Agape and its significance

[R_Daneel]

For a person who does not believe in a Creator, it would mean that things which are found in nature would have no value other than what the end user places to it, which would be to say that human beings have no inherent value above animals, trees, etc.

Yes, so far you are correct. There is no “inherent” value in anything.

If value is tied to sentient minds, then what about the value of individuals with sever mental disabilities?

They don’t value anything like you or I would. Just like animals don’t “value” - since value is an abstract concept. But, be aware: just because there is no “inherent” value, that does not mean that we cannot assign our own values to something. Remember the example of some people finding a huge pile of books. Depending on their sophistication, they may value the thoughts expressed in those books, or they may only value the fact that burning them will produce a pleasant fire to warm themselves.

Does this allow for scientific studies to be conducted on those people whom we know are alive, but we do not perceive to be mentally functioning?

This does not follow at all.

It would be to encourage people to accept the limited info they have as the only thing that matters rather than admitting to one self that there is something that might be outside of their understanding.

And this does not follow either.

Out of curiosity R Daneel, where is it that you actually want this conversation to go? You started with one question, then when you got the answer you wanted, you moved onto the “next exercise.” Please just be upfront and set your actual thesis out there.

Where is the hurry? HelenaMT is so far the only one who expressed agreement. I am trying to take “baby-steps” and focusing on one simple thing at a time, because it happened too many times that posting the “big picture” yielded nothing but sidetracked and derailed posts. I simply try to avoid that.

 

[HelenaMT]

Interesting idea, but I don’t see why it should be so?

There’s not really a why, in my opinion. Sentient beings recognize (and usually empathize with) other sentient minds, therefore, when they recognize the work of another sentient mind in a creation, I believe they assign more value to it. I guess I would consider it a brute fact-that people(or any thinking creature) value what they can empathize with more than what they can’t. And since we both agree that sentient minds are the only ones that assign value, this gives the intent a value.

Maybe the word “artificial” was not a good choice. I wanted to indicate that the “artifical” is something that is not “substantial”. After all a glass of water’s usefulness in a desert is undeniable to quench one’s thirst, but the monetary value assigned to it is artifical.

How do you define substantial? I suppose I would say the monetary value of a glass of water is substantial if the money can be used for another purpose, which might be as substantial as the quenching of thirst. If you have a different concept of substantial, let me know. It seems, though, that once you get into what is substantial vs artificial, you’re back to inherent value (substantial=inherent value ?) , which we both don’t accept.

 

[HelenaMT]

I agree, but I disagree with this statement. As a Catholic, your statement allows for God to be the creator of the value, which I agree with. For a person who does not believe in a Creator, it would mean that things which are found in nature would have no value other than what the end user places to it, which would be to say that human beings have no inherent value above animals, trees, etc. If value is tied to sentient minds, then what about the value of individuals with sever mental disabilities? Does this allow for scientific studies to be conducted on those people whom we know are alive, but we do not perceive to be mentally functioning?

Yes, this can pose problems for those who don’t believe in a creator, and who are willing to take that to it’s ultimate end. Those who don’t seem to function mentally are seen as non-entities and can be disposed of. Likewise, the unborn.

Non-believers generally do place greater value on people than other parts of nature, though, for the very reason I have argued-that sentient minds empathize with other sentient minds, and therefore value them more.

But this is only a very general statement-there are so many exceptions where people begin to place other people on a scale of value based upon the level to which they can empathize-that’s where all the common human divisions come into play. Race, culture, gender, age, level of intelligence, etc. all naturally create division, which I don’t believe can be practically overcome.

When value simply falls into the usefulness to the “end user,” allowing one to only consider things from the limited understanding of the receiver, it is to say that the limited understanding of the receiver is fully legitimate.

Yes, that is correct in my understanding.

It would be to encourage people to accept the limited info they have as the only thing that matters rather than admitting to one self that there is something that might be outside of their understanding. If someone treats another badly, according to this philosophy the recipient should say “that person is a complete jerk” rather than “may be he/she was having a bad day.” It would be a mistake to deny that there is something that exists beyond face value when dealing in the reality of life.

That is an excellent point. It shows how important empathy is, as well as keeping one’s mind open to the possibility that you could be wrong. I guess dealing with the reality of life is often not what takes place when talking philosophy, though

 

[R_Daneel]

There’s not really a why, in my opinion. Sentient beings recognize (and usually empathize with) other sentient minds, therefore, when they recognize the work of another sentient mind in a creation, I believe they assign more value to it. I guess I would consider it a brute fact-that people(or any thinking creature) value what they can empathize with more than what they can’t. And since we both agree that sentient minds are the only ones that assign value, this gives the intent a value.

It is certainly true (and a brute fact) that “similis simili gaudet”. The question is: “where do you draw the line?”. It is obvious that many people people value the “free will” over the “pre-programmed” beneficial behavior - no question about that. My opinion is that this particular “value-judgment” is not rational. The good actions by anyone will stay “good”, no matter what the foundation of such behavior might be.

How do you define substantial? I suppose I would say the monetary value of a glass of water is substantial if the money can be used for another purpose, which might be as substantial as the quenching of thirst. If you have a different concept of substantial, let me know. It seems, though, that once you get into what is substantial vs artificial, you’re back to inherent value (substantial=inherent value ?) , which we both don’t accept.

Yes, it may happen that the monetary value of that glass of water might be of huge importance if the owner of the water happens to “charge” a huge amount for it - maybe even more than the possible recipient has. But that is independent from the beneficial aspect of the water quenching one’s thirst. Yes, we agree that the “inherent value” is nonexistent. But the inherent properties (water quenches thirst) objectively exist.

 

[HelenaMT]

It is certainly true (and a brute fact) that “similis simili gaudet”. The question is: “where do you draw the line?”. It is obvious that many people people value the “free will” over the “pre-programmed” beneficial behavior - no question about that. My opinion is that this particular “value-judgment” is not rational. The good actions by anyone will stay “good”, no matter what the foundation of such behavior might be.

I’m not sure where you want this to go-what is the ultimate point of saying that it is irrational to assign more value to an action born of free will (if it is known) rather than programming? The value judgment is not irrational-it seems to stem from the brute fact we both agree on. When you say good actions will stay good actions, it presupposes that there is one definitive definition of good. Is there? What if an action is good for one but not another?

If you gave me some concrete examples of where the lines might need to be drawn, I’ll play along.

Yes, it may happen that the monetary value of that glass of water might be of huge importance if the owner of the water happens to “charge” a huge amount for it - maybe even more than the possible recipient has. But that is independent from the beneficial aspect of the water quenching one’s thirst. Yes, we agree that the “inherent value” is nonexistent. But the inherent properties (water quenches thirst) objectively exist.

Ok, so? So you are saying now that inherent properties are what is more importan?

 

[anns82]

Tell me how these points do not follow. If there is no inherent value, it all relies on the perception of the individual, then that person is given the opportunity to determine a value of a tree, dog, or another person. You could say the value of the life of that other person is based on his/her own understanding of his/her life, but a person who can not understand the value of their own life (as in a severely mentally disabled person), then what would make them more valuable then a friendly dog? What if you needed a new heart, and the mentally disabled person would be an acceptable donor. Thus, the person is seemingly more valuable to you dead than alive. The person can not present a case to defend him/her self. Why not kill him/her?

Where is the hurry? HelenaMT is so far the only one who expressed agreement. I am trying to take “baby-steps” and focusing on one simple thing at a time, because it happened too many times that posting the “big picture” yielded nothing but sidetracked and derailed posts. I simply try to avoid that.

I do appreciate your concern for staying on topic and being clear in each point you make, but I do not like the approach of trying to lead someone to a particular place rather than being honest about your intentions and then defending your thoughts if need be.

 

[Slowlearner]

It means that something is “good” without moral overtones. In a universe completely devoid of life there is nothing “good” or nothing “bad”. If there is simple life (without a nervous system) then anything that promotes life is “good” or useful, or beneficial; while anything that hinders life is “bad”. If the life has a nervous system, the same applies, but there is more to it. If something evokes a sense of well-being, it is also “good”; if something evokes pain or suffering is bad. That is all. If the life forms also include sentient beings, then the concept of “morally good” and “morally bad” are also applicable.

Why is life good?

Why is suffering bad?

When a lion kills a gazelle to eat and survive, is that bad?

 

[R_Daneel]

I’m not sure where you want this to go-what is the ultimate point of saying that it is irrational to assign more value to an action born of free will (if it is known) rather than programming?

I keep thinking along these lines. Suppose one is struck by an avalanche, and a rescue dog finds him. Would his appreciation for the rescue be less, just because it was performed by a non-volitional (instinct driven) being? I simply cannot believe it. I try to visualize someone in a bad situation, and when someone comes to help, instead of happily accepting it, he starts to question the helper: “did you do this volitionally, or not?”.

When you say good actions will stay good actions, it presupposes that there is one definitive definition of good. Is there? What if an action is good for one but not another?

Now that is a deep problem. Indeed it can happen that something is good (beneficial) for “A”, but due to the nature of the situation, it has a bad (detrimental) effect of “B”. Certainly this problem is worth to analyze. However, I would postpone it until we can fully agree on the simpler question of “volition” vs. “instinctive” behavior - when our attention is not distracted by “outside” effects.

If you gave me some concrete examples of where the lines might need to be drawn, I’ll play along.

Let me stress again: the “robot” I am talking about cannot be differentiated form a “normal” human, except for one feature: “when confronted by a moral dilemma, it will perform what we consider a moral solution, to the best of its knowledge and ability”. Apart from this feature, it has its own freedom to act. Using Asimov’s first law of robotics: “A robot cannot knowingly cause a human being harm, or through inaction knowingly allow a human being to come to harm - to the best of its abilities”. (To those who have read some, but not all of Asimov’s stories, this is not the original law. Asimov later extended it to contain the word “knowingly”.)

As I was thinking more, it came to me that we are all conditioned by our early unbringing to some undefined extent. We are not “determined” by any means, but we all have a “moral compass”, and we usually do not want to go against our better instincts. I know that I am simply “unable” to accept a cashier’s error in my favor. Yes, for a split of a second, it does cross my mind to keep the money, but I find myself “unable” to do so - so strong is my preconditioning. What would be the fundamental difference between being able to contemplate and do the “right thing”, and totally missing the “temptation”?

Ok, so? So you are saying now that inherent properties are what is more important?

There can be many inherent properties, and depending on the situation, some may be more important than others. The water we spoke of can be used to alleviate the thirst, or is can be used to wash oneself. Clearly, in the desert, the two inherent attributes are not equally relevant.

 

[R_Daneel]

I do appreciate your concern for staying on topic and being clear in each point you make, but I do not like the approach of trying to lead someone to a particular place rather than being honest about your intentions and then defending your thoughts if need be.

I am honest about it. Maybe “secretive”… but I am pretty sure that my final aim is obvious. I question the validity of “volition” in the definition of “agape”. I am saying that the “volitional” part is not important.

 

[R_Daneel]

Why is life good?

It is good for the being in question - otherwise he/she/it would discard it. Which clearly happens in those cases when someone chooses suicide. For those humans life feels intolerable.

Why is suffering bad?

All you have to do is expose yourself to pain and suffering and you will know. No animal will choose to get burned (instinctive action) and no human is “really” a masochist - they only want simulated pain and suffering (which is quite normal in sexual plays). Maybe, just maybe, a human can be “crazy” enough to crave real, actual pain, but I don’t think so, and I never heard of anyone like that.

When a lion kills a gazelle to eat and survive, is that bad?

As I said to HelenaMT, this is a complex question, which would detract from the simpler problem we are all currently contemplating.

 

[o_mlly]

First, I would like to make a strong suggestion. Please don’t use the word “love” when you refer to God, use the word “agape” (divine love). The English language, beautiful as it is, does not differentiate between the different types of “love”, and this leads to confusion. It is true, that one of the meanings of “love” is the “divine love”, but this usage is by far not the most prominent one. So, borrowing the Greek word of “agape” we can cut down of the possibility of misunderstandings.

Well, this was just a suggestion, the meat is about to follow. Agape means selfless, benevolent, possibly even sacrifical behavior on behalf of others. The definition also includes that this behavior is volitionally driven, usually phrased as “love is an act of will”.

Now the question is this: “why is the volitional part considered to be important?”. Let’s create a new word: “epaga”, which means selfless, benevolent behavior, which is NOT volitionally driven, say: “programmed”. For the external observer and the recipient of the action it is indistinguishable from “agape”. What does the “volitional” part add to it? In my opinion, nothing. Agape and epaga are the same in their effects. No one should care if the benefactor chose to be as he is or was programmed to be as it is. Do you agree, or not? (And if yes, then why not? )

In the real world, your new word, “epaga,” is, in my opinion, synonymous with love in its purely romantic sense, that is, emanating from sense experience as a passion. Passions may temporarily “program” us but the passions are fleeting.

Agape, on the other hand, emanating from the will informed by the intellect is at least more robust, if not permanent dependent on the development of one’s character and intellect. It is a choice that we “program” ourselves and can be maintained independent of future sensations – good or bad – since agape is independent of them.

Would you rather be ruled by your (or others’) feelings or your (or their) intellect? Would you rather be loved temporarily by chance or permanently by choice?

 

[Slowlearner]

It is good for the being in question - otherwise he/she/it would discard it. Which clearly happens in those cases when someone chooses suicide. For those humans life feels intolerable.

All you have to do is expose yourself to pain and suffering and you will know. No animal will choose to get burned (instinctive action) and no human is “really” a masochist - they only want simulated pain and suffering (which is quite normal in sexual plays). Maybe, just maybe, a human can be “crazy” enough to crave real, actual pain, but I don’t think so, and I never heard of anyone like that.

As I said to HelenaMT, this is a complex question, which would detract from the simpler problem we are all currently contemplating.

Underlying your question regarding love are some basic questions of morality. You did not answer the questions, why is life good and why is suffering bad. Without that threshold understanding, you cannot really have a meaningful conversation about love.

 

[Betterave]

First, I would like to make a strong suggestion. Please don’t use the word “love” when you refer to God, use the word “agape” (divine love). The English language, beautiful as it is, does not differentiate between the different types of “love”, and this leads to confusion. It is true, that one of the meanings of “love” is the “divine love”, but this usage is by far not the most prominent one. So, borrowing the Greek word of “agape” we can cut down of the possibility of misunderstandings.

Well, this was just a suggestion, the meat is about to follow. Agape means selfless, benevolent, possibly even sacrifical behavior on behalf of others. The definition also includes that this behavior is volitionally driven, usually phrased as “love is an act of will”.

Now the question is this: “why is the volitional part considered to be important?”. Let’s create a new word: “epaga”, which means selfless, benevolent behavior, which is NOT volitionally driven, say: “programmed”. For the external observer and the recipient of the action it is indistinguishable from “agape”. What does the “volitional” part add to it? In my opinion, nothing. Agape and epaga are the same in their effects. No one should care if the benefactor chose to be as he is or was programmed to be as it is. Do you agree, or not? (And if yes, then why not? )

Jumping in without having read much: *Non-volitional benevolence *is a contradiction in terms. Epaga is thus impossible (a square-circle) and cannot exist, and thus cannot have effects. Therefore its effects cannot be the same as those of agape.

 

[R_Daneel]

In the real world, your new word, “epaga,” is, in my opinion, synonymous with love in its purely romantic sense, that is, emanating from sense experience as a passion. Passions may temporarily “program” us but the passions are fleeting.

Agape, on the other hand, emanating from the will informed by the intellect is at least more robust, if not permanent dependent on the development of one’s character and intellect. It is a choice that we “program” ourselves and can be maintained independent of future sensations – good or bad – since agape is independent of them.

Would you rather be ruled by your (or others’) feelings or your (or their) intellect? Would you rather be loved temporarily by chance or permanently by choice?

Absolutely not. I went into details and explained it. Please read further.

 

[R_Daneel]

Underlying your question regarding love are some basic questions of morality. You did not answer the questions, why is life good and why is suffering bad. Without that threshold understanding, you cannot really have a meaningful conversation about love.

Ok. Life - in and by itself is neither “good” nor “bad”. In a universe void of life there is no such category as “good” or “bad”. Life is defined as a self-perpetuating process, where complex stimuli evoke complex responses. There are a few features usually associated with life, we don’t need to go into that.

Now, that being said, if there is life, then for life it is good what helps it continue existence, and bad is what hinders its existence. Morality is a different question. If the universe does not contain sentient life, then there is no morality.

Is this what you were asking about?

 

[R_Daneel]

Jumping in without having read much: *Non-volitional benevolence *is a contradiction in terms. Epaga is thus impossible (a square-circle) and cannot exist, and thus cannot have effects. Therefore its effects cannot be the same as those of agape.

Please spare me the semantic games. In the English language these terms happen to have a common root - which is totally and compltely irrelevant. The concept of “treating someone in a good, beneficial fashion” (observe the lack of any reference to volition) is independent from volitional actions. I would suggest that you read the thread, and then make meaningful comments. Your “real” comments will be welcome.

 

[Betterave]

Please spare me the semantic games. In the English language these terms happen to have a common root - which is totally and compltely irrelevant. The concept of “treating someone in a good, beneficial fashion” (observe the lack of any reference to volition) is independent from volitional actions. I would suggest that you read the thread, and then make meaningful comments. Your “real” comments will be welcome.

So in the English language we call guide dogs or rain in a drought or a fire on a cold day benevolent? I’m afraid you are quite mistaken. Etymology is anything but a throw-away in this case. (Similar comments apply to the notion of “treating someone” in a particular way - this notion too has inherent connotations of volition.)

 

[R_Daneel]

So in the English language we call guide dogs or rain in a drought or a fire on a cold day benevolent?

Let’s call them “beneficial” - if that satisfies you.

I’m afraid you are quite mistaken. Etymology is anything but a throw-away in this case. (Similar comments apply to the notion of “treating someone” in a particular way - this notion too has inherent connotations of volition.)

No, it does not. The dolphins that push a drowning person above the water act on a pure instinctive urge. Please read what has been said in the thread. It is quite clear what my position is. There is no need to create a new “sub-thread” to reiterate what I already said before.

 

[Betterave]

Benevolent rain swept over the dusty plain…

I guess that works in a poetic sense, and makes sense from the perspective of divine providence… but I’m *sure *that’s not what you were after!

 

[Betterave]

Let’s call them “beneficial” - if that satisfies you.

If that satisfies me? An ingracious way of putting it, but yes, “beneficial” is obviously better.

No, it does not. The dolphins that push a drowning person above the water act on a pure instinctive urge.

No, it does not? Yes, it does!

Rescue guy1: How did the dolphins treat you?
Almost-drowned guy1: Oh, they were very nice, they treated me very well, very beneficially.
(These two may be robots, or at least rank anthropomorphizers. )

Rescue guy2: *What *happened?
Almost-drowned guy2: The dolphins pushed me up to the surface! It was amazing! I thought I was a goner.
RG2: That is amazing, although dolphins are known to do that kind of thing.
(These two are “normal” human beings.)

And why do you bring up dolphins anyway?

Please read what has been said in the thread. It is quite clear what my position is. There is no need to create a new “sub-thread” to reiterate what I already said before.

Actually I already did - try to stay on topic.