Michael LaBossiere

Michael LaBossiere takes a provocative look at the issues of the day...

One interesting phenomenon is that when a romantic relationship fails, someone will almost inevitably say "it wasn't meant to be." While most people do not use the phrase with any philosophical intent, it actually has interesting metaphysical implications.

If the phrase is taken literally, it seems to express the view that the world is deterministic-or at least relationships are determined. This view could be, for the lack of a better phrase, dubbed "relationship determinism." Put in philosophical terms, it is the view that relationships are not guided by the free choices of the individuals involved, but by the deterministic nature of the universe (or at least the aspects involving relationships). Thus, people do not have any control over how relationships play out-a relationship is either meant to be (and hence is successful) or is not meant to be (and hence fails). Presumably there are also varying degrees of success and failure. Of course, there is still the matter of determining the nature of this alleged determinism.

One possibility is classic determinism of the sort put forth by thinkers such as the Stoics and Thomas Hobbes. On this view, everything that occurs is determined and there is no free choice at all. For Hobbes, there are merely bodies ruled by the deterministic laws of nature and choice is but an illusion. Relationships, being part of everything, are also determined and hence failed relationships were meant to fail in the sense that they could not have succeeded.

Another possibility is predestination. On this sort of view, all events that occur are not the result of the free choice of those involved but are ordained before they occur. To use an analogy, people are like actors in a play that cannot deviate at all from the pre-written script. Not surprisingly, many thinkers take God to be the force that sets the destinies of people. On this view a failed relationship was truly meant to fail-such failure might even be the will of God.

While these views might be disturbing in some ways (such as their denial of human freedom and choice), they do offer a certain advantage when it comes to failed relationships. To be specific, these views free those involved from any meaningful blame or responsibility. Since people cannot do otherwise, the failure of their relationship was not and could not be their fault. Of course, embracing determinism or predestination seems a rather extreme way to dodge responsibility.

For those who would rather not embrace a sweeping form of determinism or predestination, there is more limited option available. This option can be called "incompatibility determinism." On this view, the determinism is limited to the characteristics of the people involved rather than being a feature of the entirety of reality. On this view, while choice might be possible in other areas, the qualities of those involved will determine the outcome of any relationship. No matter what they do, as long as they act in accord with the people they are, the relationship is determined to fail. To use an analogy, when a relationship fails because it was not meant to be, it was like an attempt to mix oil and water. It simply could not have succeeded because of the fundamentally incompatible nature of the entities involved.

As with the more general forms of determinism, this view allows those who were involved in such a failed relationship to avoid accountability for the failure. Since they are who they are, they must necessarily be incompatible and hence the relationship was meant to fail. Thus, no one is responsible for the failure (just as neither the oil nor the water is responsible for their failure to mix).

Unless, of course, people have a degree of freedom in terms of choosing the sort of person they are. In this case, people would not be directly responsible for the failure but they would be indirectly responsible because they choose to be the sort of people who would have a failed relationship. In this case, the necessity of their failure is contingent upon their previous choices. In this case, the failure was not meant to be because things could have been different if those involved had made different choices. Thus, in order for the relationship to truly be such that it was not meant to be, then there can be possibility of free choice anywhere in the process which would seem to mean going back to some form of sweeping determinism-or at least one that covers every aspect of life that has any connection to relationship success or failure.

For those who want to use the phrase yet want to avoid determinism, it is also possible to consider the failure probabilistically. It could be said that the relationship was not meant to be not because it was determined to fail and could not succeed, but that failure was highly probable. Of course, that is not what is intuitively meant by the phrase. It certainly seems to suggest that the relationship was doomed to fail with certainty. Saying "it failed because conditions were such it would probably fail" does not quite have the same impact that is supposed to be conveyed by "it wasn't meant to be." Also, the probabilistic view certainly implies that if different choices had been made, then the relationship could have been a success. In that case, it was not an "it wasn't meant to be" situation but merely a case of "it just didn't happen to work" situation. Thus, the phrase still seems to inevitably lead back to a form of determinism-and this is clearly how it was meant to be.