The Importance Of Autonomy To Affectionate Relationships

The strengthening of autonomy does not only apply to trivial cases such as which meal to prepare. If your autonomy is pooled together with another person’s autonomy as Nozick suggests (Nozick 71), then there will be more thought put into large decisions. One may claim that it is not true autonomy due to the fact that your decision is being made by an individual external to you. That is, however, not the case. One can discuss the implications of donating their kidney to a family member with their beloved, and be discouraged from doing it by them, but still decide to donate their kidney regardless of their partner’s position. This type of example shows that autonomy is not lost in relationships, and can exist apart from the Nozickian we. If one

Nozick writes that having more than a single we is just as problematic as an individual having a multitude of identities (Nozick 82). Soble notes the problematic nature when he notes that Montaigne, a writer who wrote a paper titled “On Affectionate Relationships”, would not have any self to share for any third party (Soble 67). On this issue, it can be said that this is a false notion. If one was to believe this idea, one would have to accept that there can be no true bond with one’s parents, children, siblings, or friends. Those who have championed this idea, either for the unity view of love or against are just plain wrong. Meaningful relationships can still exist outside of the romantic we. These relationships just have to be within reason of closeness to ensure that the well-being of the we is not encroached upon. There are instances in which meaningful relationships are developed between two separate instances of a we. A couple can have a pair of friends whom they enjoy going on double dates with, spending time together, as well as sharing some intimate moments. These relationships however can branch off and two of the four people, who were not part of the original we, can develop a relationship in which they share their relationship gripes with the other. This examples shows that both an individual, as well as a we can maintain

It promotes an altruistic nature in love, all while being able to remain aimed at the properties of another person. It betters each individual and their sense of their identity apart from the we as it requires an introspection to decide upon what is truly crucial to the identity of the person. It enables the individuals to better themselves through this process of deciding what is crucial to them. It strengthens autonomy as it motivates the individual to make a decision that is better not only for the we, but also for the individual, as, in most cases, it eliminates indifference. It still allows for meaningful relationships to take place outside of the love that exists between the we. Yet, there are still some debatable points to the union view of love, such as the possibility of the individuals losing themselves in the we. All of this considered, it seems the most palatable approach to love, as well as the most involved approach to love. This involvement comes through the aforementioned introspection, as well as the notion that your well-being is also another person’s