Robin, using the word “love” sounds to me distinctly like something intended to evoke object-level valuation. “Love” is an archetype of direct valuation, not an archetype of metaethics.
But you might as well say “George Washington gave in to his desire to be a tyrant; he was just a tyrant who wanted democracy.” Or “Martin Luther King declared total war on the rest of the US, since what he wanted was a nonviolent resolution.”
Similarly with “I choose not to control you” being a form of controlling.
Robin, using the word “love” sounds to me distinctly like something intended to evoke object-level valuation. “Love” is an archetype of direct valuation, not an archetype of metaethics.
And I’m not so much of a mutant that, rather than liking cookies, I like everyone having their reflective equilibria implemented. Taking that step is the substance of my attempt to be fair. In the same way that someone voluntarily splitting up a pie into three shares, is not on the same moral level as someone who seizes the whole pie for themselves—even if, by volunteering to do the fair thing rather than some other thing, they have shown themselves to value fairness.
My take on this was given in The Bedrock of Fairness.
But you might as well say “George Washington gave in to his desire to be a tyrant; he was just a tyrant who wanted democracy.” Or “Martin Luther King declared total war on the rest of the US, since what he wanted was a nonviolent resolution.”
Similarly with “I choose not to control you” being a form of controlling.