Ebels-Duggan - Against Beneficence: A Normative Account of Love

What is Ebels-Duggan’s main thesis?

Love means to share your loved one’s ends: doing things WITH them not FOR them

What are Kant’s two kinds of love?

Pathological (a feeling) and practical (about action)

How does Ebels-Duggan understand practical love?

The person you love gives you certain reasons to act

According to Ebels-Duggan, how does love change as a relationship goes on?

It starts with attraction but becomes more of a choice, so what matters most is how you respond when the feelings fade

What kind of account is she giving?

A normative one: an ideal for how to act in love, not a strict definition

What is the benefactor view?

Love means doing what’s best for your partner. You decide what makes them better off, then make it happen

Who represents the benefactor view?

Harry Frankfurt

What does Scobie do?

He decides alone that a trip will make his wife happy and secretly borrows money from a corrupt man to pay for it

Why does Louise's claim that Scobie didn't love her seem true?

He treated her as someone to take care of and not as a partner

What does Frankfurt’s view leave out?

Interaction between the two people

What is Frankfurt's model of love?

A parent’s love for a small child

How are small children passive?

Their choices don't decide what parents should do, and they just receive care

What does Darwall’s broccoli example show?

You can make a child eat broccoli, but you must respect an adult's choice not to

When does the benefactor view fit adults?

When someone can’t run their own life, like a person with severe depression

What's the danger of acting as a partner's benefactor?

It comes off a paternalistic and even disrespectful

Why does taking care of someone (the benefactor attitude) aim to put itself out of a job?

Its real goal is to help the person become able to take care of themselves again (good caretaker wants the person they are caring for to grow/recover)

Frankfurt says it's obvious that loving someone means you should act for their well-being. Does Ebels-Duggan agree?

No. Between healthy adults, acting for your partner's well-being often isn't the loving thing to do

In Ebels-Duggan, what is the “specified benefactor view” of love?

Help your partner reach their goals, but only because it makes their life better

What does the concert pianist example show?

Success as a pianist only counts toward your well-being once you choose that goal

What really settles big decisions, per Scanlon? (Duggan)

What you have most reason to do, not what’s best for you

How does the specified view explain Scobie's mistake?

He guessed what Louise wanted instead of asking

In Ebels-Duggan, why does the specified benefactor view still fail?

It supports a partner's goals only because they help her well-being, not because she chose them

What is the doctor example that Duggan provides us?

A doctor chooses a risky, low-paying clinic job, knowing she'll be worse off

What could the benefactor view allow in the doctor case?

Sabotaging her, like hiding her job application

First reply to "love must be limited by respect"?

Sabotage comes from corrupted, condescending love

Second reply to "love must be limited by respect"?

Respect just means not interfering, but love also means actively helping

In Ebels-Duggan, what is the Aristotelian objection to her doctor example?

Doing the right thing is always good for you, so your well-being and your best choices can never conflict

How does she reply to the Aristotelian objection?

Then real self-sacrifice (like dying in a just war) would be impossible to describe

Even if we accept the Aristotelian view, when do the benefactor view and the shared-ends view still differ?

When partners disagree about what's best. The benefactor view says to stop your partner's choice, while the shared-ends view says to support it, even if it's a mistake

What is the shared-ends view?

Love means making your partner’s goals your own goals and deciding big things together, doing things with them, not for them

What is selection authority?

Your partner's choice of a goal gives you a reason to help pursue it

Can one partner, in Duggan’s opinion, decide alone on a big shared goal?

No. They propose it (a "provisional end"), and the other should agree unless there's a reason not to

Must your spouse guess your feelings before proposing a move?

No, you each state your side and work it out together

What is authority in judgment?

Assuming your partner's goals are worthwhile, like trusting someone who tells you the time

What if you don't see value in their (your partner’s) goal?

Look into it more; they may see something you cannot

What are the risks of helping with goals you think are worthless?

Feeling disconnected from your actions and "humoring" your partner.

What does the bird-watching example show?

Calling a big passion “just taste” is condescending

When does your partner’s choice of a goal stop giving you a reason to help (selection authority)?

When their interest comes from a bad cause, like insecurity, or when the goal is morally wrong.

Why is the shared-ends view better?

It treats the loved one as an active partner and requires working together

In Ebels-Duggan's shared-ends view, when partners share goals, what happens to their happiness?

Their happiness becomes linked but not identical, since each still feels things differently. So one partner can still sacrifice for the other.

Why can’t the benefactor view work both ways?

If each person's well-being depends on the other's choices, neither can guide them ("I want whatever you want")

Doesn't the shared-ends view have the same problem as the benefactor view?

No. Couples can decide what to do together, but not what their well-being is

Does Duggan deny love involves caring about well-being?

No. You can wish them well; it just shouldn't be your reason for acting

When is it okay to act based on your loved one's happiness?

When the goal itself is about their happiness, like picking a gift or planning a party, or when they're temporarily unable to take care of themselves, like when they're sick or exhausted

Can you still love someone who doesn't love you back, in Duggan’s view?

Yes, you can still love them. But the ideal kind of love needs both people, so you can't have a fully loving relationship on your own

What is the difference between authority in judgement and selection authority?

Selection authority is about what you do, whereas authority in judgement is about what you think.

What is the special concern view restated (shared ends view)?

 To love someone is to treat them as a special source of reasons

According to Ebels-Duggan, what should YOU do if you don’t think that your partner’s choice to do something is worthwhile?

First you can inquire and ask them why it matters to them in the first place, second you can give them the benefit of the doubt and trust in their judgement (e.g., authority in judgement). This allows you to not humor them and genuinely support them