Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T22:18:39.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The unique role of the agent within the romantic group

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2016

Aaron Ben-Ze'ev  and
Angelika Krebs
Aaron Ben-Ze'ev
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Haifa, Haifa 3498839, [email protected]://lecturers.haifa.ac.il/en/hcc/abenzeev/Pages/default.aspx#
Angelika Krebs
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Basal, 4058 Basel, Switzerland. [email protected]://philsem.unibas.ch/seminar/personen/krebs
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this commentary, we apply the authors' view to small groups consisting of two people who are in a committed romantic relationship. Our focus is on the circumstances that make it more likely that people will stay within such a group and minimize the chances that they will replace their partner. In our restless society, such ongoing replacement is a pressing issue.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e140
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ben-Ze'ev, A. (2011) The nature and morality of romantic compromises. In: Morality and the emotions, ed. Bagnoli, C., pp. 95–114. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ben-Ze'ev, A. & Goussinsky, R. (2008) In the name of love: Romantic ideology and its victims. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. (1999) Faces of intention. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, H. G. (2004) The reasons for love. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, D. (2007) Stumbling on happiness. Vintage.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. (1989) On social facts. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hawking, D. N. & Booth, A. (2005) Unhappily ever after: Effects of long-term, low-quality marriages on well-being. Social Forces 84:451–71.Google Scholar
Krebs, A. (2014) Between I and Thou – On the dialogical nature of love. In: Love and its objects, ed. Maurer, C., Milligan, T. & Pacovská, K., pp. 7–24. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Krebs, A. (2015) Zwischen Ich und Du. Eine dialogische Philosophie der Liebe. Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Robbins, T. (2003). Jitterbug perfume. Bantam.Google Scholar
Schnarch, D. (1997) Passionate marriage: Love, sex, and intimacy in emotionally committed relationships. Norton.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1990) Collective intentions and actions. In: Intentions in communication, ed. Cohen, P., Morgan, J. & Pollack, M. E., pp. 401–15. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Waite, L. J. (1995) Does marriage matter? Demography 32:483–507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waite, L. J. (2000) Trends in men's and women's well-being in marriage. In: The ties that bind: Perspectives on marriage and cohabitation, ed. Waite, L., Bachrach, C., Hindin, M., Thomson, E. & Thornton, A., pp. 368–92. Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar