Dear Gianna

Q: "Last month I lost my grandfather, whom I loved deeply. The loss was incredibly hard for me, almost unbearable. The same night I called my boyfriend, who was supportive on the phone, but told me he would see me in three days like we had planned because he had already agreed to go to a football game with his friends. I tried asking him to come to see me that same night, as I needed support. Still, he said that while he felt really sorry for me, there wasn't anything he could do to make it better, and he would be with me in a few days, anyway. I can't get over the disappointment; he wasn't there when I needed him most. Some of my friends think that what he did was out of order, others that he didn't do anything wrong because the pain was mine and I have to be independent in dealing with it. I am torn; I don't understand if I am overreacting or if he is unsupportive."

A: I am deeply sorry for your loss, and I hope you're coping. I agree with your friends who say he doesn't have a duty to be present the night you lose your grandfather. No one has an obligation to care for us or even do anything, contrary to what Emmanuel Kant would say. As I stated many times, I also believe that each couple should set their own rules and that nothing is inherently right or wrong as long as both (or all) the participants are happy.

But none of this has anything to do with duty. The reason why I am appalled that he left you for a football game is not because of a general rule. I am appalled because you explicitly said that you needed his support in a time of sorrow, and he denied it.

To explain why I think I would feel like you, I will use a book by Robert Nozick called "The Examined Life" where the Philosopher analyses the nature of the love bond.

In the "Love Bond" chapter Nozick describes infatuation as an intense state in which we continuously think of the other person: we want to touch them and be together, write them poetry and feel joy when gazing into their eyes.

However, infatuation has to transform into continuing romantic love, or it will disappear. Romantic love, the stage after infatuation, feels as if the two individuals have formed a new entity that the Philosopher calls a "we". In this "we" the two people can still be physically separated, for example, be distant from each other. And they can have different preferences, enjoy different things, and have different ideas on a subject.

So what constitutes this new identity called a "we"? Nozick says that it is, firstly, that our well-being is tied to that of the person we love. Love puts us at risk; if something bad happens to the one we love, something bad happens to us. This doesn't mean that we feel sorry for what happened to them; it means that we perceive it as if it happened to us as much as to them. Someone who loves us, then, will help us with care and comfort, and by helping us maintain our well-being, they maintain their own.

Also, people who form a "we" limit their decision-making power, as some decisions cannot be made alone.

For example, the two people in the couple will decide where to live, whether to have children or where to travel. We transfer some of our rights to make decisions into a joint pool. And we don't mind that since these decisions affect both people's well-being, and we desire the well-being of the person we love (and they desire ours). Of course, in this "we", the two people maintain an individual identity.

Intimate bonds, though, change the boundaries of the self. One thing that defines a love relationship is the particular ways the two lovers are good to each other.

Maybe now you understand better why I was surprised by your boyfriend's choice to go to a football game while you were hurting.

Because in the "we" that you formed, your pain should be his pain too. Ensuring you feel better by comforting you should make him feel better too. Another thing that Nozick adds is that not everything the loved person wants affects us, but only when their well-being is at stake. So, if you want to go shopping and he wants to go to the football game, separate. These are both relatively futile preferences; one should not prevail over the other. He has as much of a right to go to a football game as you have to go shopping. But on this occasion, it was your well-being that was at stake. So I am struggling to understand how your pain does not affect someone who loves you. Is it love for you and only infatuation for him? In my opinion, you should have a conversation. There's no need to accuse him or point fingers. But you must understand if you are on the same page in this relationship. Has the love developed enough to form a "we"? If not, is there the potential for it? Only by discussing it with him will

you have your answers.