It is not easy to act both generally and individually morally, when people are blinded by passion and flourish

of romantic love. That is why someone calls romantic love is a moral issue. Morality differentiate actions into right and wrong, and right actions are constituted by permissible and obligatory (Halwani 20 0, p.!"#. $e should eschew wrong actions, however, can we summarise romantic love is morally prohibited% &ometimes love hurts people when love is selfish or attachment' while sometimes love also brings happiness and support from outside of us. (omantic love is beyond dualism, )ust li*e Halwani (20 0, p."2# states + romantic love is not a basic good...it is not morally suspect either.+ Then, how romantic love connects with right actions% If romantic love is our obligation, morality is uncorrelated. $hereas if romantic love is permissible that people can choose may or may not to underta*e it, morality would intervene in decision ma*ing. +(omantic love is not under our command, which means it is not something we are able to do at will+ (Halwani20 0, p."0#. (omantic love is accidental' people )ust can not control the time, the place and the person that they will fall in love with. ,s a result, we can conclude that romantic love is not obligatory. Therefore, romantic love is neither obligatory nor prohibited' the only probability of romantic love is to be permissible. This appears a -uestion about whether people should underta*e it in their lives. To answer the -uestion, this essay is going to focus on discussing preferential treatment and three main ethical theories.

+,t the most primitive and human level, love begins with the sensual, attractive, and beautiful dimensions+(Morelli 200.#, and then love is going to evolve into bestowal. ,s a result, +love convinces us that we matter to people who matter to us+ (Martin ""/, p.00# and the beloved is being e1ceptionally important. Therefore, 2hman indicates romantic love is preferential3 The fundamental re-uirement of love is to raise the beloved above all others and to give her a privileged status in our life...The fundamental re-uirement of morality in contrast is to treat all persons as having e-ual worth and to )ustify all special treatment of a person by reference to universally valid principles. (2hman, -uoted in Halwani 20 0, p." # 2hman pointed that morality is opposite to preferential treatment of love, does it mean that love is immoral when it involves the preferential treatment% 4referential treatment is not only applied to romantic love, but also can be found in parents5children, friendship, and other intimate relationships. In order to maintain the relationships with their families, friends and lovers, people will contribute e1tra time, money and attention to them. $ithout the notion of preferential treatment, we cannot have friends or lovers, or even our families properly. Hence, Halwani gives morality a choice3 + to accept this fact and monitor it to ensure that the treatment is not e1cessive or at the e1pense of obligations to others, or it will have to as* us to eschew intimate relationship altogether+ (Halwani 20 0, p."2#.

6onse-uentialism is focus on moral result only' a particular action is morally good only if it produces a good result. In another words, conse-uentialism is a result based ethic. 7tilitarianism is a typical e1ample of result based ethic. This says that the morally good choice in a given situation is the one that produces the most happiness. However, 8antian ethics is centre around people9s motives. 8ant claims that any action could be moral only based on the motives are moral. Motive is everything to determine the morality of an action. However, conse-uentialism disregards the motives involved in an action, such as utilitarians, which try to treat the action and the actor separately, and loo* for the most happiness and the least harm for the big picture. :or e1ample, *illing an entirely innocent person, 0 other innocent persons would be saved. ,ccording to utilitarianism, *illing one innocent person is )ustified because it would ma1imise utility, as 0 people saved. $hile 8antian ethics would say it is inherently wrong to murder people, the innocent person cannot be *illed, even though it results in the death of " more people. Through this comparison, +utilitarianism is too demanding...8antian ethics is not as demanding+ (Halwani 20 0, p."/#. Then, whether and 8antian ethics are permissible to underta*e romantic love% :or conse-uentialism, the theory re-uires an agent to act with an eye to treat each person e-ually in order to avoid the issue of favouring loved ones and partiality. Indeed, for the sa*e of ma1imising good states of affairs in a long term, +it might allow for the idea that agent treat loved ones with the usual favouritism on the grounds+ (Halwani 200;, p.";#. 8ant introduces a famous concept is called 6ategorical Imperative, the following description would be focused, +act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end+ (8nat, -outed in Halwani 20 0, p."<#. 6ategorical Imperative re-uires us not to treat our lovers as only a means, and also not to treat others merely as a means. It is not easy to apply 6ategorical Imperative, but it would not mean love is morally prohibited based on 8antian ethics. (omantic love is permissible by 8antian ethics if lovers do not e1cessive or at the e1pense of obligations to others. In addition, 8antian ethics leaves room for the partial and the individual on condition that it is subordinate to general re-uirements of duty (Halwani 200;, p.";#.

=irtue 2thics is concerned with the notion of virtue, which is a trait of character that enables a person to flourish. ,ristotle states that people who is virtuous would e1perience the emotion >at the right times, about the right things, toward the right people, for the right end and in the right way+ (,ristotle, -uoted in Halwani 20 0, p.".#. , virtuous person will behave in a virtuous manner and has all the virtues. ?ut the virtuous person would not show any or all virtues all the time, only the necessary virtues would be used to assist with moral dilemmas unconsciously. To determine whether virtue ethics considers romantic love is permissible, first of all is to convince that romantic love is not

a virtue. This argument is supported by Halwani+s viewpoint, he indicates that +love itself is neither good nor bad, whereas the virtues are e1cellences+ (Halwani 20 0, p.""#. ,nother argument is contributed here3 with or without virtues are not related to good life. If virtues do have some concerns with good life, people who is not romantically in love is not resulting a good life. @bviously, it is not true' people can e1perience good lives without romantic love. The good life is e1isted in both having and not having romantic love. Therefore, virtue ethics agrees romantic love is permissible.

However, the ma)ority of human beings are not virtuous people, even far from it. 4eople cannot behave in a virtuous manner, and they do not have all or any virtues to help them )udging, acting, or feeling rightly with moral dilemmas. In another words, people would not +all feel the right desires, at the right times, toward the right people+ (Halwani 20 0, p. 02#. :urthermore, romantic love is an emotion which has powerful desires, thus, moral monitoring is essential to ensure that people would act morally permissible on such powerful desires.

In conclusion, romantic love and also other intimate relationships are preferential. It is morally permissible if preferential treatment of romantic love is not e1cessive or at the e1pense of duties to others. It is difficult to find that three main ethical theories to strictly deny romantic love are permissible. :inally, romantic love as a powerful emotion, moral monitoring is necessary. Therefore, +when we spea* of romantic love and its successes and failures, a crucial and essential dimension will be a moral one+ (Halwani 200;, p. 0;#.

Reference List

Halwani, ( 20 0, Philosophy of Love, Sex and Marriage, (outledge, Aew Bor* Halwani, ( 200;, Virtuous Liaisons: Care, Love, Sex, and Virtue Ethics, @pen 6ourt, 6hicago, Illinois Martin, M$ ""/, Loves Virtu,7niversity 4ress of 8ansas, Cawrence, 8ansas Morelli, D 200., +Dood Marriage =I3 (omantic Cove 5 The Eouble 2dged &word of Marriage+, retrieved 2 Eecember 20 2, Fhttp3GGwww.orthodo1ytoday.orgGarticles.GMorelli&martMarriage=I.phpH