your thoughts?
2006-09-03 17:10:37 · 19 answers · asked by hmbn 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
In very general terms, yes. But things are not always as simple as they seem, yes?
in war, for example, how about the Geneva Convention, or the Nuremburg trials? Some things aren't fair, are they? Mass murder is one example.
In love, as long as something is done out of love, or thought of in term of love, it should be fair. But here again, what is love? It is something different for everyone isn't it? When you try to take something subjective and apply an all-encompassing term like "all" or "always", then you have no boundaries to evaluate.
People speak of unconditional love, but love between two people is always conditional. It depends on my actions: how, when and where, and where not. It may even depend on the depth of my love versus yours; we may have lots of problems and psychological defects that interfere with our love.
If we could agree on a definition of love ... well, philosophers have been trying to define it for millennia, and still haven't succeeded.
I would say that "all is fair" is just as big a myth as love itself.
2006-09-03 17:36:09 · answer #1 · answered by dredude52 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Everything's eventually fair in love and war.
2006-09-05 12:45:39 · answer #2 · answered by kat 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Isn't it though? War is the one time that you can kill or be kill, there's no question about it, you kill someone, it's fair, you die, tis fair, it's just war, as for love well, same dif in a way. You can love anything and everything ( unless you're a christain and hate homosexuality ) ...sorry about that, but yeah, love and war are the two places where everything is fair.
PS. I reread it and ok sorry, not saying everyone that is christian...but you know how it is in that community.
2006-09-04 00:18:21 · answer #3 · answered by pop7934 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
YES. all is fair in love and war.... But it has to be LOVE AND WAR. not like and conflict. that is where there is a difference
2006-09-04 00:17:33 · answer #4 · answered by Chrys 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anything coming from the heart has it's "reason" -- that of which we cannot possibly define in any considerably *rational* way most often. When it comes to the heart / our roots, morals, belief systems we depend on our ego and "soul" power to defend the self. Life shows us time and time again you can not put a limit on "love" and "hate". I think the idea is to avoid striking your neighbor / peers in a deeply effectual way unless you're prepared to battle.
2006-09-04 00:51:36 · answer #5 · answered by Ms. Floats_Ur_Boat 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i don't think so. you can't cheat to win in a war, that is unfair and not ethical. you can't make your partner do anything just by the name of love, because that is unfair too. if everyone could cheat, then what would be the use of any rules? what be the use of listening to one another, we could just live the way we wanted, blaming it all on love and war.
2006-09-04 03:03:59 · answer #6 · answered by Nikhil S 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Selfish lovers exploit their partners. The devoted love remains unrequited.
Politicians get their aims in exchange for the lives of the soldiers who die for nothing, and the innocent bystanders get killed for another's ambition.
Nothing is fair.
2006-09-04 04:19:23 · answer #7 · answered by Saffren 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you've asked the age old question. i do have an answer for u. yes is fair. to some ppl and to others it's not. it depends on the type of person you really are.
2006-09-04 00:35:27 · answer #8 · answered by markmartin681 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
-That saying is tied to the belief that to hate something, you must have felt love for it first...And a spurned lover will seek revenge.
Personally I think that war is needless and there is a more intelligent solution to our problems....
2006-09-04 00:24:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Good in senses, bad in consequences
2006-09-04 00:53:13 · answer #10 · answered by thinkpose 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋