Unconditional Love

[CraftyLandShark]

I'll go a little farther and hazard that unconditional love is/was the natural condition of the nuclear family, and possibly even of the extended family, clan or tribe.

Today, the nuclear family is in steep decline and break-up in our society. Divorce is the rule, not the exception. Nihilism, drugs, pornography, gambling and alcoholism are rampant. People are alienated from one another, and unconditional love has little chance to blossom. The first major hammer blow was the removal of the father from the full-time company of his family by the requirements of the industrial revolution to work long hours and 6 days a week at a distant factory. The most recent hammer blow was the removal of the mother from the full-time support of her family by the feminine liberation movement of the 70's. This had a number of good objectives but it took women fully into the labor market and away from their children, with effects less than salutary. Today both parents are required to work to afford the average mortgage. So the system is geared toward ever greater destruction of the family and further alienation of children from their parents. Unconditional love has little or no chance in the current state of civilization. This may be inevitable, but also regrettable.
Dotini

There isn't anything natural about the 'nuclear family' to begin with. It's a largely-western social construct. Further, there's nothing inherently good or bad about it - it's an amoral concept. At least, I believe it to be an amoral concept. There is a potential argument to be made that it could even be an immoral concept on its face, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Beyond that, I think it's safe to say that there's no basis for concluding that the effects of (rightfully) according women the same rights to self-determinism as men has had any impact whatsoever on the possibility of "good" unconditional love developing. If women are to be expected to do nothing but maintain the home and raise children, then you're neccessarily making synonyms of "unconditional love" and "slavery". This is, ironically, my point. If it does, or if it were to exist, unconditional love could not be 'good'. The very concept devalues love; it requires love to blind itself to things about which man CAN make reliable claims of immorality, and as such, makes it a slave to immorality. This is not love as any rational person knows it, nor, I suspect, as most emotionally driven people know it.

This is the man who knows his wife is cheating on him and doesn't challenge her because he loves her unconditionally.

This is the mother who still pronounces deep abiding love for her son, a murderer.

 

[Danoff]

Dear Danoff,
You and I have got off on the wrong foot, and it's totally unwise for me to debate or in any way lock horns with you. I'm sure your points may have some merit, and that there are those who may be inclined to debate them. For now, I'm not.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

Dear Dontini,

I respect that you do not want to debate, but you should know that I will respond to your posts and even ask you direct questions for the duration of the time you choose to participate in the opinions forum. Feel free not to respond, but I will not ignore you.

Additionally, since you don't know me very well, I'll share something about my personality. I appreciate a well-reasoned argument, even if I disgaree. That being said, I'll vocally defend my position, but I respect people who will thoughtfully defend themselves.

Good luck,
Dan

 

[CarBastard]

Unconditional love does exist. I think it's been shown to be a form of insanity.

There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness.

 

[DK]

But some parents are just stupid and take advantage, abuse and neglect their kids and don't deserve to be parents at all because they are such horrific people that cause irreparable damage to their own flesh and blood. 👎

It's strange that while you need a license (in some cases) for owning a dog, you don't need a license to be a parent. If I ever had my way, there would be license tests for parenthood. Of course skinheads would automatically fail, I hate those Nazi basterds.

 

[CarBastard]

Sorry for the double post .

 

[Dotini]

None of the preceding remarks require animadversion from this source.
Carry on!

With full respect for all,
Dotini

 

[niky]

Suppose your kid turned out to be a pedophile-murderer. Still love him? Because if not, that's a condition.

Turns out, she doesn't have to answer that for this question to be answered.

In many, many cases wherein the child or former child has committed a heinous crime, a family or mother, who would otherwise be quite moral, will defend that person, to the death. Or even to eventual incarceration as accessories.

This indicates:

1. An unwavering commitment towards the other.

2. A lack of self-preservation in favor of preservation of a loved one.

You ask... in another post... isn't this love conditional on the fact that said member doesn't do anything which would result in them being ostracized from the family? Sometimes it isn't. In Asian cultures with a strong sense of family, women will put up with being abused, verbally and physically, by their husbands. They can be beaten to the point of death and still profess love for their man, despite that.

Even if the man breaks their marital vows (which are held more sacred than life itself), they "forgive" him.

If one is ready to risk death, whether to save the other, or in order not to save oneself from the other, can't that love be considered unconditional?

-

I was serious about the insanity part. Studies have shown romantic love to be a form of temporary insanity. Unconditional love may be an even bigger form of it, since it's maintained, allows the sufferer to ignore reality and logic, and countermands the most basic of survival instincts.

-

Not that this discussion is going to make me love my child and wife any less, mind you. I would still die for them.

 

[Danoff]

If one is ready to risk death, whether to save the other, or in order not to save oneself from the other, can't that love be considered unconditional?

No. I would die for my wife but my love for her is still conditional. I would not love her if it was she who was intentionally killing me for the pleasure of doing so.

Aren't the examples you gave self-destructive and examples of bad behavior? So are we to take from this that unconditional love is possible, but dangerous and something to be avoided.

In many, many cases wherein the child or former child has committed a heinous crime, a family or mother, who would otherwise be quite moral, will defend that person, to the death. Or even to eventual incarceration as accessories.

Thinking they're innocent is different from knowing that they're guilty. If someone watched their child commit a heinous crime, I would hope that even the most loyal parent would realize that love was not appropriate - and would even be willing to use lethal force AGAINST their child to protect others.

 

[niky]

No. I would die for my wife but my love for her is still conditional. I would not love her if it was she who was intentionally killing me for the pleasure of doing so.

But that's you. As I pointed out, some people would risk death or disfigurement to stay with someone they loved... even if it was at the hands of that person.

Aren't the examples you gave self-destructive and examples of bad behavior? So are we to take from this that unconditional love is possible, but dangerous and something to be avoided.

Self-destructive, yes. Bad behavior... well.. it depends on your definition. On an ethical level, yes. From the standpoint of survival of your genomic line... maybe. A certain amount of self-sacrifice has been shown to be in the interest of survival of a family, tribe or community as a whole. I don't know where the line is drawn, on that point. If the family member is homicidally aggressive to outsiders, he may serve some purpose. But if the family member is homicidally aggressive towards other family members, that definitely can't be tolerated.

Thinking they're innocent is different from knowing that they're guilty. If someone watched their child commit a heinous crime, I would hope that even the most loyal parent would realize that love was not appropriate - and would even be willing to use lethal force AGAINST their child to protect others.

Many, when confronted with irrefutable proof of the crime, won't accept proof as such.

We have a celebrated case here. An ex-army private, AWOL from the US, son of a British national and a local woman (who holds a US passport, I believe... the son is natural-born, I think, Stateside). Killed one person in an accident a few years ago, shot another in cold blood during a road rage incident last year.

He'd been hiding out in her basement for the past few months with an M16, a bucketload of armor-piercing ammunition, and the .45 he used in the killing. They came to arrest him, he went on a shooting spree. Managed to injure two or three agents before they brought him down.

She still maintains his innocence. She says the whole thing is part of an elaborate plot by the US government to persecute her. She says that since the boy is "Special Forces" (which he isn't), he was able to hide in her basement without her knowing it. She had earlier claimed that he had fled to Hawaii and pleaded with him on air to give himself up and that she'd "forgive him for whatever he did".

After he was captured, she changed her story and said he was framed.

The woman is obviously looney tunes. But there it is... unconditional love can blind one to the facts and make one ignore all evidence to the contrary. Even if said child is strangling his mother with his own two hands, there'll be debates whirling in her head, about whether it's him who's doing this or if he's been possessed by an evil spirit. She will willingly die rather than defend herself.

Hard for you or me to understand, and not something we can verify within ourselves. But that's because we have no "mother instinct". A father might go to similar lengths, but probably not to the point of self-sacrifice at the hands of his child.... probably... it's possible some might go the whole way.

You argue from the point of logic and reasoning. Unfortunately, there isn't a whole lot of either involved in "love".

EDIT: Despite this, and despite my cynicism about "unconditional love", I'm inclined to believe that some form of self-sacrificing love is good for this world. But I may be biased, based on my being a parent.

 

[hambone8611]

I consider myself to be a very loving and nurturing person. I’m not inclined to hold a grudge however I place strict boundaries around my hart and head they could be called conditions of love, no one is exempt not my wife, not kids. Not my mother most therapists would agree this is healthy.

 

[Wenders]

You're probably not the right person to have this discussion with given who might be reading it - but I'll try anyway.

Suppose your kid turned out to be a pedophile-murderer. Still love him? Because if not, that's a condition.

My children are part of me, I brought them into this world, I WILL love them til the dayI die but it certainly doesn't mean I believe they are perfect and capable of no wrong and that I will defend/deny their wrong doings.

 

[Danoff]

Let's dig into this a little further.

My children are part of me, I brought them into this world, I WILL love them til the dayI die

Would you feel the same way about an adopted child? A child you didn't bring into this world, but for whom you are responsible?

 

[Dotini]

Let's dig into this a little further.



Would you feel the same way about an adopted child? A child you didn't bring into this world, but for whom you are responsible?

I had an adoptive sister. When she came down with Alzheimer's, I loved her enough to retire early from my career at Boeing to care for her until her tragic death.

FWIW,
Dotini

 

[Skynyrd1977]

There is unconditional love. People have gone through their entire lives loving someone until they died. It did not end or change, therefore it existed. It will happen over and over again into the future, therefore it still exists. One may unconditionally love someone, but not someone else. You can claim you will love someone unconditionally and fail, but that does not mean it does not exist. You can love someone and still punish them. You can unconditionally love someone and still hate them (my Pittsburgh Steelers this year comes to mind).

I unconditionally love beer, even though I have to repeatedly forgive it for the pain it causes me.

I will unconditionally love my Country. The people in it may make mistakes, but I will still love it. If it makes mistakes, it can be changed.

Who does not unconditionally love ones self?

If you unconditionally love someone, and then stop loving them, but later learn to love them again, did you ever really stop loving them?

This is too deep for me...I'm going back to the beer thread.

 

[TheCracker]

There is unconditional love. People have gone through their entire lives loving someone until they died.

That only suggests to me that their partner never did anything that would challenge their love for them.

 

[Danoff]

There is unconditional love. People have gone through their entire lives loving someone until they died. It did not end or change, therefore it existed.

Loving someone for your entire life is not loving them unconditionally. It's just called loving them.

I unconditionally love beer, even though I have to repeatedly forgive it for the pain it causes me.

If it ruined your liver would you still love it while you were bleeding from bad places?

I will unconditionally love my Country. The people in it may make mistakes, but I will still love it. If it makes mistakes, it can be changed.

Perhaps you do (but I doubt it). But have you ever wondered why? Is it healthy to have unconditional love for your country? Isn't that sort of notion dangerous?

If your country passed a law to begin the systematic extermination of all jews, would you still love it? If so, why?

Who does not unconditionally love ones self?

Potentially everyone who commits suicide. Are any of us immune to being driven to that end?

If you unconditionally love someone, and then stop loving them, but later learn to love them again, did you ever really stop loving them?

Yes. By definition.

 

[Skynyrd1977]

Just when I thought I was out, you DRAAAG me back in.

Loving someone for your entire life is not loving them unconditionally. It's just called loving them.

Your interpretation, not buying it. If they loved them till they died, there was no condition that stopped the love, period. Hence; unconditional.

If it ruined your liver would you still love it while you were bleeding from bad places?

Maybe. You did not address my Unconditional Love-Hate Pittsburgh Steeler example.

Perhaps you do (but I doubt it). But have you ever wondered why? Is it healthy to have unconditional love for your country? Isn't that sort of notion dangerous?

No, not if you love the Country, not the actions it takes. Many Germans still loved Germany the country and were opposed and repulsed by the peoples actions who were in charge, and they died opposing it.

If your country passed a law to begin the systematic extermination of all jews, would you still love it? If so, why?

I would still love the United States of America, and I would die fighting against those who implemented this action if I had to.

Potentially everyone who commits suicide. Are any of us immune to being driven to that end?

Doesn't mean they stopped loving themselves, just that they could no longer bare the burdens they were carrying.

Yes. By definition.

But did they ever really stop loving them?



Hey...hope you're doing good by the way.

 

[Danoff]

Just when I thought I was out, you DRAAAG me back in.

It's what I do.

Your interpretation, not buying it. If they loved them till they died, there was no condition that stopped the love, period. Hence; unconditional.

I fully expect to love my wife until the day I die. That doesn't mean there aren't things she could do to prevent such a thing. I don't THINK she'll ever hack my leg off and starve me until I'm willing to eat it - but if she did, I would seriously consider not loving her again. That's a condition.

Maybe. You did not address my Unconditional Love-Hate Pittsburgh Steeler example.

Yup, because I don't think you love them. Fandom or fanatacism isn't what I'm talking about... and I'd bet I'm a bigger fan of the Texas Longhorns than you are of the Steelers, so I know where you're coming from.

No, not if you love the Country, not the actions it takes. Many Germans still loved Germany the country and were opposed and repulsed by the peoples actions who were in charge, and they died opposing it.

I would still love the United States of America, and I would die fighting against those who implemented this action if I had to.

What exactly do you love then? If your nation changes, if it commits atrocities, if it loses its democratic ways, what's left? Do you love the land? Why? Why this land... what not other land?

Doesn't mean they stopped loving themselves, just that they could no longer bare the burdens they were carrying.

Possibly. But if you kill yourself out of disgust for your OWN actions... do you really love yourself?

But did they ever really stop loving them?

Yup.

Hey...hope you're doing good by the way.

Thanks.

 

[Duke]

Your interpretation, not buying it. If they loved them till they died, there was no condition that stopped the love, period. Hence; unconditional.

But that does nothing to prove that there were not possible circumstances that could have ended the love but simply did not occur. Hence, conditional.

Doesn't mean they stopped loving themselves, just that they could no longer bare the burdens they were carrying.

What about those that just hate themselves enough that they want to die, without bearing any particular burden?

But did they ever really stop loving them?

Insufficient data. Maybe so, maybe not - either is possible. But is possible to stop liking something and start liking it again later.

 

[Public'sTwin]

I wonder if, when Danoff has kids, and one gets really drunk one night and trashes his prized <insert classic sportscar here> not once, but a second time, that he will just banish the child from California entirely.

Or, maybe just skim it off his University fund or something.

 

[Exorcet]

I don't see a lack of unconditional love causing that. Like I said, I don't think it exists. Yet people forgive all the time.

 

[Danoff]

I wonder if, when Danoff has kids, and one gets really drunk one night and trashes his prized <insert classic sportscar here> not once, but a second time, that he will just banish the child from California entirely.

I'm talking more along the lines of pedophile-murderer here, not so much reckless behavior.

when Danoff has kids

It's not safe to assume that's possible.

 

[Keef]

It's not safe to assume that's possible.

Whether it comes naturally or you rescue a feral one from the mountains, it is certainly possible that you might eventually have a kid. Whether you have it or you have it, you'll have it. Donate it to science, because either way it'll make an interesting news story.

If you had a biological child, by whatever miracle, but it only had one arm and three legs would could you love it unconditionally? Or would you be pressed to banish it like a Spartan?

 

[Danoff]

Whether it comes naturally or you rescue a feral one from the mountains, it is certainly possible that you might eventually have a kid. Whether you have it or you have it, you'll have it.

No, seriously, it's not safe to assume that it's possible. Atheists aren't popular for adoption, and I'm not sure being a foster parent would count as "having a kid". It's noble, for sure, but it's not really your kid.

If you had a biological child, by whatever miracle, but it only had one arm and three legs would could you love it unconditionally? Or would you be pressed to banish it like a Spartan?

I couldn't love any child unconditionally, whether it was healthy, unhealthy, biological, adopted, whatever. Incidentally, this kind of statement is also not popular with adoption agencies.

 

[Dotini]

It's possible unconditional love is like an asymptote, approachable but unattainable. It exists as a concept, an ideal, something to strive for even if it may never be quite attained. To argue against its flowering or desirability on the basis of extreme negative examples may be illogical on the basis of reductio ad absurdum: it erringly tends to vitiate the greater truth on the basis of a rare anomaly.

Respectfuly submitted,
Dotini

 

[Danoff]

It's possible unconditional love is like an asymptote, approachable but unattainable. It exists as a concept, an ideal, something to strive for even if it may never be quite attained. To argue against its flowering or desirability on the basis of extreme negative examples may be illogical on the basis of reductio ad absurdum: it erringly tends to vitiate the greater truth on the basis of a rare anomaly.

It's more of a matter of principle for me. I hold all emotions towards others as being conditional upon their actions. Removing conditions for your emotions strikes me as inherently unhealthy.

 

[Wenders]

Let's dig into this a little further.



Would you feel the same way about an adopted child? A child you didn't bring into this world, but for whom you are responsible?

I believe I would because if I wanted that child so much I would love it as my own.

I actually believe true love should be unconditional. What is the point of loving someone if you have to make conditions. Love isn't always enduring but that doesn't mean it is conditional. I loved my ex unconditionally when we me and married. I don't love him now. I didn't think at the beginning 'if you do this or don't do that I wont love you'. Our feelings changed our lives changed but I never had any conditions on what would keep me loving him.

 

[Danoff]

I believe I would because if I wanted that child so much I would love it as my own.

My children are part of me, I brought them into this world, I WILL love them til the dayI die

So it's not that you brought them into the world. It's that you're invested in them that makes you feel this way. But is it really true that there is nothing they could do to make you not love them? Simply because you're invested in them? Nothing at all?

I actually believe true love should be unconditional. What is the point of loving someone if you have to make conditions.

What is the point of loving someone if you don't have any conditions? Conditional love is more meaningful to me. It means you have standards, it means that your love is earned. Unconditional love is meaningless because it is unearned (especially in the example of children).

I loved my ex unconditionally when we me and married. I don't love him now.

...and what exactly were the conditions that changed your mind.

 

[riivaaja]

can unconditional love occur for inanimate objects?

 

[Skynyrd1977]

No, seriously, it's not safe to assume that it's possible. Atheists aren't popular for adoption, and I'm not sure being a foster parent would count as "having a kid". It's noble, for sure, but it's not really your kid.



I couldn't love any child unconditionally, whether it was healthy, unhealthy, biological, adopted, whatever. Incidentally, this kind of statement is also not popular with adoption agencies.

Have you ever been wrong before?