Note that “selfless” here doesn’t mean “self-abnegating”, it just means that your innermost circle of concern contains at least one person other than yourself. This may mean, for example, that if you’ll enjoy the plums in the icebox more than your partner you should just eat them and this doesn’t make you a bad person (although it’s still a good idea to apologize and make it up to them). It means not only that when it’s late in the evening my wife and I will rate ourselves on 1-10 scales for horniness and sleepiness and do whichever gets the highest combined score but also that I have learned to calibrate my preferences down because my wife is less decisive about the difference in her preferences and if I reported my scores accurately I would get what I want too often and she not enough. Selfless relationships mean acting on the combined utility function.
The combined utility function implies the parties are a single unit finding the best approach to fill the preferences of all parties involved. The arguments above point that some relationship seekers don’t see themselves as a single unit with their partner, and seeing themselves as such will be harmful for their own preferences, e.g., a short-term relationship or a non-negotiable belief system.
These are countered in parts of the text (ex)
The quote is not countering the arguments.
The combined utility function implies the parties are a single unit finding the best approach to fill the preferences of all parties involved. The arguments above point that some relationship seekers don’t see themselves as a single unit with their partner, and seeing themselves as such will be harmful for their own preferences, e.g., a short-term relationship or a non-negotiable belief system.
I see what you’re referring to I think. Thanks for clarifying, what you’re saying makes sense.
Your comment’s examples are useful, but I will note that even this is covered in the original text: