How does AR's theory about love stand up to modern theories?

[gigisant]

I have some reservations when it comes to Ayn Rand's theory about love. She considers love to be a reward for someone's virtues, and a celebration. She developed her theories in the 40s-50s, but the most important discoveries about the nature of love were made in science quite recently. How does her theory stand up to these new findings?

I do not agree with promiscuity either, but for different reasons. I think that love is a mechanism created by Nature in order to determine us to raise our children in families, so they would be much safer that way. That means that we are granted happiness not because we choose someone according to their virtues, but because we choose someone according to his/her capacity to be the most suited for raising children alongside us, given the limited options. Virtues play a role, but there's a lot more to it.

And that would resolve the need for the theory of "love=celebration" in order to explain the unhappiness caused by love. It is not because we failed to choose someone who doesn't have virtues, nor because we wanted to achieve satisfaction in the unearned. It is because that specific male-female combination fails to accomplish the necessities required by both of them in order to appreciate that the other one is the most suitable partner to raise children with.

[noumenalself]

I do not agree with promiscuity either, but for different reasons. I think that love is a mechanism created by Nature in order to determine us to raise our children in families, so they would be much safer that way. That means that we are granted happiness not because we choose someone according to their virtues, but because we choose someone according to his/her capacity to be the most suited for raising children alongside us, given the limited options.

It's surely true that our capacity for sexual desire arises for evolutionary reasons. But what follows from that? Does it follow that the person we fall in love with is the one most likely to bear us offspring, or support offspring?

Surely not. You can supply ready counterexamples yourself, I'm sure. Why do women fall in love with "bad boys" who are unlikely to be responsible fathers ("cads not dads")? Why are men attracted to skinny women without "birthing hips"? Why is there even a phenomenon such as homosexuality, which lacks any reproductive potential whatsoever?

[DragonMaci]

Love is a volitional value judgment and if anyone tells you otherwise they don't know what love is. They might be referring to something real, but they are not referring to love, they are confusing love and something else. (Note: by "they" I mean people telling you otherwise, not the scientists you mentioned.

Not everyone wants shildren and not everyone values their children. What about when infertile people fall in love? How does your theory explain these people falling in love? It doesn't. Love is a choice. We choose to feel love, whether we want children or not, whether we value our children or not.

Also, there is more than just romantic love. There is platonic love as well; the emotion we feel for friends is a form of love. Your theory ignores that. But more importantly it ignores the roile of the mind in love. The mind is involved in all human action. Without the involvement of the mind we can only have the lack of action.

[DavidOdden]

How does her theory stand up to these new findings?

When you refer to putative scientific findings, it's a good idea to say what specific conclusion you're referring to and also provide a citation of the supposed proof, so that we can inspect the argument. I don't believe that there is any scientific result which contradicts Rand's position, but if you think there is, you can explain your claim.

I think that love is a mechanism created by Nature in order to determine us to raise our children in families, so they would be much safer that way. That means that we are granted happiness not because we choose someone according to their virtues, but because we choose someone according to his/her capacity to be the most suited for raising children alongside us, given the limited options.

I don't know what you mean by "Nature" here -- you mean as in God of Mother Nature? Love is not a mechanism, it is an emotion possibly rooted in infantile hunger, which is conceptualized as an evaluation of something. DM points out the essential flaw in the theory, that men must choose whether to breed, and not all men do, so love cannot be reduced to an evaluation of another person as breeding stock. That would also imply that a man can't love his car, his dog, job, father, brother and should not love his mother, sister or sister-in-law. If that's an example of a scientific theory that you thought might contradict Rand's view of love, it would be shocking and I would be surprised if any reputable scientific journal would publish such a claim. That's why I asked for a citation of one or more of these studies.

[Inspector]

I don't think those findings are "new" at all. The idea that man was a helpless products of his genes and "breeding instincts" was around in Rand's time, as well. She completely rejected it as the nonsense it is. It is in no way new and by no means offers anything of worth against her ideas.

[gigisant]

You did not understand what I was trying to say at all. I'm almost sorry I've asked.

I am not a determinist, I recognize the independence of the mind - or the independence of reason. Man is the only creature which is not driven exclusively by emotions, and has a choice.

But, in order to be as happy as possible, we must follow some rules established by Nature (and by Nature I don't mean any entity whatsoever, I am forced to use this term because of the incomplete language of man - we are always used to have a subject in a phrase, even if that subject is not a real object, but a mere concept). DavidOdden has taken me for some sort of weird determinist - the way marxists were, for example. What I am trying to say is that, in order to achieve happiness, rational-perceived virtues are not enough, but they are only part of the greater package - package trying to determine the most suitable partner for us. When we ignore the other components, we are as unhappy (imagine a very ugly woman who holds all the Objectivist ideas, who doesn't have a compatible set of genes determining the future immune system-package of the offspring, etc.)

Why do women fall in love with "bad boys" who are unlikely to be responsible fathers ("cads not dads")?

That's because, if the lady would only choose those exclusively through reason, she would probably choose the responsible ones. But, in order to have healthy offspring, the man must not only be responsible, but also have good genes (the easiest way to determine that is by determining if he is beautiful or not).

Why are men attracted to skinny women without "birthing hips"?

Because they must choose between the available options. If he's ugly, or incompetent in raising children, he must choose someone not as fit, someone to be pleased of him. He may also choose on intellectual grounds, on "virtues", but that is just another component - and not everything that is to be considered. He may find that he will be unsatisfied later of his choice - and not know why, even though his partner has all the virtues: it is because she doesn't meet all the requirements that are necessary and passed-on generation after generation, and found as a reminiscence in his emotional behavior.

Why is there even a phenomenon such as homosexuality, which lacks any reproductive potential whatsoever?

This is not proof of the "virtues theory" either: they don't choose people of the same sex based on their virtues, but on emotion, on whim. The homosexuality gene and homosexuality behavior are to be found in many species. In this case, "offspring raising theory" does not apply, since there are other requirements set by Nature in order for gay people to be happy - they are attracted to each other based on an evolutionary deviant accident. If they try to ignore this deviation, they would be much more unhappy (like establishing a family with someone of the opposite sex, eventually with many virtues, for example: it just won't work). The true purpose should not be standardization, but happiness.

But more importantly it ignores the roile of the mind in love.

Not, it does not - it says that it is just another component, since if two people don't get along at intellectual level, they won't be able to raise the children either - but that's the only reason why people feel attracted based on their intellectual condition.

Also, there is more than just romantic love. There is platonic love as well; the emotion we feel for friends is a form of love.

Platonic love for someone of the opposite sex is just a deviation from the true purpose of love, a way of finding satisfaction in love without accomplishing the purpose for which love appeared in the first place. It is indeed a symbol of the independence of the mind. But on the long run, it does not offer happiness either - it's not that easy to trick Nature after all.

Platonic love for friends is another matter - it appeared in order to help us establish better relationships with the ones around us - from the need of security and of collaboration. It resembles the other type of love - romantic love, because it is easier to just use some mechanisms that have already been developed than to create a new one.

I don't think those findings are "new" at all. The idea that man was a helpless products of his genes and "breeding instincts" was around in Rand's time, as well.

I'm not talking about genetic determinism here. I am trying to say that, in order to be happy, there are other things to consider besides virtues and that love should not be a celebration of finding someone with the right virtues, but a celebration of finding someone fit to stay with us for all the other reasons. People aren't unhappy because they seek satisfaction in the unearned, but because there are components missing - either intellectual, either physical.

Edited July 15, 2007 by gigisant

[DavidOdden]

But, in order to be as happy as possible, we must follow some rules established by Nature

This is wrong, because it misunderstands the cause of happiness. Your goal as a rational being is not happiness, it is existence. Happiness arises from the recognition that you are achieving your goal. These rules are not established by Nature, they are the product of a man recognizing the nature of reality including his own nature. Thus man determines the rules by reference to objective fact.

What I am trying to say is that, in order to achieve happiness, rational-perceived virtues are not enough, but they are only part of the greater package - package trying to determine the most suitable partner for us.

I get that, I'm just saying that you are wrong. The pursuit of rational virtues is necessary and sufficient for happiness, in a rational man (we don't care about irrational men, except when they threaten us). It is not required that you have a "partner" to be happy -- that implies, quite incorrectly, that a man's life is of no objective value except in service to another person. It is possible that a partner is necessary for a man, not it is not necessary.

When we ignore the other components, we are as unhappy (imagine a very ugly woman who holds all the Objectivist ideas, who doesn't have a compatible set of genes determining the future immune system-package of the offspring, etc.)

What do you mean by that? Like, a female who is plug-ugly and sterile, but has numerous mental virtues? Are you arguing that such a woman cannot or should not be happy?

That's because, if the lady would only choose those exclusively through reason, she would probably choose the responsible ones. But, in order to have healthy offspring, the man must not only be responsible, but also have good genes (the easiest way to determine that is by determining if he is beautiful or not).

You're assuming the woman wants to breed, which is not a valid requirement for the concept "man" (or "woman"). Obviously if a person has decided that breeding is very importantant to him, so important that he would marry a Kantian religious zealot that was a good brood animal, then it would not be rational for him to marry a sterile woman.

The question you ought to be asking yourself is whether the desire to breed is an automatically, universally rational goal. Go back to the fundamental question, which is the difference between rational and irrational goals; see what the relationship is between achieving goals and happiness; and see how love relates to goals.

[blackdiamond]

Hello DavidOdden.

I agree with everything you are saying, and with the thrust of your argument. But I just wish to disagree with this little statement:

... Your goal as a rational being is not happiness, it is existence.

Happiness is in fact the ultimate goal of a rational man. It is just not the standard (of his ethics), as this would lead to hedonism.

[gigisant]

Thank you, DavidOdden, for your answer. It was the most explicit answer around here, and aimed exactly at what I’ve said, and not at what you would imagine that I have. I will think about your arguments (the standard is actually existence, the difference between rational and irrational goals, etc.)

I still have some uncertainties:

1. Love was developed as a mechanism for selecting the best genes and producing healthy offspring. If we all choose our mates according to their intellectual abilities, wouldn’t the entire species soon become extinct? (or, at least, suffer frequently from disease) I know that you shouldn’t put your life in the service of another (like, in our case, the future generations), but this is a win-win situation: I respect the initial purpose of love, on one hand, and I receive happiness from whom I was “trained” by evolution to recognize as my ideal mate, on the other.

2. Modifying the purpose for which love was designed in the first place, and trying to use it for other “rational purposes” sounds like trying to milk a horse to me. Why modify our nature and our natural feelings, when we could just adapt to them, with less effort than trying to adapt those to us, and with more obvious results on happiness?

3. Isn’t altering the natural purpose of love a misrepresentation of reality? Ayn Rand doesn’t just advise us to consider love a celebration of finding someone with the right virtues; she says that this is the true nature of reality.

4. Couldn’t I as a person, as an individual mind, choose to use love for what it is, and not to modify its use for achieving I don’t know what intellectual fulfillment - and would that decision be rational? since I’ve rationally reached the conclusion that this attitude towards love would serve my interests better… Let’s say that I’ve met two girls: I appreciate the first one as being 90% compatible with me on virtue, and 50% on the other issues (especially beauty - since that is the standard for recognizing good genes), and the second one as being 80% compatible on virtue, and 70% on the others. I would choose the second one - and I have all the confidence in the world that she would make me happier that the first one.

What do you mean by that? Like, a female who is plug-ugly and sterile, but has numerous mental virtues? Are you arguing that such a woman cannot or should not be happy?

No. As I’ve said somewhere above, she will be happy - alongside someone as unfit as she is (let’s admit that she is not that unfit after all - she’s better then someone who is plug-ugly and sterile, and dumb at the same time, so it will be easier for her to have access at better men than the other one, but she won’t have access to the best of men, unless some of them are Objectivists ).

[DavidOdden]

1. Love was developed as a mechanism...

2. Modifying the purpose for which love was designed in the first place...

Maybe you could explain this idea. Who developed love? Who designed love? What exactly is/was the method used to design and devlop love. In order to decide whether I accept any part of your position, I have to understand this in particular. If you were talking about sexual attraction, you'd be on better grounds, but you're framed this in terms of love. If you want to make the connection between breeding and love, you have to do that by showing that making babies is a rational value.

The devastating flaw in your argument is that it cannot explain non-sexual love. A concept must subsume all of its referents, not just some of them. That means that your story about love has to work for love in all of its manifestations. That is the virtue of Rand's definition: it engages in just the right level of measurement-omission that it does identify all of the units referred to by "love".

BTW I assume you're unaware that horses are commonly milked in Central Asia and Belgium, and the milk is used in certain gourmet products.

[gigisant]

Maybe you could explain this idea. Who developed love? Who designed love?

Well, I think it is obvious. It appeared through millions of years of evolution, as a way of ensuring the perpetuation of the species. Maybe “developed”, “designed” are not the right words, I am Romanian and my English is poor.

What exactly is/was the method used to design and devlop love.

Natural selection, random mutations, etc.

If you were talking about sexual attraction, you'd be on better grounds, but you're framed this in terms of love.

I am talking about sexual love, and I was talking about that since my first sentence written on this topic. All the other feelings that form the conglomerate that we later call “love” are not possible without that initial attraction. And the initial attraction was only made possible as an imperative from Nature (and I’ll specify again that I’m not referring to a person here, but to a concept, that helps me structure my phrase easier) in order to find someone to have children with. Assigning other utilities to sexual love means shaking the foundation of sexual love itself, and the real reason why it’s here in the first place.

The devastating flaw in your argument is that it cannot explain non-sexual love.

You just haven’t read all that I’ve said above:

Platonic love for friends is another matter - it appeared in order to help us establish better relationships with the ones around us - from the need of security and of collaboration. It resembles the other type of love - romantic love, because it is easier to just use some mechanisms that have already been developed than to create a new one.

The fact that we call „love” both sexual love and „love for friends” doesn’t mean that they’re identical, only that our language and our understanding of these two types of love are flawed.

What we have are two types of love in reality, that serve two different purposes. We call them both “love” because we evaluate them by their manifestation, and not by their purpose. They have similar manifestations because it consumes less energy in the process of evolution to use “devices” that are already there than to invent new ones, for the other purpose.

If you want to make the connection between breeding and love, you have to do that by showing that making babies is a rational value.

This is not a connection that we make, but one that has already been made, that is part of the reality inherent in our species’ needs. It is a necessary value if you want to be happy in love. Love is not rational, since it’s not in its nature or purpose to be that way - its nature is that it is a randomly-emerged mechanism and its purpose is to produce generations of healthy children: I find it rational to adapt to it, if you want to be happy.

When you are talking about love for friends, for example, it is rational to consider their virtues your main standard, since the purpose of this type of love is communication and collaboration: it is easier to communicate and collaborate with someone who shares your virtues. But when talking about sexual love, virtue is relevant only to the degree it satisfies its true purpose: perpetuation of the species. You may choose not to respect this purpose and follow some other standards for love, the way you may choose to milk a garden of onions (I had no idea of "horse milk" ): you won't get milk from onions, as you won't get happiness from love.

Edited July 16, 2007 by gigisant

[JMeganSnow]

Well, I think it is obvious. It appeared through millions of years of evolution, as a way of ensuring the perpetuation of the species.

It is not obvious. That should be obvious. Do you have some studies to back this up or are you just pulling this out of thin air as an "well it makes sense to me" statement? We don't put up with that here. Show us the studies.

I am talking about sexual love, and I was talking about that since my first sentence written on this topic.

Then specify that you are speaking about sexual love. You didn't do that until your last post.

The fact that we call „love” both sexual love and „love for friends” doesn’t mean that they’re identical, only that our language and our understanding of these two types of love are flawed.

No, it means that you experience the same emotion in different contexts/intensities and act on it in different ways.

If you want to have a useful discussion on this forum, I suggest you stop doing generalizing from self and calling it "science". Just because *you* act a certain way this does not mean that everyone else necessarily does. It further does not mean that the way you act is genetic in origin. Also, stop making jokes until your idiomatic English is a lot better. This just comes across as insulting no matter how you slice it:

No. As I’ve said somewhere above, she will be happy - alongside someone as unfit as she is (let’s admit that she is not that unfit after all - she’s better then someone who is plug-ugly and sterile, and dumb at the same time, so it will be easier for her to have access at better men than the other one, but she won’t have access to the best of men, unless some of them are Objectivists ).

What the hell are you even saying? That Objectivists are attracted to ugly women? That ugly people can only be happy dating other ugly people? What? In any case it makes no sense.

I'm quite happy with no boyfriend and no children; I don't want children because I find them annoying and they take up 100% of your time and then some. If I feel the need to pass on some of my worldly wisdom I can just babysit or converse with some of the people on this forum for a while. Usually 15 minutes of it is enough to hold me for a looooong time. I would like a boyfriend in the abstract sense, but since I haven't met anyone in more than a year that I would consider boyfriend-material I haven't been worrying about it lately. I'm too busy reading books and writing and working.

[gigisant]

It is not obvious. That should be obvious. Do you have some studies to back this up or are you just pulling this out of thin air as an "well it makes sense to me" statement? We don't put up with that here.

I couldn't have imagined that someone on this forum could say such thing. Since it has also become obvious after this reply that I'm consuming my time for nothing - farewell then! I'm sorry I have so much troubled you. I don't like long discussions where I have to struggle to convince people of some facts that I regard as basic premises, and I especially don't like discussions when people start to become offended, as you did relative to that "Objectivists attracted to ugly women" thing. I don't like to upset anyone in a conversation, and I don't want to be upset either.

Show us the studies.

You could open just about any biology book in order to find out about this stuff. I'm not going to search the InterNet for such a banality.

Then specify that you are speaking about sexual love. You didn't do that until your last post.

I actually have. Read my first post:

I do not agree with promiscuity either

I think that love is a mechanism created by Nature in order to determine us to raise our children in families

to be the most suited for raising children alongside us

It is because that specific male-female combination

that the other one is the most suitable partner

To what do you think that the words in bold are referring? To love for our pets?

What the hell are you even saying? That Objectivists are attracted to ugly women?

I am sorry if you feel offended - but that was not my intention. What I said is that usually men feel attracted to beautiful women, and, since for an Objectivist that doesn't matter, he could feel attracted to ugly women, like the one in the example. This does not imply that all Objectivists are attracted to ugly women, since, given the fact that, as far as I understood from your position, Objectivists value exclusively virtues, they could also feel attracted to beautiful women who have virtues as easily as they could feel attracted to ugly women who have virtues. The fact that you felt offended is caused by your misrepresentation of what I was saying, and not by my actual words.

I'm quite happy with no boyfriend and no children, etc.

What you have actually decided to do using your independent mind does not change the nature of reality, does not change the reason for which love is here in the first place, and does not change its purpose. It only shows that you have the free will to do whatever you please, including taking your own life, which I get is Objectivists' only standard.

Also, I would like you to understand that I have absolutely no reason to be offending Objectivists, since I like many things that Ayn Rand is saying, although I don't agree with everything - like the view on love, for example. I see love as a pre-condition of the human species, as, for example oxygen for breathing, or hands for making tools, etc. You could always choose to breathe methane, but that won't serve the purpose of breathing, or give up your hands, but that won't help you making tools. You could always choose virtue as a standard for love, but that won't help you be happy, and won't help you properly perpetuating the species, as intended through the process of evolution.

Edited July 16, 2007 by gigisant

[KendallJ]

I don't like long discussions where I have to struggle to convince people of some facts that I regard as basic premises, and I especially don't like discussions when people start to become offended, as you did relative to that "Objectivists attracted to ugly women" thing. I don't like to upset anyone in a conversation, and I don't want to be upset either.

This is a curious statement for someone coming to a philosophy board. Why is it that basic premises aren't open to debate? In fact, isn't your thesis question possibly putting a basic Objectivist premise up for debate? If you don't want to struggle to state your basic premises and defend them in the face of opposition, what exactly was your purpose here? What did you expect exactly?

[blackdiamond]

since... Objectivists value exclusively virtues, they could also feel attracted to beautiful women who have virtues as easily as they could feel attracted to ugly women who have virtues.

Now I know I can never be an Objectivist

[Who told you that Objectivists value "exclusively virtues"?]

[gigisant]

What did you expect exactly?

I certainly didn’t expect someone denying that love is tributary to the process of evolution. If I wanted to meet someone who challenged that premise, I could have always gone to a religious forum. I was actually only expecting reasons for not following our ancestral desires - and not contesting their influence.

I must admit that I found my conversation with David Odden productive, until Jennifer Snow acted so (verbally) aggressive to me and I decided to give up. That about concludes it.

I apologize again for unnecessarily occupying space on this forum.

[Inspector]

2. Modifying the purpose for which love was designed in the first place, and trying to use it for other “rational purposes” sounds like trying to milk a horse to me.

Quite to the contrary, "modifying the purpose" of traits evolution gave us is pretty much the thing that humans do. Our brains did not evolve to do calculus, drive automobiles, watch television, or write symphonies but we adapted them for those purposes. The fact is that in becoming conceptual beings, we pretty much evolved in a single leap way, way beyond the entire rest of the animal kingdom. Everything about us must be seen in the light that we have developed a rational faculty. Everything we are and do and have must be adapted for "rational purposes" in other words. The emotion of love, evolved perhaps for other reasons (again not implying Nature as a conscious entity), takes on a new meaning with the development of a rational faculty. But then again so does everything else about us. So that is not so unusual.

Edited July 16, 2007 by Inspector

[SkyTrooper]

I must admit that I found my conversation with David Odden productive, until Jennifer Snow acted so (verbally) aggressive to me and I decided to give up. That about concludes it.

I apologize again for unnecessarily occupying space on this forum.

I doubt anyone on this forum has any serious malicious intent. What is more important to you: having a large E-Penis or answering your question?

I certainly didn’t expect someone denying that love is tributary to the process of evolution. If I wanted to meet someone who challenged that premise, I could have always gone to a religious forum. I was actually only expecting reasons for not following our ancestral desires - and not contesting their influence.

Yet another reason to always have well-defined terms.

Love: A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.

Sexual Attraction: In a species that reproduces sexually, sexual attraction is an attraction to other members of the same species for sexual or erotic activity.

Attraction is a mechanism present in lower animals. I doubt that any non-human species feel "love." Let me give a brief example of how "not following our ancestral desires" is a benefit, evolutionary speaking:

Assume that you meet an extremely hot girl and are attracted to her. You don't bother to screen her for anti-virtues like: irrationality, dishonesty, etc. You are attracted to her but not "in Love". You sleep with her. Everything is good right? Except it turns out she is a criminal and she steals everything from your apartment, or she is really promiscuous and gives you HIV, or she doesn't believe abortions are moral so when you get her pregnant you are stuck paying child support, or she is an extremely good looking serial killer who murders every guy she sleeps with because she hears the voice of God tell her to.

So if reason is man's means of survival, how could you say that the emotion of Love (which is the recognition of shared values) is not a survival mechanism?

Edited July 16, 2007 by badkarma556

[RationalBiker]

I certainly didn’t expect someone denying that love is tributary to the process of evolution.

There is nothing about "love" (in humans) that suggests it is necessarily a "tributary to the process of evolution". Not all people fall in love just so they can spit out the next generation. Evolution is not only reason for man to fall in love. A rational man decides why he loves someone and whether or not children will represent a value in his/her future life.

[KendallJ]

I certainly didn’t expect someone denying that love is tributary to the process of evolution. If I wanted to meet someone who challenged that premise, I could have always gone to a religious forum. I was actually only expecting reasons for not following our ancestral desires - and not contesting their influence.

I must admit that I found my conversation with David Odden productive, until Jennifer Snow acted so (verbally) aggressive to me and I decided to give up. That about concludes it.

I apologize again for unnecessarily occupying space on this forum.

Still incredulous, eh. You missed my point.

You show up to the board on your first post say you want to debate Rand's theory X, as opposed to modern theory Y. You then present modern theory Y as being based in premise 1. Which we later learn is not to be questioned. It is obvious, banal to re-state, per you. Where I come that is called argument from intimidation, and it is a logical fallacy. Do you see where from my standpoint that could be considered rude in and of itself?

Come on, philosophy is about questioning and debating basic premises. If you are not prepared for someone to do that, you've come to the wrong place. It is not unreasonable for someone to ask you to support a basic premise, and it is certainly reasonable to take offense at someone who refuses to do it. To boot, you've let you anger cloud the basic point which Rational Biker has corrected for you. There are aspects of love that are tributaries of evolution, but as a rational being, there can certainly be aspects that do not hold to the requirements of natural selection.

I'm also stunned that you would let Jennifer's tone ruin a perfectly good conversation with David. If you don't like her post, ignore her, and keep talking to David. We are not a collective mind around here.

Edited July 17, 2007 by KendallJ

[Tenure]

We are not a collective mind around here.

Speak for ourself.

[KendallJ]

Speak for ourself.

Get back to the hive, drone!

[Marc K.]

[...] and won't help you properly perpetuating the species, as intended through the process of evolution.

This may be a popular view of evolution but it is completely fallacious and I don't believe there is one shred of scientific evidence to support it.

Evolution is an observed phenomenon operating in insentient nature -- it can have no intent and can set no goals, these are properties applicable to a consciousness only. This is discussed in another thread called "Ultimate value" in the Ethics forum, I quote myself from same:

Natural selection is a natural process the fortunate outcome of which is survival of the fittest and evolution of higher and higher forms of life. Natural selection can have no aim and can set no goals. This would be like saying that gravity has a goal, it doesn’t, it just is.

[JMeganSnow]

To what do you think that the words in bold are referring? To love for our pets?

I don't know, maybe Romantic love which contains sexual love but can be abstracted from it.

I am sorry if you feel offended - but that was not my intention.

Did I say I was offended? I said it was insulting, because it was unclear.

You could always choose virtue as a standard for love, but that won't help you be happy, and won't help you properly perpetuating the species, as intended through the process of evolution.

Reorienting myself so that virtue is my standard for love has been the only thing enabling me to learn how to be happy. Thank you so much for informing me that it is my evolution-given duty to "properly perpetuate the species" and threatening me with unhappiness if I fail in this duty.