A central debate in the philosophy of love is whether people can love one another for good reasons. Reasons for love seem to help us sympathetically understand and evaluate love or even count as loving at all. But it can seem that if reasons for love existed, they could require forms of love that are presumably illicit. It might seem that only some form of wishful thinking would lead us to believe reasons for love could never do this. However, if (...) we focus on why reasons for love as such motivate us to love, we find evidence that reasons for love as such do not require or even justify it: all they do is favor it. This result is fine, however, since love never stands in need of justification. We would think otherwise only if we somehow conflate reasons and justifications, or value and permissibility. We must give up such background assumptions if we are to appreciate reasons for love. (shrink)

Can our beloved cats and dogs love us back? This chapter aims to find a satisfactory theory of love that substantiates the claim that they can. It begins by reconstructing and critically evaluating recent attempts by scientists to show that dogs can love humans back. Although these attempts are argued to be unsuccessful, it is further argued that they illuminate the need for an adequate theory of love and offer us some plausible ideas about love that direct us to two (...) recent philosophical theories of love that support the idea that dogs can love humans back. These two theories are discussed in detail before it is argued that dogs, but not cats, seem capable of loving humans under these theories. These theory-based defenses of the belief that dogs can love humans back are then criticized on the grounds that the theories they use are unsatisfactory because they fail to capture three central truths about love. This leads to a third theory of love that, after some friendly amendments, is argued to be a tentatively adequate theory that provisionally vindicates the claim that dogs, but not cats, can love humans back. (shrink)

What is love? In this paper I argue that love is a psychological syndrome, or an enormously complex cluster of psychological attitudes and dispositions that’s accompanied by a corresponding set of symptoms that flow from it. More specifically, I argue that love is an affectionate loyalty that takes different shapes across cases and that manifests itself in some set of behavioral and emotional expressions, where this set of expressions also varies across cases. After laying down three theoretical constraints that viable (...) theories of love must satisfy, I sketch my syndrome theory of love in detail and then defend it. First, I argue that it has a strong yet defeasible claim to satisfying the three theoretical constraints. Then I defend my theory against two objections that target its extensional adequacy. I conclude that we have good grounds for being optimistic about the theory even though it calls for further development and scrutiny. (shrink)

This paper attempts to fill an epistemological gap in our theorizing about love with a sketch of an epistemology of love that unfolds by addressing Whitney Houston’s famous epistemological questions pertaining to how we can know whether another loves us. After arguing for three possible sources of the knowledge of love, it offers initial answers to how the knowledge of the presence or absence of another’s love can be acquired from the relevant possible sources previously established. These initial answers, though, (...) are unsatisfying because they invite more difficult questions that are then addressed, such as those pertaining to the kinds of things that constitute love’s expressions along with how to detect these expressions given the possibility of false positives. Addressing these questions ultimately leads to a sharpened, Aristotle-inspired account of how to acquire the knowledge of the presence or absence of another’s love by inferring it, respectively, from the successful or failed detection of love’s expressions. (shrink)

RÉSUMÉ: J'examine ici trois façons de défendre l'idée que les personnes ont individuellement une valeur. Je pars de la thèse selon laquelle la valeur des individus tient à la valeur de leurs qualités particulières. Je m'arrête alors sur l'objection que pour comprendre ce qui fait la valeur individuelle des personnes, il nous faut accorder une place distinctive à leurs conceptions d'elles-mêmes. L'approche par la conception de soi qui résulte de ces considérations se révèle problématique à l'examen, mais elle nous oriente (...) vers une façon «kantienne», plus satisfaisante, de rendre compte de la valeur des individus. L'explication en question développe la doctrine des «deux points de vue» avancée par Christine Korsgaard et fait reposer ma valeur en tant qu'individu sur la dignité qui est la mienne en tant que maître d'œuvre de ma propre vie, un titre que personne d'autre ne peut avoir. (shrink)

RÉSUMÉ: J'examine ici trois façons de défendre l'idée que les personnes ont individuellement une valeur. Je pars de la thèse selon laquelle la valeur des individus tient à la valeur de leurs qualités particulières. Je m'arrête alors sur l'objection que pour comprendre ce qui fait la valeur individuelle des personnes, il nous faut accorder une place distinctive à leurs conceptions d'elles-mêmes. L'approche par la conception de soi qui résulte de ces considérations se révèle problématique à l'examen, mais elle nous oriente (...) vers une façon «kantienne», plus satisfaisante, de rendre compte de la valeur des individus. L'explication en question développe la doctrine des «deux points de vue» avancée par Christine Korsgaard et fait reposer ma valeur en tant qu'individu sur la dignité qui est la mienne en tant que maître d'œuvre de ma propre vie, un titre que personne d'autre ne peut avoir. (shrink)