So far I have (I hope) confined myself to an analysis or description of love between equals, and what that form of life entails, both in its various aspects and as a whole. Somebody might now say That is all very well, and personally I warm to your description (in some moods at least), and your analysis may perhaps be adequate—but that goes no way at all to show that this form of life is worth anything, or valuable, or something that can be advocated, even if it is something deeply written into human life and hence hard to escape. After all, a lot of people don’t seem to care for it much. Why ought they to, if indeed they ought? And analytic philosophers have always said, haven’t they, that you can’t derive values just from factual descriptions and conceptual analysis, from the sort of stuff you have been dishing out. So are you content just to describe love between equals in this way, and not to advocate it or recommend it or argue for its worth at all? Have you nothing to say to people who may be in doubt about it? Are you just saying “Well, that’s how it is, take it or leave it”’?
KeywordsGolden Rule Meaningful Life Political Move Football Club Political Equality
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.