4 ms·
The distinction between love and attachment is valid, but it does not solve the problem. Even if one defines love as universal, impartial goodwill, it remains a
by nelox 1y ago
The distinction between love and attachment is valid, but it does not solve the problem. Even if one defines love as universal, impartial goodwill, it remains aspirational and fragile. To say morality originates only in love is to assume a capacity that human beings rarely sustain in practice. That is precisely why societies construct rules and duties: to create reliable standards even when love fails.
The justice system is far from perfect, but dismissing it as a “brittle imitation” overlooks what it prevents. Most people are not saints. Universal love may be possible in theory, but history shows that in practice societies without enforceable norms often descend into cycles of revenge, corruption, or rule by the strongest. Systems of law are crude, but they are better than trusting every individual to embody unconditional love.
Rehabilitation and restorative justice models do exist, and they align with the spirit of love by seeking repair rather than punishment. But they are still structured by rules. Without those, there is no guarantee of fairness or safety. Love can inspire moral action, but rules are what make morality workable in communities of imperfect humans.
- JimmyBuckets 1y agoI agree with some of what you have said. But I feel that you are moving the goalposts slightly. I understood the discussion to be on the origin of morality. Implementing its upkeep is a separate issue. However, to respond to your point: I do agree that rules are an important component. But I would argue that rules only work insofar as culture supports them, and indeed may only be a codification of the underlying values already present. t Thus I would argue that the culture in which those rules are embedded is what is of importance. And thus we come back to love.