2. IS LOVE A MORAL DUTY?

Love is wanting and acting for the pleasant pursuits of the opposite character. notice, this isn’t
continually the definition this is used while humans use the phrase love in society. I suppose
there is a lot of overlap among Love and ethical responsibilities virtually. at the least Love
understood in this more comprehensive and fully orbed way I’ve attempted to described above.
moral responsibilities see humans as categories, while Love explodes classes. To be honest, it
ought to be put any other way—its approximately permeable selves or permeable identities as
opposed to non-permeable ones. part of me wants to assume that obligation consists of justice,
however genuinely there may be a degree of the desire for fairness in Love, however Love
exceeds fairness at the same time. perhaps there’s the opportunity that Love is kindness and
exceeds kindness as well.

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;
5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not
rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things,
endures all things. 8 Love never fails.[1.Corinthians 13:4-5]

Be aware this Biblical rendering of “Love”… no mention of feelings. It absolutely reads like
“moral obligation” and “Love” are synonymous.

The word “Love” is so multi-faceted. The slightest nuance can alternate the that means
appreciably and but the English language remains stuck with the equal word “Love”. Many
cultures have taken the care to include specific phrases to explain stated nuances… we simply
call it “Love”.

Sartre has also the same opinion. He quotes “We do not judge the people we love”. In love one
and one are one. It has a similarity from Holy Bible. “And they two shall be one flesh; so then
they are no more two; but one flesh”. (Mark 10:8)

Sartre had also criticized the attitude of people’s thought about love. He says love has turned as
a job. Love should not be acquired by compelling that I should be loved by everyone . I must be
loved either I am good or bad. Sartre says that in a genuine loving courting I approach the
opposite 'as a different consciousness that wishes to recognize its own projects'. which means I
cannot trick the alternative into loving me. In real love, I want to accept the fact that the
alternative might not love me the way I really like him.
In Being and Nothingness (1943), Sartre explains love as an approach for accomplishing control
over "being-for-others," the objectified aspect of the self- imposed by using others' defining
appears. Contemporaneous fictions through Sartre, The Room (1939) and dirty fingers (1948),
extend the notions of love and of being-for-others in sudden directions. grimy arms shows the
creative, effective potential of being-for-others: Hugo's reliance on the opposite for his self-
definition ironically generates his decisive embody of being-for-itself. The Room dramatizes the
role of the family in constituting a child’s subjectivity: Eve's own family state of affairs explains
her ontological imprisonment within the measurement of being-for-others. the two memories'
tolerant imaginative and prescient of the complicated social and mental motives for adopting
being-for-others as one's dominant modality contrasts with Sartre's rigorous critique of reliance
on being-for-others as a form of bad faith in Being and Nothingness. The fictions' enlarged angle
on human love and on being-for-others provides a framework for complicating and critiquing the
ontological classes offered in Being and Nothingness.

Bibliography: Being And Nothingness, Bible