I, for one, think of love as a conscious choice to invest in the well-being and flourishing of another person. It is preferable that the person reciprocate, but not necessarily a requisite of my ongoing commitment. In this way, love is sacrificial, and I don’t see how LW could make a case for it.
Of course, you could be in a romantic relationship where both parties benefit, creating a situation where the sum is greater than the parts in regard to fuzzies, utilons, etc. That’s academic. To the extent you can keep the situation intact, you can reap the benefits.
You could, if you were malicious and willing, create a situation where you benefited from a romantic relationship in which your partner was not seeing any benefit. They added utility to you at their own peril. I think that happens a lot.
Anyway, I think love is best defined as the choice you make to sacrifice, if need be, for the sake of other people. In a traditional marriage commitment, that choice is lifelong, made to one person and exists “for better or for worse”.
There are some personal benefits derived from honoring such arrangements. There are also some drawbacks. Is love good or bad for you in a utilitarian standpoint in the context of marriage? Depends on you and the marriage.
Is “falling in love” good for you? Depends on you. In my experience, it’s been the most intense euphoria I’ve ever felt. But it also has been debilitatingly painful when it ends. You’d have to do the cost-benefit analysis for yourself based on your disposition, utility function, etc.
I’d personally recommend love strongly, even if it ends up yielding negative results in utilitarian sum total...But Choose to love, and don’t spend to much time worrying about getting people to love you. Similarly, don’t get the idea that love is ethereal, esoteric, magical woo. It can, and often, involves that, but it necessarily involves lots of intentional choice to benefit another person with no guarantee of reciprocation.
I’d personally recommend love strongly, even if it ends up yielding negative results in utilitarian sum total...But Choose to love, and don’t spend to much time worrying about getting people to love you.
To clarify, I should have said I recommend love even if it doesn’t end up yielding a utility advantage for you. I’ve found it’s a better choice than trying to “utilize” love for your own ends.
There isn’t anything you can do to make other people love you. You can make them need you, want you, like you...but people must choose to love, as I’ve defined it. This is why I said I don’t think LW will ever be an advocate of love defined as such. It doesn’t “work all that well” for people who are looking to “win”.
There isn’t anything you can do to make other people love you.
You can increase the probability a little, though.
Even choosing to interact with people who have the capacity to love (the way you want to be loved) increases the chance your love will be reciprocated. It’s probably easier to explain in reverse: if you only keep company of people unable to love (the way you want to be loved), your chances of being loved drop to zero.
Sometimes it helps to be a bit explicit. Tell the person you care about them, and you want to participate in their life goals. Just the fact that they spend a little more time thinking about you, increases the chance that if you are one of the possible candidates, they will choose you. If you have similar values, it is better to know about it.
Of course this all is within some given limits. You can’t make (from 0% to 100%) the other person love you. But if there is a potential for mutual love, you can can increase your chances maybe from 0.1% to 10% just by being visible.
It comes down to a definition of “love”.
I, for one, think of love as a conscious choice to invest in the well-being and flourishing of another person. It is preferable that the person reciprocate, but not necessarily a requisite of my ongoing commitment. In this way, love is sacrificial, and I don’t see how LW could make a case for it.
Of course, you could be in a romantic relationship where both parties benefit, creating a situation where the sum is greater than the parts in regard to fuzzies, utilons, etc. That’s academic. To the extent you can keep the situation intact, you can reap the benefits.
You could, if you were malicious and willing, create a situation where you benefited from a romantic relationship in which your partner was not seeing any benefit. They added utility to you at their own peril. I think that happens a lot.
Anyway, I think love is best defined as the choice you make to sacrifice, if need be, for the sake of other people. In a traditional marriage commitment, that choice is lifelong, made to one person and exists “for better or for worse”.
There are some personal benefits derived from honoring such arrangements. There are also some drawbacks. Is love good or bad for you in a utilitarian standpoint in the context of marriage? Depends on you and the marriage.
Is “falling in love” good for you? Depends on you. In my experience, it’s been the most intense euphoria I’ve ever felt. But it also has been debilitatingly painful when it ends. You’d have to do the cost-benefit analysis for yourself based on your disposition, utility function, etc.
I’d personally recommend love strongly, even if it ends up yielding negative results in utilitarian sum total...But Choose to love, and don’t spend to much time worrying about getting people to love you. Similarly, don’t get the idea that love is ethereal, esoteric, magical woo. It can, and often, involves that, but it necessarily involves lots of intentional choice to benefit another person with no guarantee of reciprocation.
Uhm… What? Why on Earth, why?
To clarify, I should have said I recommend love even if it doesn’t end up yielding a utility advantage for you. I’ve found it’s a better choice than trying to “utilize” love for your own ends.
Still, you must be rather unusual if loving people who don’t love you back works all that well for you.
I chose to love regardless of how the other feels towards me.
There isn’t anything you can do to make other people love you. You can make them need you, want you, like you...but people must choose to love, as I’ve defined it. This is why I said I don’t think LW will ever be an advocate of love defined as such. It doesn’t “work all that well” for people who are looking to “win”.
You can increase the probability a little, though.
Even choosing to interact with people who have the capacity to love (the way you want to be loved) increases the chance your love will be reciprocated. It’s probably easier to explain in reverse: if you only keep company of people unable to love (the way you want to be loved), your chances of being loved drop to zero.
Sometimes it helps to be a bit explicit. Tell the person you care about them, and you want to participate in their life goals. Just the fact that they spend a little more time thinking about you, increases the chance that if you are one of the possible candidates, they will choose you. If you have similar values, it is better to know about it.
Of course this all is within some given limits. You can’t make (from 0% to 100%) the other person love you. But if there is a potential for mutual love, you can can increase your chances maybe from 0.1% to 10% just by being visible.