The unethical notion of ‘unconditional love’.
It may be familiar to anyone who feels obligated to trawl through social media, that one invariably confronts pseudo-philosophy. You know what I’m talking about, the ‘what you put out into the universe comes back to you’ or the also rather banal, ‘I love them unconditionally’.
The first example is easily combated by even a half second musing on the plight of children with glioblastomas or a hundred other type of cancers. Clearly we cannot victim blame here, and say that children put anything else other than childish innocence into the universe. Interestingly this argument could also be used against the concept of a benevolent patriarchal God figure.
But I’m confronting the asinine concept of ‘unconditional love’ in this story. On the face of it, this is a purely harmless ideal, one that many would celebrate. But I would argue that the very concept of unconditional love is actually an appalling idea, one that should be abandoned as soon as possible. The very idea that there should be no conditions to love is tragically obscene.
The truth is that all members of the human species are socially tied to each other. We are social creatures and civilisation is built upon the social interactions of the many individuals who make up the societies in which we live. Once we accept this as a premise, then we are not so far from being able to draw the conclusion that unconditional love is not conducive to healthy social life.
Once you accept the premise above, let us also posit that we owe to the broader social network in which we live, a contribution such that it does not deprive others of life or happiness. This is of course dependent that someone else’s happiness not affect the happiness or well-being of another.
Now a brief aside while we ruminate on the usage of prisons and penal systems. On the one hand we view prisons as rehabilitations like systems, designed to alter the thinking and behaviour of criminals and reintroduce them into society. On the other hand they serve as punishment, and as a deterrent. Now if we believe that there has to be some line that when crossed deserves some form of punishment, then we have already set ‘conditions’ to behaviour.
Now if one accepts all that is written above, then one can immediately see the discrepancy in thinking that allows for punishment following some breach of law, and the facile notion of unconditional love.
If my brother, sister or friend commits some heinous crime, am I right to aspire to, maybe even boast of, that I love them unconditionally? The idea is ludicrous.
The question is not whether or not I love unconditionally, but what conditions should I set before I withdraw my affections? This is a much healthier form of ethics dealing with love and kinship.
The other argument for setting conditions, is that the people in your life who recognise that you hold those very same conditions — may think twice before committing themselves to some action or another. No person should ever have carte blanche to behave in a way that ignores broader sociological considerations, and expect unconditional love.
This cheapens affection and even love. Love and trust are valuable quantities and no mental bank should have them in infinite amounts.
If one holds that all should have love in inexhaustible amounts, then this may inflict guilt upon the person who loses their affection for a member of their family or social network who is, perhaps rightfully so, completely unlovable.
And if the argument comes back that one admits that their love is misplaced, and yet still feels it — then consider the victim of the unconditionally loved perpetrator. Do that enough and I sincerely hope that your affections dwindle.
It is good to reflect on the kind of pseudo-deep sounding and trite philosophies that hit us in waves nowadays. Give the mind time to argue and retort, for else you may find yourself trying to achieve the unachievable.
