Question What justification could I have for entering a committed, long-term romantic relationship? It's probable that I would enjoy many aspects of the relationship. But it seems counter intuitive to say that I should enter a loving relationship as a means to promote my self-interest. So self-interest cannot be a justification for entering a loving relationship. The relationship might also benefit my partner. But there are lots of people who could benefit from being a relationship with me. No one would suggest that I find the person who most needs a relationship and pledge myself to them. Most people select long-term partners based on beauty or compatibility, not on neediness. Besides, few people would appreciate being in a relationship with a person who was only in the relationship out of pity. One could say that I should enter a relationship because it benefits me and my partner. But a combination of two bad reasons is rarely a good reason. Finally, one might suggest that my partner deserves a committed relationship because she is physically/intellectually/spiritually beautiful and this beauty motivates my romantic love. But this is elitist. Why should I commit myself to the service and assistance of a beautiful person? If anything, I should seek to help the ugly people. This beauty justification for love undermines our commitment to human equality, because it demands we show special concern for people we find beautiful. In light of these objections, is there any justification for committed romantic relationships?

Accepted:
November 11, 2010

Comments

Some philosophers have indeed wondered about the basis for family and romantic relations --from Plato to Abelard and Heloise to Bertrand Russell. I wonder, however, whether your worries about a foundation for a romantic, committed relationship wouldn't apply to any number of different relationships such as a non-romantic friendship or even non-committed romantic relationships (whom should I seek romance with tonight?), and the like. In any event, I wonder about the extent to which love is really under one's control. Isn't the situation often as follows: you meet someone whom (for whatever reason: beauty, wit, interests, history, philosophy, theology, athletic ability) you find attractive. You come to know and appreciate her as a good person and (idealy) vice versa, and this naturally leads to a desire for union (what is sometimes called unitive love). Isn't it more common for matters of justification to arise when one considers why one should not continue toward commitment? In other words, isn't the more natural case one in which the burden of proof (so to speak) is on someone not wishing to consumate the relationship in terms of commitment than on someone who is considering a commitment? I suspect that it is because of this, that some of your language strikes me as a little (please forgive me) on the cool side. If I fall in love with Skippy (a made up name) I would not talk or think in terms of whether to commit myself to "the the service and assistance" of him/her. The latter sounds like the language of a client-server than the language of love. In any case, I think you admirably identify possible problems that arise in terms of committed relationships. There is, indeed, the problem of:

Only seeking self-interest

Being with someone out of pity

Only basing a relationship on beauty (alas, beauty may be only superficial and may be passing...)

Based on serving the ugly

Out of these, I suspect that there has to be some perceived, mutual beauty in a romantic relationship (otherwise one would be taking 'the attractive' out of 'the romantic') and some mutual gratification (the relationship brings gratification and good to you both that you commit to long term as a goal). It appears that romance and gratification and the goods of long term commitment (fidelity-trust over years, deeper affection over time, perhaps shared sustained goals involving children etc) are sound reasons for being with a specific person, even if those reasons would not identify which person to select. In other words, you may have sufficient reasons for being in a relationship with someone, even if those reasons would be equally good for being with Skippy or Jill or.... This would not logically make one unjustified in selecting Skippy rather than Jill. You would only be unjustified in trying to be with both simultaneously (assuming by committed relationship, we mean monogomy).