What is love?
Love is a strong affection carried in one's heart for another.
Is love a good thing?
It can be, especially as the loved person seems to carry favour in the lover's eyes.
Is love beneficial in society?
That depends on the society itself. If a society encourages greed and selfishness then it would be opposed to the development of love within its members. However, if an opposing society were to encourage justice, kindness and extending grace to one's fellows, then love in its entirety would be heavily beneficial.
Is love destructive?
On the contrary, love builds up rather than tears down. If a family, for instance, has love amongst it's members, they share a greater bond and a greater sense of unity than a family held together by hate and mistrust.
Is love important?
That depends, and it varies within each individual. For one, progression in one's career might become more important than pursuing and partaking in love. One might also be more interested in growing their wealth, as opposed to growing in love. Love might be important for a mother as she rears her children. Love might be important for grandparents as they look at the mistakes they made with their children, while hoping to positively impact the next generation.
Considering that only a small portion of positions in society require one to have love, shouldn't it be dismissed entirely? Or, at the very least, relegated to be expected only from those we feel would be naturally inclined to demonstrate it?
It would appear so. However, a loveless society is an unjust, cruel and selfish society. Even with the prevailance of law and order, without love, there would be no internal debate within lawmakers to abuse the same laws they impose upon others. Nor among the led, for they too would come to accept the immorality of their leaders, understanding that they would do the same if the roles were reversed.
Can't a loveless society create strict guidelines for it's lawmakers and led to follow, with repercussions set at every turn to deter straying from the moral path?
That can be. However, who would see to it that such guidelines are followed? For example, communist Russia under Joseph Stalin attempted to create a flourishing society without love. Everyone who failed to act as the state dictated was either executed or exiled to Siberia. It left the led in paranoia, and everyone became the spy of everyone else.
Can't capitalist states flourish without love? The case of communist Russia is an extreme one.
They can. However, with the elimination of a state ideology, the shift turns towards growing one's personal wealth, sometimes with the inclusion of "at whatever cost". The prevailance of exploitation of the poor, unequal laws and taxation systems favouring the rich naturally flow from such societies.
What if a counterbalance is implemented? Laws that protect consumers, workers, the poor and the rule of law. What if some states adopt measures of social welfare, ensuring that every citizen benefits in some financial way from the state?
That is very good. But not all states can implement such measures. The ones that do so, take on incredible debt in order to account for both state and citizen growth. It can be argued that it requires love on the part of the law maker to empathise with the poorest members in society. Why else would the state create social welfare if not out of love?
What if the state were compelled by, for example, a world governing body?
Then that world governing body would be acting out of love, which shows it's importance in society.
