North American Philosophical Publications

How Do I Love Thee? Let Me Count the Properties

Author(s): Simon Keller
Source: American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 2 (Apr., 2000), pp. 163-173
Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the North American Philosophical
Publications
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20009994 .
Accessed: 26/03/2014 12:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Illinois Press and North American Philosophical Publications are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to American Philosophical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 131.173.215.207 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:13:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
American Philosophical Quarterly
Volume 37, Number 2, April 2000

HOW DO I LOVE THEE?

LET ME COUNT THE PROPERTIES

Simon Keller

Xf someone I love romantically loves me that I want to defend. I will

argue that be?
then that's a reason for me to feel
back, ing loved romantically should give us a
good about myself. Among the most valu? reason to feel good about ourselves and that
able of rewards that I can gain from we need not be uncomfortable with the
romantic love is the personal affirmation consequence that romantic love is given
that comes from the knowledge that some? In the first section of this
conditionally.
one whom I love romantically has chosen I'll try to get clearer on what the
paper,
me as a worthy of her own ro? what
recipient view is, and question it is trying to
mantic love. Of all the people she could answer. The second section will explain the
love, she chooses to love me. That suggests virtues of the properties view, and say why
that the reason why she loves me should these virtues are not to be found elsewhere.
be to do with the things that set me apart Section three will contain a criticism of one
from others. She should love me because formulation of the view, and a suggestion
of properties that I have and others lack.1 as to how the view should be revised so as
But wait. Love should not be given con? to deal with the criticism. Revised view in
ditionally. What if I change, and lose the hand, the fourth section will deal with some
properties that my partner finds attractive? objections.
I wouldn't like to think that there would
then be nothing left for her to love. And I. The Properties View
what if someone comes along whose prop?
The question that I am addressing is this.
erties are more attractive than mine?
What, to the modern Western mind, makes
Wouldn't she then love him instead of me?
for an ideal romantic relationship? To put
So perhaps my partner's love romantic
it another way, what do we modern West?
should not be grounded in the properties
erners want from romantic love? The
that set me apart from others. Perhaps she
guiding thought is that most
people (in our
should love me just for being me, however
culture, now) share a schematic view of
I am and however I will be.
what an ideal romantic relationship is like.
Call the view
flagged in the first para?
An ideal romantic relationship holds be?
graph the properties view?romantic love
tween two people who care for each other
should be for properties. This is the view

163

This content downloaded from 131.173.215.207 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:13:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 164 / AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICALQUARTERLY

very much, probably live and sleep to? who took the glowing face between her two

gether, have sex with each other if they hands.

have sex with anyone, share secrets and

are committed to maintaining "Why? Because his hair is brown and grows
dreams, the
away from his temples; because he opens and
relationship, and so on. Some will pro? shuts his eyes, and his nose is a little out of
nounce "ideal" with a sneer; the "ideal"
drawing; because he has two lips and a
romantic they will say, is op?
relationship, square chin, and a little finger which he can't
unnatural, or boring. But I think too
pressive, straighten from having played baseball
that most everyone is aware of the ideal, energetically in his youth. Because?"
and many are intent upon achieving it. The
"Because you do, in short," laughed Made?
goal of this paper is to articulate one as?
moiselle.3
pect of the ideal.2
The that this paper addresses is I'm not much interested in Edna's an?
question
a question about romantic love. swer, but I am interested in the way in
specifically
I'm not exactly sure what sets romantic which she understands the question. She
love apart from other sorts of love, but I doesn't tell a causal story about how she
think that romantic love can be adequately got to be in her present state?"I love him
characterized as that type of love that nec? because he was the most handsome and

essarily involves a strong desire to share charming man at the party on the night that
with the beloved a romantic I realized that I was fed up with my hus?
relationship.
Part of what it is to love someone romanti? band"?nor does she explain what it is
is to desire him a loving
to share with about herself that makes her a romantic
cally
that is intimate, mutual, exclu? lover?"I love him because, perhaps for
relationship
sive, and possibly sexual. This desire, of biological or cultural reasons, I need to
course, may be outweighed by others?a love someone." Instead, Edna tries (with?
romantic lover may prefer, on the whole, out much success) to rationalize, or justify,
not to be in a romantic with or make intelligible, her loving him. Forget?
relationship
the beloved?but if her love is really ro? ting about the circumstances that led to her
mantic love then the desire must be present falling in love, forgetting about the psycho?
and must be rather strong. You can love logical and sociological features that
someone without to spend time
wanting contribute tomaking her a lover, and forget?
with him, without caring whether he loves ting that she might be unable to stop loving
else, and without whether him even if she tried, Edna tries to explain
anyone caring
or not your love is reciprocated, but this why itmakes sense for her to love him.
cannot as romantic love. The properties view says that the ques?
qualify
task is to say something tion, "What justifies your choosing tomake
My interesting
about ideal romantic love, as understood her the object of your romantic love?" is a
Westerners. sensible to ask, and that ideal ro?
by contemporary My claim is question
that ideal romantic love is love for proper? mantic lovers can, in principle, answer it
ties. But what does this mean? by appealing to a set of the beloved's prop?
erties. I say, "in principle," because the
"Why?" asked her companion. "Why do you
love him when you ought not to?" view is not intended to imply that ideal
lovers should always have the relevant list
Edna, with a motion or two, dragged herself of properties ready to hand. Often, we don't
on her knees before Mademoiselle Reisz, know exactly what it is that we love about

This content downloaded from 131.173.215.207 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:13:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HOW DO ILOVE THEE?LETME COUNT THE PROPERTIES/ 165

someone, and often we don't have reason love, to some extent, deserves to be intel
to care. The idea is just that the continuing lectualized. All should agree, however, that
love of the ideal romantic lover is justi? we can ask ourselves whether our love is
fied by the beloved's possession of a justified?we can decide whether it should
certain set of properties, whether or not the be embraced or resisted. When I find my?
lover knows what they are. That's what it self in love with someone, I can decide
means to say that ideal romantic love is whether it would be better for me to send
love for properties. him flowers or to move to another
city. I
Nor does the properties implyview that can make this judgment even if I know that
ideal lovers love
properties rather than Iwill be incapable of acting upon it. If you

people. If I tell you that I love you for your feel uncomfortable with my talk of choos?

graceful dancing, your sensible conversa? ing to love, then hear it as talk about
tion, and your strong will, then you might choosing to embrace love. The properties
be moved to respond by saying, "You're view says that an ideal romantic lover freely

only in love with graceful dancing, sensible chooses to embrace his love for his partner,
conversation, and strength of will; you're and that his choice is justified by his partner's
not really in love with me." Your claim possession of a certain set of properties.
might be that my infatuation with your To make the properties view interesting,
dancing, conversation, and willpower leads I need to say something about which sorts
me to ignore the more central aspects of of properties should be the ones that moti?
your character. That is a substantial com? vate romantic love. Here are some

plaint, but no problems

it raises for the guidelines. First, the properties for which

properties view. If, on the other hand, you someone is romantically loved should be
are lodging the more general protest that I properties that the beloved might not have
love your properties instead of loving you, had, where this means that he could have
then your worry is misconceived. The re? existed without instantiating those proper?
lata of the love relation are you and me. ties. So it is not enough to love him for his
My love for you holds of, in virtue or is property of being him, or of instantiating
justified by, your having certain properties, his haecceity. Next, the beloved should not
but this does not at all imply that I love be loved for properties of his that make
your properties instead of loving you essential reference to achievements or
(whatever that would mean).4 events that are in the too distant past. He
Another worry that some may have about should not be loved for his property of hav?
the properties view is that itmakes roman? ing saved your life ten years ago, or of having
tic love look too cerebral. I said that the been the one who used to send you flowers.
properties view tries to say how an ideal Third, the beloved should be loved for
romantic lover could, answer
in principle, properties that are not overly extrinsic. He
the question, "What justifies your choos? shouldn't be loved for his property of be?
ing to love her?" and I will speak of ing the person of whom your mother
romantic love as love that is given freely. rule has one
approves. (This important class
None of this, however, is intended to over? of exceptions.) Finally, a romantic lover
state the extent to which we can choose should be loved
for properties that his part?
who we love. As it happens, I think that ner takes to be intrinsically, or objectively,
we can, to some extent, decide whether or attractive, meaning that she doesn't appre?
not to love someone; I think that romantic ciate these properties just because they are

This content downloaded from 131.173.215.207 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:13:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 166 / AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICALQUARTERLY

attached to her beloved. She finds those fall in love with someone because of cer?
properties attractive in anyone. tain characteristics and you can continue
Underlying this list of guidelines is the to delight in these; but eventually you must
idea that the properties for which we are love the person himself, and not for the
loved should be of such a nature as to give characteristics, not, at any rate, for any
us a reason to feel good about ourselves, delimited list of them."6 He suggests two
to think that we are attractive, admirable, ways of developing this idea. First, we
valuable people. Someone might feel good might think of falling in love as being like
about herself because she believes herself imprinting in ducks, with the devotion
to be a good painter, a good teacher, or a caused initially by characteristics but then
good leg-spin bowler. But there are some sustained without reference to them. Sec?

properties, I think, that play a central (but ond, we might take a perspective related
not exclusive) role in ideal romantic love. to economics, seeking to show that, once
These are the properties us good
that make part of a relationship, it is to our advan?
romantic partners?properties like being a tage to stay in it regardless of the
good listener, being caring and sensitive, characteristics of our partner.7

being generous. Some of these properties In articulating his Kantian theory about
will be relational
properties. One reason the nature of (not just romantic) love, J.
why someone might find you attractive as David Velleman suggests that to love some?
a romantic partner is that you know exactly one is to perceive and appreciate the value
how to treat him when he is in a bad mood. that he possesses "solely by virtue of his
(This is the class of exceptions to the rule being a person." "All that is essential to
that the properties for which we are loved love," says Velleman, "is that it disarms
should not be too extrinsic.) Just which our emotional defenses toward an object
properties make us good romantic partners in response to its incomparable value as a
depends upon what we and our partners are self-existent end." "When the object of our
like, so there's no list of the properties for love is a person ... we are to
responding
which every romantic partner should be the value that he possesses by virtue of
loved. When I speak of romantic love for being a person or, as Kant would say, an
properties, I am thinking especially (but instance of rational nature."8 While all sorts
not only) of the properties that make some? of things may trigger our love for a per?
one a good romantic partner, in the context son, it is our recognition of his intrinsic
of the particular relationship. value as a person?a property that he could
Neil Delaney has defended a view simi? not have done without?that underlies our
lar to mine, and he thinks that the continuing In theory, although maybe
love.

properties for which someone wants to be not in spirit, Velleman's theory is consis?
loved can be summarized as those that he tent with Nozick's comparison of falling
takes to be central to his self-conception.5 in love with imprinting.9 It is positions like
When I offer my revision to the properties these that we will have to consider if we
view in section three, I'll
explain why I decide to reject the properties view.
don't quite agree with Delaney's position.
Before a defense of the proper? II. Should I be Loved for Properties?
offering
ties view, let me
outline the grounds upon
Being loved romantically should give us
which an alternative position might be
a reason to feel good about ourselves. The
based. Robert Nozick says that "you can difference between the love received
great

This content downloaded from 131.173.215.207 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:13:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HOW DO ILOVE THEE?LETME COUNT THE PROPERTIES/ 167

from a parent and the love received from a you how wonderful you are. In an ideal re?
romantic partner, says Nozick, is that "in lationship, you should have reason to

receiving adult love, we are held worthy believe him; when other things are going
of being the primary object of the most poorly, the fact that he chooses to love you
intense love."10 I think that the love be? gives you a reason to think that you are
tween parents and children can be pretty not such a bad person after all. Being loved
intense, and I think that parents and children romantically should give you a reason to
are, ideally, held to be worthy of the love that feel good about yourself.

they receive. Still, there is something spe? On any account of romantic love, this is
cial about romantic love between adults. easy to explain with regard to the early
Romantic love is given freely. We are not stages of a relationship. When Alan falls

obliged to fall in love with anyone, and we in love with Ellen, his love is directed at
are not obliged to stay in love with any? her, rather than at anyone else, because of
one. We can choose our romantic lovers in his appreciation of certain characteristics
a way that we cannot choose our parents that she possesses. He might be attracted
or children. Further, to give someone your to her because of her strong will, her sen?
romantic love is to offer to make her one sible conversation, and the grace with
of the most important people in your life. which she dances. If Ellen loves Alan for
An enduring romantic partnership, inWest? some similarset of attributes, then each of
ern culture, is thought of as one in which them can be affirmed by the knowledge
the partners live together, know each other that their qualities are valued by someone

intimately, take on each other's interests, whose opinion is important. This is con?
share hopes and fears, support each other sistent both with the claim that love should
through good and bad times, spend more always be for properties and with the op?
time together than with anyone else, form posing claim that love should be for
a shared identity. That someone you love properties only in the first instance.
should offer you a placesuch in her life Let us consider the way in which this
can, and ideally does, make you feel good relationship might proceed. Quite possibly,
about being you. You, of all people, are the properties that Alan and Ellen admire
seen by the lover as someone who can share in each other will, over time, be lost or
her life at the most intimate level, can make subsumed. After a year, Ellen might have
her life happier and more fulfilling. One given up dancing. After two years, she
of the great goods you can receive in adult might have developed an irreverent sense
life is the knowledge that the person you of humor that makes her conversation
any?
love sees in you the qualities of a desir? thing but sensible. ten years,
After she
able romantic partner. might have become less intense in her ap?
Part of the
good of being loved, of proach to life and relaxed her strong will.
course, is just the knowledge that, for what? By now, it will be of little comfort to her
ever reason, you are loved. Ideally, that, ten years ago, Alan wanted to share
however, the fact that you are loved also his life with a strong-willed, graceful
serves as a reason to think that you are dancer who offered sensible conversation.
worthy of his love, that itmakes sense for If she is to have his romantic love as a rea?
him to want to share a romantic relation? son to believe that she is still
his worthy
ship with you. If you have a romantic and chosen companion, then that love must
partner, then he is probably forever telling have some reference to properties that she

This content downloaded from 131.173.215.207 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:13:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 168 / AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICALQUARTERLY

possesses in the present. If Alan's love is the best football player in the school, you
sustained by something other than an appre? would have little reason to be convinced
ciation of Ellen's present characteristics, then by a lover's confidence that you are a won?
she will have no justification for taking his derful person when you know that he would
love as any indication that she is now wor? believe that regardless of your qualities.

thy of being loved. The way to avoid this Velleman's Kantian theory looks as
result is to require that Alan continue to though itmight be able to explain why be?
have an objective appreciation for Ellen's ing loved romantically should make you
properties, such that he might now be de? feel good about yourself. On this view,
lighted by her humor and her easy-going your lover perceives and appreciates the
nature. Then, she will have good reason to value that you possess solely by virtue of
be continually affirmed by his love. being a person. This value is of such a type
It can also be suspected that a relation? as not to be replaceable or susceptible to
ship which does not proceed with a comparisons; to be a person is to be spe?

continuing mutual appreciation of the cial, regardless of how many others there
other's properties will cease to be one that are who possess the same sort of value.11
is governed by free choice. How
might Having someone love you in this way gives
Alan justify his involvement in the rela? you a perfectly good reason to feel good

tionship ten years after it has begun? If he about yourself. It reminds you of how spe?
loves Ellen "just because she's Ellen" or cial and valuable you are, just in virtue of
because it is his interests to remain in the being a person.

relationship now that he has entered it, then Perhaps persons do possess such a value,
his love is controlled by a decision he made and perhaps it is recognized in us by our
ten years ago, when he and Ellen were both romantic partners. Our value as persons,
very different people. He no longer loves her however, is not what makes most of us feel
(as opposed to anyone else) because he freely that we are valuable, admirable people in
chooses to do so, but because he has no prac? the way in which I am interested. It's nice
tical choice but to do so.Where he loves Ellen to remember that we are special in virtue
for the properties that she possesses in the of being persons, but we also like to think
present, however, these properties can be the of ourselves as possessing the types of
basis for his continuing free choice to remain value that are replaceable and subject to
a part of the relationship. comparison; we like to think of ourselves
Let's think about how an alternative view as people of admirable character, as good

might try to show that being loved roman? friends and lovers, and so on. Ideal roman?

tically gives you a reason to feel good tic love should give us reason to think that
about yourself. Itmight be argued that lov? our value stretches some way beyond the
ers should have a subjective
appreciation value that we possess purely in virtue of
of each other's
properties, so that Alan's our personhood.
love will be such that he always delights
in whatever features Ellen develops. Once III. Love and Change
seen in his lover, he may even come to
Delaney thinks that a romantic lover
admire these qualities in others. Such
wants to be loved for properties that she
wildly indiscriminate love, however, does
takes to be central to her self-conception.12
not offer the affirmation that we seek from a
He says that we usually have a fairly clear
romantic partner. Just as we are skeptical of
idea of who we are and what we value, and
someone's insistence that her grandson is

This content downloaded from 131.173.215.207 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:13:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HOW DO ILOVE THEE?LETME COUNT THE PROPERTIES/ 169

that we hope to find a lover who will ap? never have thought that anyone would be

preciate us for these aspects of ourselves. attracted to her for such a reason, but she
It would not be a good sign for their rela? could be
imagined to find the revelation

tionship, says Delaney, if Alan and Ellen quite exciting. It will give her a new and
were to make separate lists, Ellen's of the thoroughly pleasant way of thinking about
properties that she takes to be central to herself, and will encourage her to develop
her self-conception and Alan's of the prop? that aspect to her character. In this instance,
erties for which he loves Ellen, and for being loved for a property peripheral to her
there to be little correlation between them. self-conception is preferable to being loved
In such a situation, Ellen might worry that purely for those of her properties that she
her lover does not truly know who she is. already takes to be important, because as
To Delaney, "one of the functions our clos? well as affirming her value as a partner it
est relationships can serve is to stabilize encourages her to develop a
in new, posi?
and reinforce our ways of thinking about tive direction.
ourselves; to help us maintain our belief Some attention is paid by Delaney to the
that we have the properties we highly value effect that changes to a person's character
about ourselves."13 may have upon his romantic relationship,
Imagine that the relationship between and he presents the case of a football player
Ellen and Alan conforms to the romantic who retires and becomes a minister to lep?
ideal as presented by Delaney. Let us ask ers in India. Obviously, the grounds of the
Ellen about her self-conception, and have romantic relationship in which the retired
her say, "I have a strong will, and I am a football player is involved would have to

graceful dancer and a sensible conversa? be significantly revised. To account for

tionalist." Ask Alan why he loves her, and such transformations, Delaney introduces
he says, "I love her for her strong will, her the notion of love which is "plastic, where
graceful dancing, and her sensible conver? this just means that your lover's feelings
sation." Such a situation would surely towards you will be flexible and respon?
reinforce Ellen's
self-conception and en? sive ... to (significant) modifications to
courage toher
further strengthen her will your self-conception."14 In the ideal roman?
and to become an even better conversa? tic relationship, the love that is held for me
tionalist and an even moregraceful dancer, will track my evolution as a person. Fur?
but it does not, I think, represent the kind of ther, Delaney states, this tracking should
relationship in which we would hope to find be reciprocal, such that no changes will
ourselves. The missing element is change. occur inmy partner that would make it dif?
Many sorts of discrepancies between the ficult for me to objectively appreciate the
set of properties central to our self-concep? properties she possesses.
tions and the set of properties for which Again, there is something
missing from
we are loved will not be considered favor? Delaney's account. While we might hope
ably. If one of the attributes that I take to that our love will be flexible to changes in
be central to my self-conception ismy pas? our partner, we don't want this tracking to
sion for political causes, then I would be be purely coincidental. If I do not want to
annoyed to hear my lover say that she loves go to live in India, and do not want to be
me for my cute self-righteousness. Con? away from my partner for long periods,
sider Ellen's reaction, though, ifAlan were then why should I love him for his deci?
to cite her quietly subversive sense of hu? sion to become a minister? What reason is
mor as a reason for his love. Ellen may there for me to believe that my partner will

This content downloaded from 131.173.215.207 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:13:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 170 / AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICALQUARTERLY

continue to love me as my properties shared his partner. If a workmate

with of

change? Love is meant to be motivated by Ellen encourages her to attend bible study
an objective appreciation of the other's meetings, and if this activity becomes a

properties, and Delaney's view offers no source of change in Ellen's character, then
reason to presume that changes in the prop? Allan can be expected, in one way or another,
erties of one lover will be such as can be to share in the activity. That might involve

objectively loved by the other. The track? Ellen convincing Alan to join her at the meet?

ing seems to be happening just by chance, ings, or explaining what itmeans to her and
and the confidence that we expect to have seeking out his opinion and support, or dis?
in our partners' continuing love seems to cussing how to rearrange their life together
have been lost. in light of their religious differences. The
Romantic relationships are dynamic. The point is that changes to Ellen cannot come

partners to a romantic relationship will about in isolation from Allan's needs and

change over
time, and an ideal romantic opinions. In an ideal romantic relation?
should survive such change. ship, all transforming experiences are
relationship
Is this aspect to romantic love consistent shared experiences.
with the properties view? It is, once we con? When romantic lovers change, they do
sider the role that the relationship itself will not change alone. They take on new val?
in the change that lovers undergo. ues and goals through shared experiences,
play
The love of a romantic partner can be a through gaining self-knowledge through
source of personal The way
transformation. the eyes of the other, through learning to?
in which your partner sees you will prob? gether to maintain a romantic relationship.
ably not be the same as the way in which This is part of what we mean when we say

you see He will love you for prop? that lovers forge a shared identity. To
yourself.
erties that you did not know you had?not choose to love someone romantically is to
that are central to your self-con? see in him properties that make him some?
properties
ception?and this love will cause you to one who you would like to influence
your
imagine new possibilities for yourself and life over time, someone who you would
to grow in a new direction.15 And becom? like to have lead your life in unforeseeable
a romantic partner can itself be directions. The question of whether we
ing
expected to be a transforming experience. love someone is the same as the question
As a partner in a romantic relationship, I that we ask in the rooms at a public swim?

might change into someone who can com? ming pool: "Is this a person with whom I

promise, who thinks of others before he would like to change?"

acts, and who is able to engage in construc?
IV. Responses to Objections
tive argument.
In addition to being romantic partners,
a) Trading up
people are friends, workers, readers, and
To trade up is to leave your romantic
internet surfers, and they are changed by all
partner for someone better. Such behavior
sorts of experiences that do not arise directly
is notthought desirable in a loved one. In?
from their romantic relationships. An impor?
deed, we don't just want to avoid being
tant part of the romantic ideal, however, is
- at abandoned for someone better, we don't
the idea that changes in a romantic lover
want our romantic partners to even be on
any rate, changes to the properties upon
- should the lookout. But doesn't the properties
which his partner's love is built
view imply that a romantic partner should
come about through experiences which are

This content downloaded from 131.173.215.207 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:13:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HOW DO ILOVE THEE? LETME COUNT THE PROPERTIES/ 171

always be prepared to trade up? IfAlan and b) But doesn't everyone deserve to be
Ellen are loving happily when Alan meets loved?
Helen, who is a better dancer than Ellen, If we are loved
for properties that set us
has a stronger will than Ellen, and whose aside from others, then is that to say that
conversation is even more
sensible, then why there are some people?those who do not
should Alan's objective love for these prop? have the right properties?who do not de?
erties not make him fall in love with Helen? serve to be loved? It is surely misguided
The properties view is consistent with the to imagine that there is some threshold
claim that ideal romantic relationships are quantity of desirable properties that we
essentially dynamic. You can love some? must exceed in order to become
appropri?
one for his properties, while expecting that ate objects of romantic love.16
the properties for which you love him now I don't think that anyone deserves to be
will not be the properties for which you will loved, not romantically anyway. To be
love him in a few years' time. This allows loved romantically is to be loved romanti?
the proponent of the properties view to offer cally by someone, and different properties
two reasons why a partner to an ideal roman? are attractive to different people. For any
tic relationship would not seek to trade up. given person, there are some people who
First, a romantic lover would see that his are more of that
appropriate objects
being prepared to trade up would be dam? person's love than others. We all think that
aging to the present relationship. Romantic there are some properties which any ro?
partners open themselves, and want to open mantic partner of ours must have, and it
themselves, to the changes that their rela? makes you feel good about to
yourself
tionship will bring. It is exciting to throw know that your properties are such that
in your lot with someone, to agree that your partner takes you to be an appropri?
whatever happens to us will probably be ate object of her love. But there are no
for the best. And it is not psychologically properties such that anyone who instanti?
possible to in this way disarm yourself to ates them and is not loved romantically has
your beloved while at the same time look? been done an injustice. The properties view
ing around for someone better. does not divide people into those who should
Second, as romantic partners change to? and shouldn't be loved. Any view that did,
gether, they come to share a system of even if it placed everyone in the lovable
values and a way of looking at the world. camp, would be implausible. We are only
The process of shared change is such that ever lovable relative to a certain lover.
your beloved will come to have the prop?
erties that you value, and you will come to c) Fetishism
value the properties that she has. Further, Velleman thinks that if we knew that we
some of those properties were being loved for our
distinguishing
will be proper?
characteristics, then we would feel
ties that could only be had by someone who
has shared trivialized. "Someone who loved you for
part of your history?knowing
when you are joking you are be?
and when your quirks would have to be a quirk-lover,
on the way to being a fetishist."17 But
ing serious, knowing to treat
how you when
someone does not become a fetishist just
you get stroppy, understanding why you do
what you do. In an ideal romantic relation? because she loves people for characteris?

is no tics that distinguish them from others. A

ship, the lovers will know that there
better partner to be found. fetishist is someone whose love (or some
other attitude) attaches itself to things in

This content downloaded from 131.173.215.207 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:13:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 172 / AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICALQUARTERLY

virtue of certain properties, where those be lost, but we hope that our lover will still

properties are not the sorts of properties be around to care for us. Such a commit?

upon which love (or some other attitude) ment would indeed be a type of love, says
is appropriately based. You are a fetishist Delaney, but it would, when called upon,
if you enjoy all football games in which represent the end of the relationship as a
someone gets taken off on a stretcher, but romantic one. Romantic love for proper?
not if you enjoy all football games in which ties may include a voluntary commitment
there is a high degree of skill and competi? to care for the beloved even if the proper?
tiveness. You area fetishist if you love ties are lost, but a relationship in which one
someone because he has an outward-poking person is not loved for the properties that
navel, but not if you love someone because he presently displays falls short of the ro?
he is caring, honest, and fun to be around. mantic ideal.
A version of the objection that is less
d) Properties are temporary, but love
easily dismissed points to the possibility
should be forever that our loved properties may be tempo?
Nozick points out that, ideally, "love
rarily or permanently lost, not in a single
places a floor under your well-being; it
traumatic episode, but through our normal
provides insurance in the face of fate's as we
development grow and change. What
blows."18 Love can
initially be motivated are we our
security offered against losing
by properties, but "if we continue to be
lovable properties?
loved for the characteristics then the love
I've already reasons
offered why we
seems conditional, something that might our to influence us
should expect partners
change or disappear as the characteristics over time and to love us for the new prop?
do."19 Love should be something that we
erties that we acquire. Perhaps, though, it
can count on, regardless of how the world to assume that all
is overly optimistic
treats us and especially when we are at our that we undergo within an ideal
changes
lowest points. It is when we are most in
will be of no threat
romantic relationship
need the support and reassurance
of of a to the relationship itself. Romantic lovers
romantic lover that we are, from an objec? might be affected ways by the
in different
tive point of view, at our least lovable. If of loving, or might react in differ?
process
love is for properties, then it sounds as ent ways to shared experiences, or might
though we must be always at our best in
be changed by the other into something that
order to be loved, and this is not at all what the other cannot love. As Ellen develops
we seek in a romantic relationship. On the sense
the subversive of humor that Alan
surface, this objection is quite compelling. has brought to the surface, the empathy that
Let us consider the possibility that, due she once shared with Alan may be lost.
perhaps to some physical or emotional Outcomes like this are not of the sort that I
trauma, the properties for which we are
think would be likely in an ideal romantic
loved are lost. To deal with such situations, but are made
relationship, they possible
Delaney distinguishes romantic love from when a relationship is truly open-ended. In
a loving commitment, which is "an endur? a love that is discerning to affirm
enough
ing interpersonal commitment that is both
your worth as a person and in which both
grounded in and sustained by the lover's partners are open to change, the end of love
romantic attachment to the beloved."20
is unlikely, but by no means impossible.21
When we by an accident,
are stricken dis?
ease or old age, our lovable properties may Princeton University

This content downloaded from 131.173.215.207 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:13:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HOW DO ILOVE THEE?LETME COUNT THE PROPERTIES/ 173

NOTES

1. The view presented in this paper is supposed to be applicable to the love of a woman or a man
for a man or a woman. In an effort to avoid any suggestion to the contrary, my use of pronouns is

neither consistent nor systematic.

2. My project is the same as that described by Neil Delaney in his "Romantic Love and Loving
Commitment: Articulating a Modern Ideal," American Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 33 (1996),
pp. 338-340. As will become clear, I owe much to Delaney's discussion.

3. Kate Chopin, The Awakening (London: Penguin Classics, 1986), pp. 136-137.
4. See Delaney, p. 343, for more discussion of this point.

5. Delaney, pp. 343-347.

6. Robert Nozick, "Love's Bond," in The Examined Life (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989),
p. 75.

7. Nozick, p. 75-77.

8. J. David Velleman, "Love as aMoral Emotion," Ethics, vol. 109 (1999), p. 365.
9. Michael Nelson has convinced me that Velleman's view may also be compatible, in theory if
not in spirit, with my properties view. Itmight be thought that to love someone is to respond to
her value as a self-sufficient end, but that you are justified in loving her because she possesses
such properties as allow you to see through to her intrinsic value. An axe-murderer, you might
think, has incomparable value as a self-sufficient end, but his contingent properties are such as to
make that value very hard to discern.

10. Nozick, p. 74.

11. Velleman, pp. 365-370.
12. Delaney, p. 343.
13. Delaney, p. 344.
14. Delaney, p. 349.

15. The idea that close personal relationships can be seen as sources of personal transformation is
explored by Dean Cocking and Jeanette Kennett in "Friendship and the Self," Ethics, vol. 108
(1998), pp. 502-527. The account of romantic love that I offer in this section shares much with
Cocking and Kennett's theory of friendship.
16. See Nozick's footnote on p. 76.

17. Velleman, p. 370.

18. Nozick, p. 71.

19. Nozick, p. 75.
20. Delaney, p. 350.
21. Thanks to Stuart Brock, Harry Frankfurt, Jeanette Kennett, Michael Nelson, and David Sussman
for helpful comments.

This content downloaded from 131.173.215.207 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:13:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions