a few more organs to print.

Sly: Great. I’ve gotta go get more signatures and such for Gekkougahara anyway. Though before you leave I just want to give you something to think about. I really don’t wanna hear an answer I just want you to think. How long does self-pity and loathing have to last? When do you move on and focus on rebuilding the love you used to have for yourself. A broken man can’t fix a broken world. Mistakes are made by everyone but when does one forgive themselves for their own mistakes. Self-pity and self-hatred won’t get you anywhere you want to be. Like I said though I really need to focus on Gekkougahara’s gifts so I’ll see you later Nakamura He flashes a peace sign before walking off.

Kyoji: Yeah….see ya. (If only you knew what you were talking about, kid. The truth is that some things just can’t be forgiven. They shouldn’t be forgiven, regardless of who’s responsible for them.)

[englishoneeleven]

Love & Amoralism

Being in love with someone and treating that person right go hand in hand. But what if you don’t love that person anymore? And what if you do love someone else? I’m thankful that another writer1 has approached break-ups from a moral angle. The strategy he uses is to assess the utility of rebounds: how can lining up a new relationship produce the most happiness for all interested parties. Utility is a clever solution, but treating love (even the termination of love) as a math problem just feels, well, unromantic. It’s as if the writer suggests that we should strategize how to feel about someone based on possible moral outcomes. This approach makes me feel like love is a pile of aluminum cans that is weighed and then checked against the going-price for aluminum that day. (Romantic) love is passionate, and reckless, and aluminum cans aren’t.

This is not to say ethics has no bearing on love. The fact that, in the following post, I’ve tried to find a moral justification for love shows that I must think, on some level, love is subject to morality. Else, I might believe “all’s fair in love and war”. If this statement is true, then either love, as an end, is so good that it permits any means to it, or any act in the service of love has no moral distinction—which is as good as saying it has no moral definition. I hardly think love legitimizes any action whatsoever (see #governor), but I will consider whether love is neither moral nor immoral, but amoral.

The characters of The Walking Dead find themselves in a world of perpetual strife—a world in which, it would seem, love becomes one of the few things left to live for. Moral philosophers of the past have taught us that the purpose of upright conduct is not just to deny ourselves pleasure, and not just to avoid divine retribution, it’s to live better lives filled with true happiness and more peace. Romantic love may not be a condition for happiness, but it’s something that makes us happy, so surely ethics would be concerned with romantic love.

One of the hard parts about breaking up is figuring out how much consideration we owe our exes, and for how long—especially if the desire for them is gone. Should we be friends? Should I start dating right away?—those kinds of questions. To be fair, this is what the writer I mentioned above wonders. Does it even make sense to say I have an obligation to someone now simply because I did in the past? Deontology is about moral duty: we are duty-bound to obey certain principles; or, we are duty-bound to serve certain interests, such as the allegiance a citizen owes to his/her country. There’s a famous line written by the Ancient Roman poet Horace which goes “dulce et decorum est pro patria mori”, which basically translates to “sweet & seemly it is, for fatherland one should die” or, simply, “it’s honorable to die for your country”. As Dr Santanu Das shares from his study of WWI literature, this line appeared in many pro-war poems written while Britain mobilized against the Central Powers2. Late in the war, an English soldier named Wilfred Owen denounced the falsity of this phrase in one of the most famous anti-war poems ever written3. Owen’s poem dismantles a moral principle by describing in graphic detail the unenviable fate of a fallen soldier. Similarly, opponents of duty-based ethics think it’s more important to consider the consequences of morally-guided actions than the principles behind them. Nonetheless, we often feel we have a certain obligation to people we love—and to those with whom we fall in love (it seems that love and war are going to be constant themes in this post). It’s those people’s happiness that we should consider first. In contrast, utilitarian ethics asserts that we should always consider the greater good. Just imagine promising your boyfriend/girlfriend/partner/spouse that you’ll always consider his/her happiness…equally to everyone else’s. It would seem to make sense that if I feel obligated to someone because of my love for her, that that love has moral value.

Philosophy has a hard time justifying love—an even harder time than justifying war. Philosophy demands answers, which is why we would find it necessary to “justify” love, and not just relax and enjoy it. Bennett Helm has a wonderful summary of the most recent contributions to the philosophical discourse of love4. In it, he collects opinions about why it’s good to love, in general, and why it’s good to love a particular person. This latter justification prompts a few questions:

What, if anything, justifies my loving rather than not loving this particular person?

What, if anything, justifies my coming to love this particular person rather than someone else?

What, if anything, justifies my continuing to love this particular person given the changes—both in him and me and in the overall circumstances—that have occurred since I began loving him? 5

While the first question asks why a particular person deserves to be loved, the second question asks what makes that person special. We might say that a person contains objective traits, which deserve our love, but there’s no clear reason why we should love those traits in one person versus another. For example, if freckles are objectively valuable, my love for you is justified if you have freckles, but why love you instead of someone else who also has freckles? Of course, this is just an example. No one’s suggesting that love should aim for anything as superficial as freckles (despite how cute they look on you). The third question then asks why stay with a particular person, especially if you meet someone new with more freckles. One way to answer Questions 2 & 3 is to borrow an idea from Immanuel Kant (considered the father of deontology). Kant’s idea is that human beings, by virtue of being rational creatures, are “ends in themselves”. This means I shouldn’t use you as a means for my own ends, if doing so limits your freedom. I should value you as an end in yourself. So, I shouldn’t use you to get to your money or just stare at your freckles. The problem is this still doesn’t answer why I need you, when really all I want is money & freckles.

Enough about freckles. Obviously, not all kinds of value are moral value. Although plenty have argued that beauty has a moral function, loving truth or beauty is not quite the same as loving a person. And, as I’ve explained above, it’s difficult to say with any certainty that there are good reasons to be in love, although there are plenty of things that can cause us to love this or that person. Perhaps the most accurate cliché is “the heart wants what the heart wants”. If love has no moral justification, it’s hardly possible to justify an act on the grounds that it serves love (again, “justified” means it’s moral). Acts must be judged by different standards.

So far I’ve been referring to love as the act of feeling love for someone (which is part of an emotional state), but I want to differentiate it from other types of actions, namely those that exist outside my mind. But, because it is an action, I could still say that, in principle, it’s good to feel love for someone, and then wonder whether that’s true because love is moral, or because loving someone has good consequences. The problem with that is love doesn’t actually make me do anything. By no means are they easy to extricate, but the way we feel about someone and other ways we act towards them are different things. An action, such as the decision to break up or stay with someone, may be influenced by a feeling, but the rightness or wrongness of an action doesn’t make the feeling right or wrong. In most conceivable cases, affecting someone’s moral welfare is not the reason we fall in love, just as when we fall out of love with people, it’s not done intentionally to harm them. A wrong may be done to a person, by making that person feel sad, but if the alternatives are just as bad, or worse, the wrong is unavoidable. Such wrongs are “excused”. From another perspective, breaking up could be the right thing to do, but still have unavoidably bad consequences.

Earlier I wondered whether love, if it caused me to do right by someone, is moral. I’ve rejected that hypothesis. Right or wrong consequences don’t have to follow from right or wrong feelings. Couched within that hypothesis was also the idea that love might act as a moral guide, like conscience. This can’t be the case. For one, we wouldn’t expect our moral reasoning to “disappear” just because we don’t feel it anymore. I also demonstrated that there’s no strong reason why loving a particular person is justified, or that feeling love is any more or less moral than feeling gassy (both of them have causes, certainly, but no good “reason” why I should feel that way). All this leads me to conclude that love is amoral, which means it “stands outside morality”6. This is, for me, a more satisfying conclusion. Love feels good, and is good, which is different than being right. I would hate to qualify my love by the same standards I qualify recycling. We can quite rationally feel a sense of duty towards our love, without it being moral duty, and this may dispose us to serve a particular person’s interest. This interest still fits within an ethical framework, and is measurable against the interests of others. Choosing to serve the well-being of your beloved is proper in many situations, but sometimes the greater good is truly more important. Doesn’t mean I don’t love you, babe.

Finally, I turn to our real question: was it ethical for Abraham to pursue Holly while he was with Rosita? Let’s pretend we want to break up with someone, because we love someone new. We’ll take our cue from the rebound writer. If we are primarily concerned with consequences, we might be required to weigh the increase in our happiness against the decrease (we’re going to proudly assume the other person will be crushed, not relieved) in the soon-to-be-ex’s happiness. What then? If we weren’t going to create more happiness overall, could we ever rightfully leave the person?

While writing this I considered whether it’s wrong to break up with someone in the context of a survival situation, and decided no. Why? Because, most likely, the circumstances are out of your control. If sad feelings coincide with other terrible events, it’s just an unfortunate coincidence. Therefore, it would have been ethical for Abraham to leave Rosita, if she hadn’t beat him to it. Still, it does matter how you break up with someone, and the fact that there are so many differing theories about the best way to break up—face to face, via text, in public, in private—shows that it’s not so clear-cut. Again, how we treat people and how we feel about them are different things. It’s important to understand that people are affected by your actions in different ways depending on the unique emotional bonds that exist between you. It’s also important to understand that people respond to emotional stress differently, and that this can affect their readiness to deal with other difficulties. If it’s not a survival situation, context does matter, and it can be disrespectful to break up with someone at an inopportune moment—it’s not very tactful to announce to your girlfriend’s whole family that you’re breaking up with her, while at her grandmother’s funeral.

We may feel certain duties towards those we love, but not all the duties we have to others are contingent on our feelings for them. Despite that Abraham never truly loved her, Rosita deserved to be treated with decency. There was no reason he couldn’t have broken up with her before pursuing a relationship with Holly. And Abraham’s love for Holly didn’t excuse lying to Rosita or cheating on her.

Unlike previous posts, in which I supply you ammunition to defend your own view, here I’ve answered my own question. However, in the course of explaining my reasoning, I’ve outlined ways in which love may or may not have moral value. I’ve also suggested that the effect of a break-up (someone feels bad) can be wrong or bad, and that these are different concepts. Although outside the scope of my argument, I’ve left out other aspects of Abraham & Rosita’s relationship, which may help you decide how would you answer the question.

1https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/angst/201106/break-ethics-0

2https://www.bl.uk/world-war-one/videos/wilfred-owen-dulce-et-decorum-est

3“Dulce Et Decorum Est”. Read here: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46560/dulce-et-decorum-est

4“Love”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. Accessed 8/5/17. <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/love/#6>

5ibid.

6Baggini & Fosl. The Ethics Toolkit, p 207.