Abstract

Abstract:In this essay, I argue for what I term, following Karen Warren's wording, "a complementary love conception," and advocate for her non-dominating, non-self-centered, complementary love conception, in part, to refute the arrogant "oneness" or fusion ideal of love that is hegemonic and deeply embedded in the Western patriarchal worldview. I attempt to clarify the concept of "oneness" by distinguishing among its distinct types of meaning by drawing upon the work of Phillip J. Ivanhoe who analyzes this understudied, yet important, concept to ethics, and I would add, environmental ethics, as well. Various conceptions of oneness do not apply and, moreover, harm individuals and the environment in contrast to Warren's complementary love conception. Finally, I compare Warren's account of complementary love and Ivanhoe's understanding of oneness to gain insight into the study of the environment and how best to care for it.