Due date: November 12, handed in electronically by midnight Central Time.
Summarize C. S. Lewis’s four loves and his three components of love (Appreciative, Gift- and Need-love). Summarize Aristotle’s three forms of friendship. Are there any correspondences between any of C. S. Lewis’s classifications and Aristotle’s? How would C. S. Lewis classify Aristotelian character-friendship? Which of the four loves does it fall under, if any? What are its components? What would Aristotle think of the whole range of things that C. S. Lewis considers to be “Friendship”?
What does Nozick think is essential to any kind of love? Nozick thinks that in the case of romantic love, there is a formation of a “we”, a joint identity. What is a joint identity—what goes into it? Why might someone think that forming a joint identity is worth doing? Why does Nozick think that if someone has formed a “we”, he or she will not wish to “trade up” for a better person? Is Nozick right? Why or why not? Is it possible to have mutual, reciprocated romantic love without the formation of a “we”? Would the love be healthy then? Is it possible to have a “we” in the absence of romantic love? How about in the absence of any kind of love? Why would someone like Nozick think it unlikely that a romantic love can include more than two persons? Illustrate at least one of the claims in your paper with something from Ice Storm (if you've seen it) or Hannah and Her Sisters .
Carefully state two arguments (e.g., ones discussed in class) to the effect that committed cohabitation is (generally or always) preferable to marriage, being careful to specify whether the arguments are in favor of committed (and if so, in what way) or non-committed cohabitation. How might someone criticize these arguments? How might one argue that marriage is (generally or always) preferable to cohabitation? What position is right? You should make reference to our readings here as well make use of the philosophical discussions of love in the first part of the course.
Mendus and Martin differ on whether the marriage promise is unconditional. Explain their respective positions, being careful to explain the distinction between making a vow and making a prediction, and Martin’s explanation for why the marriage vows do not include “exception clauses”. Which one—if either—is right? Are perhaps some parts of the marriage vows conditional and others not? What other reasons might someone have for thinking the marriage promise is unconditional? How is this connected with Kierkegaard’s and Aristotle’s ideas about love? If the marriage vows were unconditional, would it follow that divorce is always wrong?
Our
society has an institution of marriage.
Why might one think this institution is a good thing? What might one think the institution of
marriage is good for? (Aquinas, John Paul II,
Tucker, McGowan, the sociological articles, and Hannah and Her Sisters are possible sources here;
use at least two of them.)
Do you agree? Why or why
not? What do you think should be the point of the institution of marriage as
distinguished from other kinds of relationships? Or do you think that it is an institution that
by and large we should get rid of? Make
sure you argue for your view and connect it with philosophical readings on love.
The lecturer has distinguished these four concepts in class. Explain the distinctions. Are the four concepts indeed distinct? What sorts of logical connections are there between them? (Does an intention always involve an expectation? Does a contract or a covenant always involve an intention?) Which of these might be involved in "committed" non-marital live-in relationships? Which of these might be involved in marriage? Do these considerations allow you to distinguish committed non-marital live-in relationships from marriage? Does this shed any light on the question of the moral preferability of one over the other relationship? What do any of these have to do with love? (Feel free to draw on Scruton's article, but remember that Scruton uses different terminology.)
Carefully summarize one of the arguments by May or Punzo against premarital sex, making clear all the assumptions in the argument. Next, offer the most powerful objection you can to this argument. Then do your best to respond on May or Punzo's behalf to the objection. Which side in the argument wins?