Beyond Love and Hate

• In Defense of Hate
• What is Hate?
• The Reason for Hate

If there is anything we seem sure of in our society today, it is that hate is a bad thing.

Many things make this clear to me – from terms such as “hate speech” and “hate crime” that denote special categories of deplorable behavior; to slogans such as “love, not hate,” “love conquers hate,” and “hate never wins” that are invoked in protest of these behaviors; to our refusal even to tolerate or engage with ideas or perspectives that fit these categories lest we inadvertently cause them to become legitimized or normalized. So certain are we of this basic principle – that hate in all its forms is simply wrong – I suspect many of us view it as a self-evident truth, on par with such notions as that “all men are created equal.”[1]

Significantly, our condemnations of hate are often accompanied by a celebration and promotion of that which is considered its opposite: love.[2] Love, we tell ourselves time and again, is the cure to all of society’s ills; it is what we need to save ourselves from pain and conflict if only we can spread it wide and practice it well. Often in a single breath, we both condemn hate and champion love as its natural opposition. At times love is declared victor in this contest, with phrases such as “love conquers hate” or, simply, “love wins.” The basic message of all of this seems clear: hate is bad, love is good, we should all love each other rather than hate each other, and love will somehow win in the end.

And, why should it not be so? Isn’t it self-evident that hate is a bad thing? Isn’t love obviously a good thing? Wouldn’t one have to be beyond reason to question these basic truths? In this series I will make the case that these principles – which together I will call a love-not-hate ethic – are not at all self-evident or obvious. Rather, I argue that to hold them as such is reductive, dogmatic, and even dangerous.

Perhaps the most immediately apparent sign that there is something inadequate with a love-not-hate ethic is that it makes our work seem all too easy, that for people to get along everyone just needs to recognize the obvious correctness of this ethical principle and choose to adopt it. Yet, it seems people continue to choose hate, which means this principle is apparently not obvious at all to at least some people. We might think that those who choose this path are just crazy, foolish, or brainwashed. But, consider for a moment the sheer number of people who seem to fit into this group. Consider, too, who some of these people are. For so many of us, these are our friends, our family, our coworkers and neighbors. Are we right to assume (for this is exactly what it is – an assumption) that so many are totally incapable of being reasonable or recognizing something obvious, especially when some of these same people seem quite reasonable, responsible, and even virtuous, in other areas of life? I tend to think otherwise, partly because I happen to have a lot of faith in human intelligence and character, but more importantly because experience shows me that people generally choose to behave the way they do for some reason, or far more often, for multiple interconnected reasons.

This brings me to what I think is the deeper problem with a love-not-hate ethic – that as a matter of course, it reduces complex situations to a simple dichotomy and bypasses careful reflection and consideration of context. The result is that, if employed as an ethical framework (rather than  merely a slogan), it fails to effectively deal with many of the difficult problems that present themselves in the real world, particularly in a society as diverse as ours.[3] To label something “hate” and thereby condemn it is an effective way to make ourselves feel better about avoiding it, but it does nothing to help us understand it or work to end it. Any rhetoric that expresses this sentiment is similarly unhelpful unless it is accompanied by clarifying explanation that answers these crucial questions: what do we mean by “hate” and why should it be considered wrong? We may be tempted to consider the answers to these questions so obvious as not to be worth even addressing, but hopefully I have made it clear why they might not be so obvious at all to those we disagree with. Indeed, I believe a failure to adequately address fundamental questions such as these is at the root of many disagreements over ethics in our society today.

Of the two questions just mentioned, I take the more primary to be that concerning the meaning of the word “hate.” This is simply because it helps to clarify exactly what it is we are talking about before we begin to evaluate it. The meanings associated with “hate” vary from person to person in our society. Most people do not describe themselves as hateful, nor do they believe themselves or their actions to be motivated primarily by hate.[4] Rather, this is almost always a label attached to them by others who disapprove of their behavior. Often, I think, miscommunications such as this are the major sources of conflict in our disagreements. This is not to say that most of our disagreements are merely disagreements over semantics (although some might be). Rather, I believe there are frequently deep differences in both beliefs and values that cause us to come into conflict. However, I do think that unless we first address issues of semantics, we are prevented from ever making any real headway in understanding the differences underlying those conflicts for what they are and addressing them constructively.

This is true not just of “hate,” but of a great many words we tend to use without adequate caution or clarification.[5] As a particularly relevant example, consider our use of “love.” In my view, “love” is perhaps one of the most overused words in the English language. We use it in reference to romance and sexuality, compassion and sacrifice, friendship and affection, as well as fondness and desire. We can speak of love for a spouse or family member, love for a friend, or love for a total stranger. We can also speak of love for a prized possession, a work of art, or even an abstract concept. Each of these denotes a slightly different meaning, and as with all words, the meaning depends to some extent on its context. Even in cases where there is a general agreement of what love is, there can be a range of understandings of how it should be best expressed or practiced. Differences in understanding have much to do with what other sorts of beliefs and values people hold about the world. The way we go about loving someone depends on how we see them and ourselves in relation to each other and the rest of the world – what their purpose is in life and what sorts of things are truly valuable. By failing to recognize this and instead assuming a common understanding of both what love is and how it should be practiced, we are bound to misunderstand others and be misunderstood by them. In the worst cases, we run the risk of convincing ourselves that our opinion or perspective is the only legitimate one, willfully insulating ourselves from those unlike us and isolating them from us as well.[6] Again, this may be an effective way to make ourselves feel better, but it does nothing to help us understand the views of others and certainly is not a good starting point for trying to change those views.

This brings me to what is at stake in all of this, and why I have made the claim that a love-not-hate ethic is not just reductive and dogmatic, but actually dangerous. A significant danger I see here (though not the only one) is that if we continue in our current course we could sacrifice our ability to understand each other and engage in productive dialogue about some of the things that matter most to us all.

Now, I imagine that there are various objections to be raised so far. Perhaps you are of the opinion that you don’t need to understand the views of others, or that you can’t or don’t want to change their views anyway. Or, perhaps you are skeptical that there is much of a difference in the ways people understand things like love and hate. After all, don’t most people share at least a general understanding of what is meant by “love” and “hate,” even if there are differences in the details? And, how much of a practical difference can these details really make? I believe they can make all the difference in the world depending on the circumstances, and over the next couple posts, I plan to provide some evidence for that belief. As for the view that we don’t have much reason to understand or try to change the views of others, in a later post I plan to offer some reasons why it is in our interest both to understand and to be able to influence the views of others in our society.

[1] I am preserving here the original language of the Declaration of Independence with the understanding that many a modern person would take this principle to include both men and women. It is worth noting how “self-evident” truths (or at least their expressions) are quite capable of changing over a relatively short time.

[2] There are those who have argued that the true antithesis or opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. Hate, so the argument goes, holds the hated party to be quite important, to be something worth hating, while indifference holds someone or something to be of no importance whatsoever. Because love entails holding the loved party to be of much importance, indifference constitutes a total lack of love, while hate is actually closer to love in that it places value on the party in question, just with a radically different orientation toward it. I think this argument is worth considering, and it is somewhat relevant to our concerns in this post. Nevertheless, I don’t think it need detract us further, since I don’t believe the argument I am making is dependent on an answer either way.

[3] That is, the U.S., but basically I think this applies to any liberal (freedom of thought, expression, etc.) secular (separation of religion from the state) society. The kind of diversity I am concerned with here is both in terms of perspective and belief. A society which on principle accommodates people with all sorts of different beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality is bound to have problems – which is to say conflicts – between its members.

[4] As is perhaps well known, there are exceptions to this rule, which will be addressed in a later post.

[5] Potentially, this could be true of any word. Other words I have come across that seem to have become particularly confused in this way include “bigotry,” “feminism,” and “racism” to name a few.

[6] There is nothing wrong with being convinced one’s belief or opinion is the only right or true one. What I am critiquing here is the view that one’s belief or opinion is the only legitimate one, in the sense that it is held unquestionably and all incompatible views aren’t even open to consideration. This is the definition of dogmatism.