Should You Love Your Children Conditionally or Unconditionally?

[MSizer]

Hey Linwood, I think there's a problem in the debate here in that some people equate "love" with "choosing to be in a relationship of some sort", while others don't. I agree that if my wife decided she was into beastiality and self-mutilation (not that she has shown any such desire, but hypothetically of course) and demanded I participate too, or my brother murdered someone, I'd have to say "sorry, can't support that" and end the relationship if necessary, but that doesn't mean I can't still love her or him - it just means I have the terrible burden of letting them go or handing them over to the police or whatever may be necessary.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I think I should try to give my child unconditionally but there must be limits are behavior. Just because you love your child it doesn't mean that you don't turn him in for murder when the cops are ringing the door bell.

There is a saying in one of the Hindu texts. When mothers love their children above all other children war is at hand.

 

[Storm]

Hey Linwood, I think there's a problem in the debate here in that some people equate "love" with "choosing to be in a relationship of some sort", while others don't. I agree that if my wife decided she was into beastiality and self-mutilation (not that she has shown any such desire, but hypothetically of course) and demanded I participate too, or my brother murdered someone, I'd have to say "sorry, can't support that" and end the relationship if necessary, but that doesn't mean I can't still love her or him - it just means I have the terrible burden of letting them go or handing them over to the police or whatever may be necessary.

Precisely.

 

[Duck]

Is it better to love your children conditionally or unconditionally? Why?

I think that (hypothetically speaking as I have no children, nor any concrete plans to acquire any) the dilemma presented in the OP and the article linked are at the very heart of child rearing. How does one establish discipline in one's children while at the same time fostering individuality and independence? On the one hand, too structured an environment could possibly result in a child unable to function without that rigid environment (see the various stories of college freshmen's hijinks), while too permissive an environment could lead to a child that can't properly function in the presence of required structure (job environment is too "constrictive" etc). Either extreme risks building resentment in the child and rebellion by going to the opposite end of the spectrum.

I think that as a parent one's goal would be to love your child for him/herself. I think that love of this nature's goal should be unconditionality. Do I think that goal is completely unattainable? I am not sure. I think that regardless of ideal, there are conditions placed on one's love (examples being numerous, but here is one). Now, does violation of conditions on one's love automatically assume that the love becomes hate? Not necessarily. Emotional ties are pretty long lasting, and very complex and built up over the course of a lifetime and evolve during the relationship. An act which violates a condition (verbalized or not) won't severe those ties, it may alter them in a manner that changes the nature of the relationship completely, but it won't remove the history of the relationship. Part of the problem in presenting to a child positive or negative reinforcement related to parental love (being more or less demonstrative based on the child's behavior) is that the child doesn't have the experience necessary to recognize the longer-lasting nature of either the emotional manipulation of the reinforcement, nor the longer term emotional ties to the parent.

 

[linwood]

Hey Linwood, I think there's a problem in the debate here in that some people equate "love" with "choosing to be in a relationship of some sort", while others don't. I agree that if my wife decided she was into beastiality and self-mutilation (not that she has shown any such desire, but hypothetically of course) and demanded I participate too, or my brother murdered someone, I'd have to say "sorry, can't support that" and end the relationship if necessary, but that doesn't mean I can't still love her or him - it just means I have the terrible burden of letting them go or handing them over to the police or whatever may be necessary.

Perhaps I`m just different but my love is never "given", not to anybody, it never has been.
Also everything is subjective when considering "love" to me.

If my daughter killed another person my love wouldn`t be diminished due to the act of killing.
It would be diminished (or perhaps even increased) depending upon the reasons surrounding her act of killing.

If she killed a man protecting herself or others that might actually increase my love for her.

This is because I love "what" she is, not "who" she is.

If she should commit a killing in a manner that is morally necessary to me that would probably show me that "who" she is is even more admirable than I previously thought as I don`t imagine killing is an easy thing for someone who finds it repugnant.
Committing the act would require some type of strength and sacrifice.


If she engaged in the bloody senseless slaughter of her own family (which I gave example of earlier) my love would be diminished to the point of non-existence.
Committing the act would not only require a lack of almost all of the admirable traits I admired in her but it would be strong evidence for the presence of traits I abhor in anyone.
I would have to reconsider "who" she is and under most circumstances this would most probably mean a complete loss of love for "who" she is.
There would be nothing left worth loving, she`d be dead to me if not hated.

In other words it seems most people believe their love for their children/family to be practically genetic in nature.
I don`t.

 

[Humanistheart]

I'd have to say "sorry, can't support that" and end the relationship if necessary, but that doesn't mean I can't still love her or him - .

That's precisely what it means. Love that ends was not love.

 

[Storm]

That's precisely what it means.

No, it means that you have to act against your emotions. It's not easy, but it can be done.

Love that ends was not love.

And love is not equivalent to relationship.

 

[Humanistheart]

No, it means that you have to act against your emotions. It's not easy, but it can be done. .

Then love is a meaningless word.

And love is not equivalent to relationship.

Never said it was, so who are you saying that to?

And back to childlren. If you create a child you're obligated to love them forever, and whatch out for them. If not for you, the child wouldn't be foreced to suffer through life, you owe him.

 

[Kerr]

Then love is a meaningless word.

Why? That we can act against our emotions does not make them to meaningless words, no matter how strong they are. If it did, then all our emotions would be meaningless words.

 

[linwood]

Then love is a meaningless word.

Not at all.
It`s only made meaningless when given away for nothing.

And back to childlren. If you create a child you're obligated to love them forever, and whatch out for them. If not for you, the child wouldn't be foreced to suffer through life, you owe him.

This statement says more about you than you think it does.

This is the type of view point I mentioned earlier in this thread.

Love is never an obligation.
If it is then it isn`t love.
No one "owes" anyone their love.

 

[nameless]

love itself something conditional i believe, loving or being loved brings pleasure, real love is only towards pleasure.