Love (brain teaser)

[Mithrae]

I assume we're all familiar with the trolley problem and variations on the theme. Now imagine two chaps whose daughters lives are at stake, needing transplants or on the tracks or whatever: Aaron loves his daughter very much, so much that he would sacrifice two or five or even ten people's lives depending on circumstances to save hers. Brandon also loves his daughter very much, but there's no circumstance in which he would sacrifice even two unwilling or unknowing people's lives to save hers.

Which if either of these guys loves his daughter more, and why?

 

[Exquisitor]

Alexander Dugin loved his daughter more.

False Flag Does His Own Daughter

False Flag Does His Own Daughter: Ah ha, oh yes.

debatepolitics.com

 

[Mr Person]

That is, can love be measured by one's willingness to inflict ill on an innocent third party(ies)?

 

[lemmiwinx]

Donald Trump loves his daughter more. Can't blame him she's hot as all get out.

 

[grip]

I assume we're all familiar with the trolley problem and variations on the theme. Now imagine two chaps whose daughters lives are at stake, needing transplants or on the tracks or whatever: Aaron loves his daughter very much, so much that he would sacrifice two or five or even ten people's lives depending on circumstances to save hers. Brandon also loves his daughter very much, but there's no circumstance in which he would sacrifice even two unwilling or unknowing people's lives to save hers.

Which if either of these guys loves his daughter more, and why?

Both probably care equally though one has his head on right. Two lives will always outvalue one, even if you're much closer to the one.
But if I were put in that situation, I would be hard-pressed to decide correctly.

 

[Mithrae]

That is, can love be measured by one's willingness to inflict ill on an innocent third party(ies)?

I plan on arguing that the scenario does prove or at least strongly suggest that one of the men loves his daughter more, yes.

 

[reflechissez]

Donald Trump loves his daughter more. Can't blame him she's hot as all get out.

For those with a penchant for mannequin look-a-likes, for sure.

 

[Mithrae]

My answer to the brain teaser is that by refusing to sacrifice even two other lives to save his daughter's, Brandon demonstrates that he most likely loves his daughter more than Aaron, who would sacrifice others to save his daughter. I base this conclusion on three observations/assumptions:

A > Not everyone has an equal capacity for love; sociopaths and narcissists would be fairly obvious examples of people with a very low capacity to love others.
B > As with our capacities for strength, critical thinking, knowledge, emotional stability, communication and so on, our capacity for love (or the extent to which we utilize a hypothetical 'innate' capacity) can change, being increased by use and atrophied by disuse.
C > Comparatively 'unconditional' love is greater than more conditional love; if love is conditional on various circumstances, those circumstances are greater than the love, whereas if love isn't conditional on those circumstances the love is greater than the circumstances, and therefore greater than the more conditional love.

Aaron most likely wouldn't sacrifice two of his own daughters to save a third, but by sacrificing two strangers' lives to save his daughter he is showing that what's important to him is the relationship between him and his daughter, the condition which happens to connect them. If the exact same person were not his daughter, and one of the strangers was, he would reverse his decision and sacrifice the person who in the original scenario he seemingly valued so highly. His love is not first and foremost for the person, but for the relationship to himself.

By contrast it seems likely that Brandon is practicing an unconditional valuation of those involved. To be fair, there are undoubtedly moral frameworks in which that decision has nothing to do with love for either his daughter or the strangers. But even in those cases it's a fair bet that someone who has adopted such a moral framework is more likely to practice compassion or empathy for strangers than someone who hasn't. Practicing a comparatively unconditional respect or love for others could mean that Brandon simply has developed a greater capacity for love than Aaron; not only loving his daughter more than Aaron does, but potentially even loving strangers more than Aaron loves his daughter!

 

[quip]

I assume we're all familiar with the trolley problem and variations on the theme. Now imagine two chaps whose daughters lives are at stake, needing transplants or on the tracks or whatever: Aaron loves his daughter very much, so much that he would sacrifice two or five or even ten people's lives depending on circumstances to save hers. Brandon also loves his daughter very much, but there's no circumstance in which he would sacrifice even two unwilling or unknowing people's lives to save hers.

Which if either of these guys loves his daughter more, and why?

You didn't specify the circumstance.
Simply add a gun against the heads of the respective daughters and a demand that each father kill the POTUS.
The entire dynamic has shifted:
Would Brandon's love for his daughter outweigh his principles of compassion and empathy? Should it?

 

[VanceMack]

In order to answer the question 'who loves more', you have to first answer the question 'what is love'.

The typical first response is "Oh, baby, don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more"

Many people find they are at a loss when it comes to answering what seems like it should be a very simple and direct question.

What is love?

Start there.

 

[Mithrae]

In order to answer the question 'who loves more', you have to first answer the question 'what is love'.

A specific answer to that might be interesting and useful, but I'm not sure it's necessary as long as you can compare love A to love B or (as I've done in post #8) compare love A to some condition and compare love B to the same condition. If Aaron's love for a person is conditional on her being his daughter, that condition is greater than his love, so if Brandon's love for people is less conditional it logically follows that Brandon's love is greater than Aaron's - not only for his daughter, but probably for strangers too. On an overall scale of love, presumably Aaron's is not the same as the obsessive/compulsive 'love' of a true narcissist, but it's further down towards that end, based primarily on her relationship to him moreso than on her for her own sake.

Many people find they are at a loss when it comes to answering what seems like it should be a very simple and direct question.

What is love?

Clearly defining it might be hard, but I'd wager that if we gave a thousand examples to a thousand people asking them if it was love, most people would agree on most of their answers. I'd further guess that much of the confusion in definitions stems from tendencies towards taking that core, widely recognized concept and either romanticizing/idealizing it (eg. love at first sight, soulmates) or expanding/personifying the objects of love (eg. "I love pizza," "I love Jesus"). From the basics, love is a connection; it's a connection of one person to another (or at least to another sentient being) and probably best characterized off the top of my head by affection, empathy and compassion.

 

[VanceMack]

A specific answer to that might be interesting and useful, but I'm not sure it's necessary as long as you can compare love A to love B or (as I've done in post #8) compare love A to some condition and compare love B to the same condition. If Aaron's love for a person is conditional on her being his daughter, that condition is greater than his love, so if Brandon's love for people is less conditional it logically follows that Brandon's love is greater than Aaron's - not only for his daughter, but probably for strangers too. On an overall scale of love, presumably Aaron's is not the same as the obsessive/compulsive 'love' of a true narcissist, but it's further down towards that end, based primarily on her relationship to him moreso than on her for her own sake.


Clearly defining it might be hard, but I'd wager that if we gave a thousand examples to a thousand people asking them if it was love, most people would agree on most of their answers. I'd further guess that much of the confusion in definitions stems from tendencies towards taking that core, widely recognized concept and either romanticizing/idealizing it (eg. love at first sight, soulmates) or expanding/personifying the objects of love (eg. "I love pizza," "I love Jesus"). From the basics, love is a connection; it's a connection of one person to another (or at least to another sentient being) and probably best characterized off the top of my head by affection, empathy and compassion.

Love isnt complicated. Love is a choice. Love is unconditional acceptance. it really doesnt get any deeper than that. The rest is dependent on 'like', relatedness, and values.

In the example, both love their children, accept their roles as father, and their values dictate their actions.

 

[Mithrae]

Love isnt complicated. Love is a choice. Love is unconditional acceptance. it really doesnt get any deeper than that. The rest is dependent on 'like', relatedness, and values.

In the example, both love their children, accept their roles as father, and their values dictate their actions.

Except that it's never unconditional acceptance. You meet the girl of your dreams and fall madly in love with her... until you discover that she's been married all this time and just seeing you on the side. It might take some getting over her, but ultimately your love is likely conditional on her being honest and available. A definition of love which excludes one of the main ways in which the word is actually used doesn't seem like a very good definition. Moreover such an approach would mean you could never really say what is or isn't 'real love' between two people, only that they haven't (yet) encountered the conditions showing that it wasn't. Even parents' love for their children, the other main archetype of love, is often affected and sometimes completely destroyed by conditions like criminality, religion, orientation or the like. It would be fallacious to claim that it wasn't real love just because it doesn't fit an arbitrary definition: We find what words mean by examining how we actually use them and then maybe doing a little polishing, not by starting with some imaginary platonic ideal and then deciding that we've been using it wrong all along.

 

[VanceMack]

Except that it's never unconditional acceptance. You meet the girl of your dreams and fall madly in love with her... until you discover that she's been married all this time and just seeing you on the side. It might take some getting over her, but ultimately your love is likely conditional on her being honest and available. A definition of love which excludes one of the main ways in which the word is actually used doesn't seem like a very good definition. Moreover such an approach would mean you could never really say what is or isn't 'real love' between two people, only that they haven't (yet) encountered the conditions showing that it wasn't. Even parents' love for their children, the other main archetype of love, is often affected and sometimes completely destroyed by conditions like criminality, religion, orientation or the like. It would be fallacious to claim that it wasn't real love just because it doesn't fit an arbitrary definition: We find what words mean by examining how we actually use them and then maybe doing a little polishing, not by starting with some imaginary platonic ideal and then deciding that we've been using it wrong all along.

No...thats what the story book/fairy tale teaches you happens...and its why so many marriages and relationships blow up.

Unconditional acceptance starts within. It can be extended to total strangers. It is the quality of humanity that leads to charity.

Relationship is so much more important than the helpless dime store romance novel version that people fall for.

 

[Mithrae]

No...thats what the story book/fairy tale teaches you happens...and its why so many marriages and relationships blow up.

Unconditional acceptance starts within. It can be extended to total strangers. It is the quality of humanity that leads to charity.

Relationship is so much more important than the helpless dime store romance novel version that people fall for.

With an asterisk over 'unconditional,' I agree with everything you just said. Pretty sure that's one of the signs of the apocalypse But none of that changes the fact that shallow, conditional, selfish love for others is still love, simply because that's how we use the word, and because that's where all love begins. Less conditional love is something that takes practice and effort, constant self-reminders that most liberals aren't shitheads to pick just one example at random; it takes constant self-reminders of our shared humanity and shared fallibility, searching for the logs in our own eyes while trying to see things from others' perspective, trying to see the best in them or at the very least to understand the circumstances or genetics or brain chemistry which might have contributed to their current status.

Meanwhile truly unconditional love is just as much of an idealization/fairy tale as love-at-first-sight soulmates, and just as much a risk factor for making the 'perfect' an enemy of the good; think of all the abuse victims who justify remaining with their abuser under the belief that they should love them unconditionally, unaffected and unaltered by the abuse. In fact when you really think about it, truly unconditional love makes even less sense than love at first sight: "Would you still love me if I turned into a mango?" Of course not, if nothing else love is obviously conditional on personhood, or at the very least on sentience, and as with abuse there are certainly other conditions which should at least have some effect on love, shouldn't be unconditionally accepted.

 

[VanceMack]

With an asterisk over 'unconditional,' I agree with everything you just said. Pretty sure that's one of the signs of the apocalypse But none of that changes the fact that shallow, conditional, selfish love for others is still love, simply because that's how we use the word, and because that's where all love begins. Less conditional love is something that takes practice and effort, constant self-reminders that most liberals aren't shitheads to pick just one example at random; it takes constant self-reminders of our shared humanity and shared fallibility, searching for the logs in our own eyes while trying to see things from others' perspective, trying to see the best in them or at the very least to understand the circumstances or genetics or brain chemistry which might have contributed to their current status.

Meanwhile truly unconditional love is just as much of an idealization/fairy tale as love-at-first-sight soulmates, and just as much a risk factor for making the 'perfect' an enemy of the good; think of all the abuse victims who justify remaining with their abuser under the belief that they should love them unconditionally, unaffected and unaltered by the abuse. In fact when you really think about it, truly unconditional love makes even less sense than love at first sight: "Would you still love me if I turned into a mango?" Of course not, if nothing else love is obviously conditional on personhood, or at the very least on sentience, and as with abuse there are certainly other conditions which should at least have some effect on love, shouldn't be unconditionally accepted.

I agree with most of that as well...the exception being dogs. We should not cheapen love by using phrases like "I love my truck" or "I love my boat." On the other hand, our dogs...our own dogs...are the finest and purest example of unconditional love I think we can fine.

In humans, unconditional love is a primary emotion...one of three IMO...that begins first and foremost within. If we love ourselves...truly accept ourselves unconditionally...no one elses opinion of us matters. If we dont...again...no one elses opinion of us matters. Once we can accept that, unconditional love of others becomes easy...especially when we recognize the power and intention of 'like' and relatedness.

 

[TheGoverness]

I dont really see the need in determining which of the two loves their children more. What's the gain?

 

[Napoleon]

The problem with the argument is that it doesn’t provide enough information - particularly on the motive of the fathers or about the stakes - to consider the question intelligently. Are the people who have to be killed old and otherwise have 2 minutes to live or are they newborn babes? Do one or both of the daughters suffer from some incurable ailment such that death would be a mercy? Etc. The superiority or inferiority of an expression of love is relative to the circumstances and, as they say, the devil is in the details.