Next Generation Emulation banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Transcended
Joined
·
1,416 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Here's a concept to ponder on:

If you truly love someone, you won't want to hurt that person.

So, what happens in the case wherein you love someone so much (or want to), but by doing so, (allowing/making that person love you as well), you will inevitably cause harm?

Would you rather give up on your love altogether so as to protect the other from harm?

Now what do I mean by harm? Well, let us say a person is terminally sick. Perhaps that person may even transmit that sickness either with others, or through offsprings. Let us complicate things further that the sickness causes physical/mental impairment. The medical costs of keeping that sickness in check is quite large. Maybe, if the person looked like Tom Cruise or Catherine Zeta-Jones or something, it may have *some* redeeming value (albeit superficial), but no... let us assume for the sake of the argument that the person looks er... bad, due to bad genetics and possibly effects of his sickness/therapy.

Obviously, someone loving a person like that will be carrying a huge physical/emotional/ and not to mention, financial burden. This is real harm, causing nothing but pain, suffering and grief. One day, that person will pass on and leave the significant other. What then? What of their children (if they decided to pass on that genetic cesspool)?

Realistically, can you love that person? Really? In this less-than-ideal world? As a self-respecting, non-psychologically troubled (read: dependent/desperate) person? We can all spout words of wisdom such as "love will conquer all". But realistically, a normal person falling in love with someone like that is so far fetched, so illogical... so against evolution. So... improbable, its practically impossible.

But more importantly, even if someone can love that person, put yourself in the poor person's shoes. Can you, as a walking wreck, bear for someone to share your suffering? Is it not an act of *selfishness* to actually love, in this case?

If that person tries to make another fall in love with him/her, is it not a deception? He/she is conciously lying to the other, hiding his/her own flaws, just so that by presenting the best foot forward, he/she can win the other's heart. Then drop the bomb later, knowing that in such a later state, that other person may be already so involved as to be unable to give an objective answer.

So why not tell the other up front? Somehow, I don't think "Hi, my name is XXXX, glad to meet you... oh yeah, I'm a walking terminally-ill person. Care to enjoy in my suffering?" will get you anything but rejection from normal people.

Hence, is it not a better idea to unselfishly forget your own love and let someone else much more worthy, more capable to take your place? Is this not the morally and ethically better option?

Can you give up love precisely because you love?

Any thoughts? Help?

Oh... please keep it clean. It's politically/religiously neutral. If someone asks, it's from a Christian friend, but I don't think it's a relevant issue, barring suicide options.

Note: This is not a discriminate, inhumane attack on people who are less fortunate in life. This was a concept presented to me by someone in a similar condition. I don't want to believe in it, but it made an impression on me. Now, I have searched high and low for the wisdom to rebutt/refute this concept, and in doing so, hope to bring a little more light to a poor despondent person, to no avail. I'm asking this now as a last resort.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,576 Posts
Kraelis said:
Realistically, can you love that person? Really? In this less-than-ideal world? As a self-respecting, non-psychologically troubled (read: dependent/desperate) person? We can all spout words of wisdom such as "love will conquer all". But realistically, a normal person falling in love with someone like that is so far fetched, so illogical... so against evolution. So... improbable, its practically impossible.
I'd agree with you there, but.. I know of such couples. It happens, so forget about practically impossible, and start thinking: what is it the two of us don't know or see?

Kraelis said:
If that person tries to make another fall in love with him/her, is it not a deception? He/she is conciously lying to the other, hiding his/her own flaws, just so that by presenting the best foot forward, he/she can win the other's heart. Then drop the bomb later, knowing that in such a later state, that other person may be already so involved as to be unable to give an objective answer.

So why not tell the other up front? Somehow, I don't think "Hi, my name is XXXX, glad to meet you... oh yeah, I'm a walking terminally-ill person. Care to enjoy in my suffering?" will get you anything but rejection from normal people.

Hence, is it not a better idea to unselfishly forget your own love and let someone else much more worthy, more capable to take your place? Is this not the morally and ethically better option?
Yes, but aren't you forgetting how fragile and desperate us human beings can be? What if someone like that is needy for emotional support? What if (s)he's an emotional wreck? Do you think any 'ethical' and 'moral' consideration occurs or supercede a perhaps self-preserving property in most? I don't. We're rationally minded, we can look at it from the outside and say: "that's highly unethical and deceptive!" But there are more factors than we can perceive from our perspective, when a person other than ourselves who has to deal with these frustations walks this path.

It is my belief that humans are inherently selfish, right down to where parts within our sub-consciousness decide certain feelings were so pleasurable: whatever action triggered other parts in our sub-consciousness to release the substances required, should be done again and again, thus creating emotional needs. Like a drug.

What if matters like these, that don't really concern any outsiders, but are matters exclusively for those involved to work out. They would fall within acceptable parameters (e.g. unlike murder) as far as most of society is concerned. Considering that particular property, as well as that most people are easily susceptible to such sub-conscious effects associated, does that not lead to conclude with some acceptance?

I think a greater understanding of human nature and needs can help questions like these dispense with at least some unacceptance on what might seem unethical. :) Sure, it doesn't make the matter more ethical, but considering our limits, and what is considered to be standard by most, is it fair to judge too harshly?
 

·
The Hunter
Joined
·
15,879 Posts
I don't think loving someone will prevent you from trying to get that person closer to you, even though you know that person might get hurt.

Like said, human beings are selfish, and when it comes down to the point of making decisions, I think emotion will take over. It is very hard to act and think truly rational. Besides, if that person really loves you in return, he or she will accept it and try to live with it, enjoying the positive feelings he has.
 

·
AKA snkmad
Joined
·
4,030 Posts
Love cant buy my money.....
 

·
The Hunter
Joined
·
15,879 Posts
Maybe boobies can? :p
 

·
AKA snkmad
Joined
·
4,030 Posts
I dont like the idea "pay-4-fun" ...
 

·
Transcended
Joined
·
1,416 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Sorry, was out for a while.

Gaurav said:
Yes, but aren't you forgetting how fragile and desperate us human beings can be? What if someone like that is needy for emotional support? What if (s)he's an emotional wreck? Do you think any 'ethical' and 'moral' consideration occurs or supercede a perhaps self-preserving property in most? I don't. We're rationally minded, we can look at it from the outside and say: "that's highly unethical and deceptive!" But there are more factors than we can perceive from our perspective, when a person other than ourselves who has to deal with these frustations walks this path.
Hm... reducing love to a mere self-preservation instinct is something I'm not comfortable with. True, it has been my observation time and again, but to say that it'll boil down to self-preservation seems limiting. It ignores the reality that not all actions are inherently self-preservative. Humanism deals with that aspect of trancendentalism only too well. You're making it seem that in such extreme circumstances, whatever moral/ethical considerations will eventually break down in favor of self-preservation.

Gaurav said:
What if matters like these, that don't really concern any outsiders, but are matters exclusively for those involved to work out. They would fall within acceptable parameters (e.g. unlike murder) as far as most of society is concerned. Considering that particular property, as well as that most people are easily susceptible to such sub-conscious effects associated, does that not lead to conclude with some acceptance?
So, they'll find their own state of equilibrium, so to speak, then? However, this dispenses with a great portion of freedom, as well as being discriminatory. It's like saying, let those with extreme circumstances deal with it with fellow extremes. They'll find their own way eventually. Again, this leads to your point earlier. They'll have to make their own artificial happiness for the sake of self-preservation.

I know you never specifically said that let them handle it on their own with their kind. You even refuted me by noting that there are cases which prove my argument to be not so impossible after all. However, it is clear that such cases are the exemption to the rule. Pushing it further, we might not really have as much an understanding of their nature as we would like as to be able to determine if they truly were free from deep seated emotional/psychological abnormalities, hence making such unions possible.

Cid Highwind said:
Like said, human beings are selfish, and when it comes down to the point of making decisions, I think emotion will take over. It is very hard to act and think truly rational. Besides, if that person really loves you in return, he or she will accept it and try to live with it, enjoying the positive feelings he has.
Yeah, but how will it even reach that level to begin with? Deception, one way or another. Unless my friend fell in love with an angel or something.

I believe that human beings are selfish too, and that the truly altruistic are the few exceptions. Think of it. If I were selfish, I'd pick someone much better... someone that can give me a better life, better chances at producing healthier offspring, etc... Taking that into account, and the fact that love involves the other and not just the self, it's clear to my friend, and unfortunately, me as well, that it's a hopeless case. If they were both in the same both, maybe, yes. But for those who are not...

Obviously, I'm assuming my friend is altriustic while the rest of the world is selfish.

So, am I carrying the weight of my friend's problem too much then? Is he being impossibly altruistic in his claim of love being able to give up love? Am I over-rationalizing this problem when human beings simply aren't rational given the proper circumstances?

Or is it just that the world really does suck big time? :hdbash:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,576 Posts
Kraelis said:
Hm... reducing love to a mere self-preservation instinct is something I'm not comfortable with. True, it has been my observation time and again, but to say that it'll boil down to self-preservation seems limiting. It ignores the reality that not all actions are inherently self-preservative. Humanism deals with that aspect of trancendentalism only too well.
I'm not saying love can be directly related to self-preservation, I'm saying that self-preservation is too often the definitive factor for those who are in high emotional needs, and low self-esteem or some other degrading factor that enlarges the needs. Love might be such a need, especially in these cases.





Kraelis said:
You're making it seem that in such extreme circumstances, whatever moral/ethical considerations will eventually break down in favor of self-preservation.
Well noticed. ;) If you don't want to read my explanation (as it is not relevant to the thread's point), skip to where I reply to your next quote.

To get back to the emotional needs (those extreme circumstances), have you ever met people who are in serious life-threatening situations? I haven't in such a way that would occur rapidly and on a large scale like, say, in a war, but certain people who have fought in or simply experienced WWI and WWII who I respected greatly, told me something they saw from their own eyes that supported my theories on the matter: The majority of people will, if given the chance, choose to save their own hide (and/or those they believe they can't live without (pay heed to how I worded that: selfishness does occur)) at the expense of others. I believe some semi-recent incident where people ran away from a bomb and pushed others to death is as much an example, as is any other occurrence of such repetitive incidents. Self-preservation supercedes ethical considerations greatly for most, in those extreme cases.

What was told to me applied to the defenseless in war, though, like most civilians. A weapon or any other means to defend can make people over-confident, as to consider their situation not so life-threatening as it in actuality is.

But then you have the stories of people who rather die trying things, than not to try at all, right? Nice "heroic" ideals that many youngsters know best from their animé shows, patriotism, "sympathetic" causes, lore, legends, or from whatever other sillyness applies. These may all encourage it greatly, but it never happens as much as any type of fiction would make believe. Sure, it happens, but imagine the disappointment of those same youngsters when and if they find out their own self-preserving nature won't let them act the way they envisioned them doing like done in their favorite movie. :lol: It is a thought of mine as easy to realize as seeing how a shy guy sets out to ask a girl for a date, but fails asking like he would have wanted to, the first dozen times. :p

The priority of self-preservation may seem to be overridden in some cases, while this might not be the case at all. This is when other more emotional self-preserving actions can be prioritized as the highest need by our autonomic processes, but then they would still be self-preserving.. in another way. Examples are humane actions that, if not executed, would render the actor void of the right to live, in his/her own mind. (i.e. saving someone else's life in the progress of saving your own, despite decreasing chances of survival) Such sympathetic humane acts may include what I said above about those whom people believe they "can't live without". If I'm right, it would require principles of his/her own highest regard. To name an example, I myself dislike dishonesty to no end. Be it that in my case, I would lie if believed to be needed to survive, unlike some others, since I don't have those wires crossed in my instinctive behaviour.

I knew people that had great emotional needs for less (i.e. someone with problems purely emotional, even lightly so), and still acted unethically out of self-preservation. So I suppose I need to point out that the limit to what one can take before moral/ethical considerations are rendered insignificant, is possibly different to each individual.





Kraelis said:
So, they'll find their own state of equilibrium, so to speak, then? However, this dispenses with a great portion of freedom, as well as being discriminatory. It's like saying, let those with extreme circumstances deal with it with fellow extremes. They'll find their own way eventually. Again, this leads to your point earlier. They'll have to make their own artificial happiness for the sake of self-preservation.
It's not so much about leaving them on their own with this, but I said it to work towards the latest paragraph in the post, being one to point out that these situations are still understandable in some ways. I believe that having a more accepting stance to the matter will only help in dealing with this when confronted with it, as opposed to when clouded by anger or misunderstandings.

This could in turn lead to leaving them to "find their own state of equilibrium" as you so eloquently put it, indeed. It really depends on whether these people think they need any help themselves in the matter, or how involved you think yourself to be needed. Either way, having a bit more understanding on the matter can help you judge more fairly and rationally, and that's what I was initially aiming for with that bit. Unfortunately, this never answered your questions specifically in your friend's case, and I don't think they can be by any uninvolved, as each matter is individually and thoroughly complicated.

Same goes for:
Kraelis said:
So, am I carrying the weight of my friend's problem too much then? Is he being impossibly altruistic in his claim of love being able to give up love? Am I over-rationalizing this problem when human beings simply aren't rational given the proper circumstances?




Kraelis said:
I believe that human beings are selfish too, and that the truly altruistic are the few exceptions.
We're all doing what we do to please our own different (autonomic) needs.





Kraelis said:
Or is it just that the world really does suck big time? :hdbash:
It has its ups and downs, to each and everyone. Life is all about dealing with it.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top