This paper argues that close personal relationships play an important role in our judgments about what is fair. I start with an explanation of leading theories of fairness, highlighting the potential for further work on the grounds of fairness. Next, I offer an account of close personal relationships as having the ability to generate legitimate and reasonable expectations of one or other party to a judgment about fairness, or both. I show how and when close (...) class='Hi'>personal relationships can ground fairness. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Personal and Impersonal within “Personal Relationships” Personal Relationships and Morality Ideal Friendship and Morally Good Character Can Immoral People be Friends? Can a Friendless Person Lead a Satisfying and Moral Life? Friendship and the Demands of Impartiality Kierkegaard: Universal Love and Unconditional Love Challenging the Legitimacy of Personal Relationships The Real Moral Conflict between Impartiality and Personal Relationships Misunderstanding the Preferences in Personal Relationships Feminism (...) and Personal Relationships Care Ethics and Personal Relationships The Limits of Care Ethics Personal Relationships and Culture. (shrink)

This volume is a philosophical introduction and exploration of the nature and value of personal relationships. It is an ideal text for introductory philosophy, ethics, or applied ethics courses.

This volume is a philosophical introduction and exploration of the nature and value of personal relationships. It is an ideal text for introductory philosophy, ethics, or applied ethics courses.

This paper is a response to Brad Hooker's “Does having deep personal relationships constitute an element of well‐being?” (2021). The paper begins with a discussion of the implications of disagreement about such issues. After raising some general questions for Hooker's account, the paper turns to the key elements in a deep personal relationship, according to Hooker: multi‐faceted understanding, and strong affection. The issue of impartiality is discussed, and it is claimed that Hooker's account is consistent with morality's (...) being impartial. Some possible interpretations of Hooker's overall project are offered, and the paper ends with a discussion of Hooker's suggestions that the affection in valuable personal relationships must be merited. (shrink)

A paper of Roger Crisp’s four years ago contained arguments that seemed to imply that having deep personal relationships does not constitute an element of well‐being. The lesson to draw from that paper of Crisp’s, according to a recent journal article of mine, is that one’s having a deep personal relationship does constitute an element of one’s well‐being on condition that one’s affection for the other person is merited. Crisp’s paper earlier in this issue of Ratio responds (...) to my arguments. Here I reply to new questions that Crisp poses or provokes. (shrink)

Care ethicists have long insisted that Kantian moral theory fails to capture the partiality that ought to be present in our personal relationships. In her most recent book, Virginia Held claims that, unlike impartial moral theories, care ethics guides us in how we should act toward friends and family. Because these actions are performed out of care, they have moral value for a care ethicist. The same actions, Held claims, would not have moral worth for a Kantian because (...) of the requirement of impartiality. Although Kantian moral theory is an impartial theory, I argue that the categorical imperative in the Formulation of Humanity as an End and the duty of respect require that we give special treatment to friends and family because of their relationships with us. Therefore, this treatment does have moral value for a Kantian. (shrink)

Abolitionism is the view that if no one is responsible, we ought to abandon the reactive attitudes. This paper defends abolitionism against the claim, made by P.F. Strawson and others, that abandoning these attitudes precludes the formation and maintenance of valuable personal relationships. These anti-abolitionists claim that one who abandons the reactive attitudes is unable to take personally others’ attitudes and actions regarding her, and that taking personally is necessary for certain valuable relationships. I dispute both claims (...) and argue that this objection exaggerates the role of the reactive attitudes and underestimates the importance of non-reactive moral emotions. (shrink)

Tim Scanlon has recently argued that an action is *blameworthy* if it "show[s] something about the agent's attitudes toward others that impairs the relations that others can have with him or her" and hence that "to *blame* a person is to judge him or her to be blameworthy and to take your relationship with him or her to be modified in a way that this judgment of impaired relations holds to be appropriate" (*Moral Dimensions*, 128--29). Given this, Scanlon argues, reactive (...) attitude accounts of blame, while they can capture some of the ways blaming attitudes vary depending on one's relationship to the wrongdoer, are in general "too thin" and cannot explain all the relevant changes in our attitudes, "including changes in our readiness to interact with [the wrongdoer] in specific ways" (143). Yet Scanlon does not provide clear accounts of what types of relationships matter for blame and how violations of the "standards" of these relationships justifies what new attitudes. My aim is to address this. -/- To do this, we need to turn not merely to particular reactive attitudes but to broad, interpersonal rational patterns of reactive attitudes in terms of which we can make sense of what I have come to call "communities of respect". My claim is that the sort of relationship whose impairment is relevant to blame is that of co-membership in a community of respect, so that the significance of the agent's wrongdoing relevant for blame is the significance those actions and attitudes have *for us* in the community. However, accommodating the variability of blame on which Scanlon rightly insists requires a more careful examination of two additional factors that affect how it is proper for one to respond to the impairment to those relationships that the wrongdoing represents: one's role in a given case as perpetrator, victim, or witness, and one's personal commitments. For, I argue, these factors provide one with excuses for failing to treat the perpetrator with the normal trust and respect we demand of each other, and the validity of these excuses itself depends on the overall rational structure of the patterns of reactive attitudes within the community. Consequently, both the individual and the community are important in defining the relationships and modifications of relationships that are central to blame; however, such modifications to personal relationships are a *consequence* of blame rather than, as Scanlon claims, part of its content. (shrink)

Deep personal relationships involve deep mutual understanding and strong mutual affection. This paper focuses on whether having deep personal relationships is one of the elements of well-being. Roger Crisp put forward thought experiments which might be taken to suggest that having deep personal relationships has only instrumental value as a means to other elements of well-being. The different conclusion this paper draws is that having deep personal relationships is an element of well-being (...) if, but only if, the other people involved have qualities that merit affection for these people. (shrink)

In the context of his highly influential defence of compatibilism, P. F. Strawson 1962 introduced the terms "reactive attitude" and "objective attitude" to the free-will lexicon. He argued, in effect, that relinquishing such reactive attitudes as resentment and moral indignation isn't a real possibility for us, since doing so would commit us to exclusive objectivity, a stance incompatible with ordinary interpersonal relationships. While most commentators have challenged Strawson's link between personal relationships and the reactive attitudes, Tamler Sommers (...) 2007 has taken up Strawson's claim that exclusive objectivity would preclude meaningful relationships. Here I set out a defence of this claim by identifying a kind of interpersonal caring that is plausibly both required for such relationships and excluded by the objective attitude. I then argue that this defence helps to support Strawson's more controversial claim about personal relationships and the reactive attitudes. (shrink)

When people use the phrase “personal relationship with Jesus,” how does one explain its significance? Normally attributed to evangelical Protestant Christians, use of the phrase “personal relationship with Jesus” is a complicated phenomenon, and an explanation of it requires drawing upon resources from across multiple disciplines rather than a single discipline only. Attempts to explain exactly what the phrase “personal relationship with Jesus” means frequently can be mystifying, on the one hand, or dismissive and simplistic, on the (...) other hand. This article moves potentially toward a better context for understanding use of the phrase “personal relationship with Jesus” by drawing upon insights from multiple disciplines, including rhetorical and cultural-historical studies, evolutionary and cognitive psychology, and biological/behavioral and social/anthropological studies in order to set forth some basic lines of explanation for use of the phrase “personal relationship with Jesus.” The article concludes with some possible testable statements for future empirical studies. (shrink)

When people use the phrase “personal relationship with Jesus,” how does one explain its significance? Normally attributed to evangelical Protestant Christians, use of the phrase “personal relationship with Jesus” is a complicated phenomenon, and an explanation of it requires drawing upon resources from across multiple disciplines rather than a single discipline only. Attempts to explain exactly what the phrase “personal relationship with Jesus” means frequently can be mystifying, on the one hand, or dismissive and simplistic, on the (...) other hand. This article moves potentially toward a better context for understanding use of the phrase “personal relationship with Jesus” by drawing upon insights from multiple disciplines, including rhetorical and cultural-historical studies, evolutionary and cognitive psychology, and biological/behavioral and social/anthropological studies in order to set forth some basic lines of explanation for use of the phrase “personal relationship with Jesus.” The article concludes with some possible testable statements for future empirical studies. (shrink)

Three kinds of emotional consciousness are distinguished in this article: feeling awareness, intellectual awareness, and bare awareness. All are important to three moral properties that emotions may have: epistemic, practical, and relational. The bulk of this article is devoted to the third dimension of moral value, that emotions are constitutive of personal relationships such as friendship, enmity, good and bad parenthood, and collegiality. The conception of emotions as concern-based construals (Roberts, 2003) is put to work to explain how (...) felt and intellectually conscious emotions are constitutive of the qualities of such relationships. The relational value of emotions interacts with their epistemic and practical values. (shrink)

Chapter One Introduction: the concept of a teacher People teach each other many things in the course of their everyday lives. There is a distinction, ...

In the psychological literature, love is often seen as a construct inseparable from that of close, interpersonal relationships. As a result, it has been often assumed that the same motivational factors underlie both phenomena. This often leads researchers to propose that love does not exist in itself—that it is an emotion which stems solely from a need for attachment, fulfillment of reproductive aims, or for social exchange. The popular cultural imagination, however, perceives love as a unique, mysterious, altruistic, ever-lasting (...) bond between two people—a vision of love which is at odds with its supposed psychological origins. We propose that an ideal of love and its enactment in our culture is a result of two intertwining factors. Within the last few centuries, interpersonal relationships and love have replaced religion as islands of existential comfort. Toward this end, lovers project illusory meaning on their partners. The laborious and turbulent process of withdrawing these projections can lead to what many thinkers think “love” is: bestowal of value on another, and consequent respect for, and care for that person, unmotivated by one's own needs, within the context of a real relationship. (shrink)

J. M. Shorter; X*—Personal Identity, Personal Relationships, and Criteria, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 71, Issue 1, 1 June 1971, Pages 165–1.

Throughout this book, I made frequent reference to a wide range of moral issues: honesty, jealousy, sexual fidelity, commitment, paternalism, caring, etc. This suggests there is an intricate connection between morality and personal relationships. There is. Of course personal relationships do not always promote moral values, nor do people find all relationships salutary. Some friendships, marriages, and kin relationships are anything but healthy or valuable. We all know (and perhaps are in) some relationships (...) which hinder personal growth, undermine moral values, and diminish both parties' happiness -- in short, relationships which systematically undermine the values they should promote. (shrink)

For nursing, the idea of bearing witness is of utmost importance. Nurses are present with persons who experience changes in their health and quality of life and who live intense and profound moments of struggling, questioning, and finding meaning. Nurses are also with persons from moment to moment as their lives unfold, and when joy, serenity, contentment, vulnerability, sadness, fear, and suffering are experienced. In this paper, it is proposed that bearing witness is a moral way of engaging in the (...) nurse–person relationship. Based on Levinas’s ethics of the face, it is claimed that bearing witness is enacting one’s moral responsibility, which arises from the encounter with the other. Drawing on Parse’s human becoming theory, ways of witnessing and bearing witness are defined and discussed. It is suggested that bearing witness is a human‐to‐human way of being‐relating, a mode of human coexistence. Bearing witness is being present and attentive to the truth of another’s experiences. Moreover, in this paper, the ways nurses enact their moral agency and bear witness to others placed in their care, or turn away, are explored. Nurses’ moral agency is located in the constrained moral space of contemporary health care. Hence, the creation of a moral space, which allows nurses to enact their moral responsibility of bearing witness to other persons’ experiences of health and quality of life, is called for. In doing so, it is suggested that the act of bearing witness needs a specific nursing knowledge base and a recognition that being present and being with another is a valuable nursing practice that is utterly meaningful for persons who are living through difficult times. (shrink)

The authors seek to bring clarity to the concepts of education and teaching. It is assumed throughout that a narrowly intellectualist interpretation of education will provide this conceptual clarity. The opening chapters focus on teaching as a role, an aim-activity and a set of skills. "The intrinsic aim of the teacher is education," which is in turn defined as "the cultivation of the mind, or theoretical reason, and the transmission of culture." Emphasis here falls on the distinction between knowing that (...) and knowing how, and on the educated man’s ability to give a critical account of his beliefs and aesthetic judgments. Succeeding chapters discuss the intrinsic and extrinsic aims of education. The authors give qualified assent to the intuitive claim that education is desirable in itself, and present a "redescription" of this claim in terms of "the realization of the theoretical aspect of the self." Among the extrinsic aims, relevance to moral conduct and the social good are emphasized. The concluding chapters discuss the "role" of the teacher as "a set of rights and duties," and trace the implications of this position for personal relations between teacher and pupil. Among the issues discussed here are the following: the teacher’s responsibilities to his employer, pupils, subject area, and society; a Kantian doctrine of personalism and tolerance; and the limits of friendship between teacher and student. A postscript and index complete the volume. (shrink)

Previous research about love, in the social-psychological literature, has focused on the antecedents, or causes, of love. Moreover, within the field of Personal Relationships, love is often regarded as implicitly present, and thus, is not treated directly. Here, we address the possibility of a reversal of this perspective, where love is no longer treated as a dependent variable but as an independent variable. We show that this change is necessary to promote the status of love to that of (...) a reliable object of scientific enquiry. We discuss the differences between scientific and naïve conceptions of love, and the necessity of distinguishingbetween an alleged reality of love and the consequences of the mere idea of love. (shrink)

Background: The current study intends to enrich the content of the relationship between personality, subjective well-being, and narcissism. Previous studies have shown that extroverted individuals have higher subjective well-being. Methodology: In order to study the relationship between personality, subjective well-being, and narcissistic behavior of college students, a convenient sampling method was used to select college students; they were tested by Eysenck personality questionnaire, total well-being scale, and overt narcissism questionnaire. The collected data were analyzed by t-test and correlation analysis. Results: (...) The findings suggest that there is a positive correlation between College Students' personality type and subjective well-being. College students with extraversion personalities have high subjective well-being, while college students with introversion personalities have low subjective well-being. There is a positive correlation between College Students' personality type and narcissistic behavior. College students with extraverted personalities are more narcissistic, and college students with introverted personalities are less likely to be narcissistic. There is a positive correlation between College Students' subjective well-being and narcissistic behavior. College students with high subjective well-being are more narcissistic, and college students with low subjective well-being are less likely to be narcissistic. Contributions of the study: This study provides an important basis and Enlightenment for discussing the relationship between College Students' personalities, subjective well-being, and narcissistic behavior. College students with different personality types will feel different levels of well-being and narcissistic behavior. There is also a close relationship between College Students' overall well-being and narcissistic behavior. (shrink)

Social egalitarianism holds that individuals ought to have equal power over outcomes within relationships. Egalitarian philosophers have argued for this ideal by appealing to features of political society. This way of grounding the social egalitarian principle renders it dependent on empirical facts about political culture. In particular, egalitarians have argued that social equality matters to citizens in political relationships in a way analogous to the value of equality in a marriage. In this paper, we show how egalitarian philosophers (...) are committed to psychological premises, and then illustrate how to test the social egalitarian’s empirical claims. Using a nationally representative survey experiment, we find that citizens will sometimes prioritize equality over competing values, but that the weight of social equality diminishes when moving from personal to political cases. These findings raise questions for thinking about how to explain the normative significance of social equality. (shrink)

This essay explores three issues in respect for autonomy that pose unfinished business for the concept. By this, I mean that the dialogue over them is ongoing and essentially unresolved. These are: whether we ought to respect persons or their autonomous choices; the role of relational autonomy; and whether nonhuman animals can be autonomous. In attending to this particular set of unfinished business, I highlight some critical moral work left aside by the concept of respect for autonomy as understood in (...) Beauchamp and Childress’ Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Specifically, while significant pragmatic traction is gained by the authors’ focus on autonomous choice, carving such a focus out from the broader questions of moral respect and the autonomy of the person leaves aside a number of questions that we might have thought a view about respect for autonomy in biomedicine ought to answer. These include: How should physicians respond when autonomous patients make decisions that appear nonautonomous? What is the impact of the view that autonomy is “relational” for cross-cultural differences in how autonomy is respected? If chimpanzees can be autonomous, what does that mean for how they should be treated? (shrink)

The author recounts and reflects on the experience of building and teaching a course designed to show students the relevance of philosophy to their daily lives. For a course consisting mostly of students who were women, many of whom were non-traditional students, the author attempted to avoid an excessively arid or abstract presentation of philosophical material. To this end, the selected course themes were friendship, romantic love, and obligations of grown children to their parents. The author discusses, defends, and critiques (...) several trade-offs that resulted from this course’s unique structure: an explicitly non-adversarial approach to pedagogy was helpful and perhaps necessary, but also very demanding of both students and teacher; students selected and developed their own important philosophical questions to research and write a term paper on, but the course did not cover as much material as was desired; students reflected a deep personal attachment to the material and the experience of studying it, but this made evaluation of their work difficult. The author urges professional philosophers to think seriously on the role of philosophy in an undergraduate education and ends this paper with a pedagogical dilemma that philosophers face arising from their position on the emotion/intellect dichotomy. Included is a course outline. (shrink)

The paper gives an examination of the concepts of person and consciousness, as well as their interdependence. In the author's view the interpenetration of person and consciousness is limited, the rest remaining in unconsciousness. The full coincidence of person and consciousness means at once the transcendence of the person, often conceived of as individual. Therefore, the author argues, the future of personalism lies in the spiritual development of person, aiming at the creation of pneuma.

This paper sets out to explore apparent contradictions between claims or assumptions to the effect that: (i) teaching is a profession; (ii) good teaching involves the cultivation of positive personal relationships with pupils; (iii) professional relationships should be of an essentially formal or impersonal nature. It is argued that the very real contradictions to which teaching as a professional occupation is prone are a function of fundamental tension between the essentially deontic character of professional principle and regulation, (...) and the inherently 'virtue ethical' nature of teaching as a form of pre-theoretical and non-technical moral association. The paper concludes by identifying and offering some comment on three such areas of tension. (shrink)

Few observers of relationship dynamics would dispute the claim of interdependence theorists that a defining feature of close relationships is the extent to which partners influence each other's thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. However, partners do not behave simply in response to each other's behavior; both partners in a given relationship bring themselves - indeed, their selves - into the relationship as well. Not only are individuals' selves enormously complex and rich in content, but so too are the multitude of (...) personality characteristics, including traits, values, attitudes, motives, and emotions, that contribute to selves' richness. Gaines, Jr provides a major integration of research on personality with research on relationship science, and demonstrates how personality constructs can be readily incorporated into the two most influential theories of close relationships: attachment theory and interdependence theory. This study will be of value to scholars in the fields of close relationships, personality psychology, communication studies, and family studies. (shrink)