Is the emotion "LOVE" necessary for MORAL BEHAVIOR? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Why would it be? 'Love' can lead to no end of irrational, immoral acts. How many people have been killed over the years by a jealous lover?

Answer 2

Moral behavior is not morality. I can train a rat to do good things or to have acceptable behavior but no one would call it a moral rat. So behavior training (or behavior modification) creates moral behavior. The motivation for rats is food. For humans, the motivations are more complicated but emotions of any sort can be motivations.

Love as an emotion is just as unreliable a foundation as any other emotion. Most people think of love as something "higher" than mere emotion but that cannot be true unless love is something that intersects with the supernatural.

So, what motivations trained you in moral behavior? Was it that great feeling of pride in being able to say that you are moral without God? That ought to show how inherently good you are to your dad and granddad.

Answer 3

Not at all. Many people are very "moral" but are total jerks. If your moral behavior is due to fear, or out of a sense of duty, then I believe it is possible to behave well without a real sense of love for one's kin.

For example, back in the day, at Catholic gradeschool, there was a boy that was always picking on me. One day he was talking to me, and he accidentally spit a little on my face. I blew things way out of proportion, thinking he'd intended to do it (and very grossed out) and told the teacher. During the course of what became a very long interrogation, I realized that I'd been wrong-- he hadn't really intended to do that. By that point, however I was much too embarassed to let the teacher know. I went home to my parents, and told them, and they let me have it. They went on about how Jesus wouldn't have done that, and how I had to tell the teacher the truth. So I did, because I felt obligated. I still hated this kid's guts.

Underdeveloped conscience, yes. But I can think of plenty of times I've "done the right thing" for appearances, or because I felt like I had to. That's not to say that's why I "do the right thing" all the time-- I'm not that cold-hearted. I guess I'd be curious to hear your definition of "love," too. I see it more as being "empathy." Or is that what love is?

Answer 4

A love of oneself can cause you to behave morally . An empathy or simple caring for others can also lead to moral behavior . But I don't think you need the emotion of Love to be moral . Happy perhaps but not moral . in fact you can be forced into behaving morally . That's what laws are for .

Answer 5

It depends on how you define moral behavior. If you're defining it strictly in terms of what we can see someone doing, then no, love isn't required. But all behavior is motivated by something, and love is a higher-quality motivation than most.

Lots of people engage in moral behavior out of a sense of superiority. Is that just as good as doing it because you care about people?

Answer 6

Yes,it could be deemed as the cause of terrible events as mentioned,jealous lover etc,but then again the man who attacks someone he"loves" is not experiencing true love but jealousy and envy,with a little innadequacy thrown into the mix,love hate and all emotions create a persons moral fibre,injustice should be viewed with outrage,disasters treated with compassion and so on...without love you cannot value or understand any moral situation..

Answer 7

No, but what is generally thought to be moral behavior would probably change without it.

Answer 8

Nah, you can program a machine to only behave morally and it will do that with aplomb, but it is impossible for a machine to feel love.

Answer 9

wolf guy thats only one example of love being in the extreme.
how can you be pro-life if you dont have LOVE for mankind.
how can you agree with one man one wife marriages if you also don't LOVE mankind, think about it. gay people cant have kids, they can but its not natural. those are just some examples i can think of right now.. but yes you do need love.