Agape and its significance

[anns82]

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? )

You can find a parallel in the difference between “agape” and “epaga” in the spousal love vs the unconditional love within a family. We are each born into a relationship of unconditional love for our parents, and they for us, yet each individual feels a different, more intimate love when entering into it through the volition provided by free will. It is why in marriage, the Church asks if the two are entering the covenant through their own free will. Free will was given to us in order to make “agape” possible.

 

[R_Daneel]

There are plenty of outward signs of inward vice. Are you immune to contempt and scorn shown in the expression on a person’s face?

It is only your added assumption that the person’s face will reflect his emotions. It is not necessarily there.

You are the one who is using the term “ontologically good action”, not I. The morality of an action has three aspects: the motive, the means and the end - any of which may be good or evil. I leave you to work out the permutations… only one of which is good in every respect…

Of course I use the term “ontologically good action” - because that is the proper term to describe it. The natural phenomena supporting life are “ontologically good”. This is not identical to the morally good action, which has added criteria. You said, verbatim: “A good deed is not a good deed, regardless of the motivation.” - which means that you only consider a morally good action to be “good”. Your answer does not address the question why is that true.

The point is that the “motivation” is the internal part of the person. It is not detectable from the outside. If the means and the end are both ontologically good, why is the action not good? To put it into simple terms: “what is the added value of the internal motivation?”. For example: dolphins instinctively help a drowning human, by pushing them up so they can breathe. There is no volitional act involved. Newfoundland dogs instinctively will come and rescue people from water. Why do you think that these ontologically good actions are inferior to the volitional acts of a lifeguard?

 

[R_Daneel]

You can find a parallel in the difference between “agape” and “epaga” in the spousal love vs the unconditional love within a family. We are each born into a relationship of unconditional love for our parents, and they for us, yet each individual feels a different, more intimate love when entering into it through the volition provided by free will. It is why in marriage, the Church asks if the two are entering the covenant through their own free will. Free will was given to us in order to make “agape” possible.

Interesting answer. The problem is that both the parent-child and husband-wife relationships are “tainted” by emotions (eros and storge). None of them are “purely” agape. The four kinds of “love” are (in a nutshell):

Philia is love between friends
Eros is the sense of being in love
Storge is affection, love of family
Agape is unconditional love

Now, you say that the “eros” in a spousal love is “better” than the “storge” of the parent-child relationship - because it contains a volitional element. No doubt, they are different, and serve different purposes. There is “agape” included in both relationships. But you say that the “agape” part is not equally “good”? That the “agape” part of a spousal relationship is “superior” over the parental “agape”? Let’s clarify.

 

[Thing]

Originally Posted by Thing
Is a volitional act superior to an instinctive act, then yes.

The question is still: “WHY?”. This is what I am asking.

Why, to whom? To the giver and recipient?

Why is a volitional act of giving money to a derelict on the street superior to an instinctive robot/animal giving money to a derelict on the street?
I would suggest that even a derelict can recognise kindness in a volitional act.
His instinctual dog will pick up stray money and stuff and drop it at his feet, but its not really the same to the derelict, I think.

 

[R_Daneel]

Why, to whom? To the giver and recipient?

Why is a volitional act of giving money to a derelict on the street superior to an instinctive robot/animal giving money to a derelict on the street?
I would suggest that even a derelict can recognise kindness in a volitional act.
His instinctual dog will pick up stray money and stuff and drop it at his feet, but its not really the same to the derelict, I think.

My dear friend. The beggar does not know it. Think outside the box. He only sees a donation. Do you think he cares?

Now, another, this time realistic example. In the army they devised a recognizable robot, which is designed to blow up mines. The robot will be damaged, sometimes destroyed in the event. When the robot is merely damaged, it will be repaired and returned to “duty”. The soldiers get emotionally attached to their companion, they give them names, and take good care of it. When the robot is destoyed, they are sad, sometimes they weep. Obviously they value the service of the robot, even if it is not volitional.

I think this should tell us something profound. The people who are helped do not mind if the help is volitional or not.

There is another aspect to this. If a fellow soldier jumps on the mine to save his peers, very frequently this act will induce a powerful sense of guilt in the survivors. So, I would say that the non-volitional robot’s “sacrifice” is even better than the volitional self-sacrifice of a soldier. Yes, the soldiers will “mourn” the loss of their little robot-dog, but this sorrow is not as psychologically harmful as the guilt. Another thing to ponder, I would say.

 

[Thing]

My dear friend. The beggar does not know it. Think outside the box. He only sees a donation. Do you think he cares?

The beggar does not know one donor is a robot because it looks like a person?
So he assumes it is a person kindly giving a volitional alms offering, and the beggar says ‘God bless you, sir, God, bless you!’

Now, another, this time realistic example. In the army they devised a recognizable robot, which is designed to blow up mines. The robot will be damaged, sometimes destroyed in the event. When the robot is merely damaged, it will be repaired and returned to “duty”. The soldiers get emotionally attached to their companion, they give them names, and take good care of it. When the robot is destoyed, they are sad, sometimes they weep. Obviously they value the service of the robot, even if it is not volitional.

I think thats just a wierd human thing, like the farmer that calls his cows Daisy, etc., etc.

I think this should tell us something profound. The people who are helped do not mind if the help is volitional or not.

But that was not your question. Your question was which was superior.

There is another aspect to this. If a fellow soldier jumps on the mine to save his peers, very frequently this act will induce a powerful sense of guilt in the survivors. So, I would say that the non-volitional robot’s “sacrifice” is even better than the volitional self-sacrifice of a soldier. Yes, the soldiers will “mourn” the loss of their little robot-dog, but this sorrow is not as psychologically harmful as the guilt. Another thing to ponder, I would say.

I’ve always had a slight problem listening to psychiatrists suggesting a sense of guilt to a person when their comrade is killed and they survive. This is not my experience as people are simply sorry to see there friends are no longer around. Suggesting they ought to feel guilty is suggesting that they did something wrong, which clearly is not the case.

 

[R_Daneel]

The beggar does not know one donor is a robot because it looks like a person?
So he assumes it is a person kindly giving a volitional alms offering, and the beggar says ‘God bless you, sir, God, bless you!’

Yes, this is the scenario.

I think thats just a wierd human thing, like the farmer that calls his cows Daisy, etc., etc.

Well, maybe it is weird, but people do anthropomorphize things all the time. Sometimes they even call their pets their “children”. It happens all the time.

But that was not your question. Your question was which was superior.

Right. And the soldiers do not mind to be helped by a non-volitional robot. Which means that they do not consider the volitional aspect important.

I’ve always had a slight problem listening to psychiatrists suggesting a sense of guilt to a person when their comrade is killed and they survive. This is not my experience as people are simply sorry to see there friends are no longer around. Suggesting they ought to feel guilty is suggesting that they did something wrong, which clearly is not the case.

I agree, that they should not feel guilty. But they do. So, in that particular instance (which is not typical) the non-volitional help is better than the other. Of course the soldiers in combat are under very high stress, so their attitude cannot be extrapolated to the rest of us. Still it is important as an indicator.

 

[Thing]

R Daneel:

Originally Posted by Thing
But that was not your question. Your question was which was superior.

Right. And the soldiers do not mind to be helped by a non-volitional robot. Which means that they do not consider the volitional aspect important.

Since your question was, which is superior, and from the view of the recipient. I would have to say the recipient would value much more highly the free volitional offering. If one act is superior to the other then they are assigned values, and the recipient is a witness to the relative value of both acts. Clearly a free act is of superior value than an unfree act.

 

[R_Daneel]

Since your question was, which is superior, and from the view of the recipient. I would have to say the recipient would value much more highly the free volitional offering. If one act is superior to the other then they are assigned values, and the recipient is a witness to the relative value of both acts. Clearly a free act is of superior value than an unfree act.

Yes, I understand your answer, but I do not understand why do you think so. If I were the recipient, I would value both of them equally. Your answer, of course, presupposes that the recipient knows which is the case - and that brings in a subjective factor. My question is a bit different: “objectively speaking, is there a difference between the two acts?”. What does the volitional nature of helping add over and beyond the physical aspect of helping?

 

[anns82]

Interesting answer. The problem is that both the parent-child and husband-wife relationships are “tainted” by emotions (eros and storge). None of them are “purely” agape. The four kinds of “love” are (in a nutshell):

Philia is love between friends
Eros is the sense of being in love
Storge is affection, love of family
Agape is unconditional love

Now, you say that the “eros” in a spousal love is “better” than the “storge” of the parent-child relationship - because it contains a volitional element. No doubt, they are different, and serve different purposes. There is “agape” included in both relationships. But you say that the “agape” part is not equally “good”? That the “agape” part of a spousal relationship is “superior” over the parental “agape”? Let’s clarify.

Yes, that is what I am saying. It is indicative of the personal, intimate relationship God wants to have with us. It may be that you are specifying God’s love for us, rather than man’s love for God, which I did not quite pick up on before, but at the same time I do not believe it changes the explanation.
Approaching the situation as man being made in God’s Image, and the popular statement that “God is Love” (which is a much deeper concept than many realize), the human approach towards love (not to be confused for lust) is indicative to who God is. Love through free will (agape) is in fact, stronger than unconditional love because it encourages the man and woman to leave the comfort of their family as a part of the covenant. This is not to say that every family is this perfect example of unconditional love, but I am saying that even within the happy families, the children leave their parents to cling to their spouse. It is the kind of love that is willing to sacrifice. A parent is often willing to sacrifice everything for the child, but is the child willing to sacrifice everything for the parent? We already know God is willing to fully sacrifice for us through our understanding of Jesus, but we are also called to be willing to sacrifice ourselves for Him. Thus, agape parallels the spousal relationship more-so than unconditional love within a family.
Without the will, the sacrificial aspect is not enacted to the same extent

 

[Thing]

Yes, I understand your answer, but I do not understand why do you think so. If I were the recipient, I would value both of them equally. Your answer, of course, presupposes that the recipient knows which is the case - and that brings in a subjective factor. My question is a bit different: “objectively speaking, is there a difference between the two acts?”. What does the volitional nature of helping add over and beyond the physical aspect of helping?

That would be very subjective, I suspect. If as in your example both people who gave money to the beggar looked like human people even though one was a robot I would say that the beggar would treat both as human people and would feel a different sense of gratitude to a person than to a machine. Indeed, around here, if the beggar knew the person giving him the money was really a machine he would pick up the machine and go off and and keep it as a useful source of money. He would not have any feeling towards the machine but would consider all his lucky days had come at once.
So objectively speaking I would see a beggar being grateful to another human being, if the beggar found out the person with the money was really a machine I would see an ingrate beggar running off with a machine full of money.

 

[R_Daneel]

Yes, that is what I am saying. It is indicative of the personal, intimate relationship God wants to have with us. It may be that you are specifying God’s love for us, rather than man’s love for God, which I did not quite pick up on before, but at the same time I do not believe it changes the explanation.
Approaching the situation as man being made in God’s Image, and the popular statement that “God is Love” (which is a much deeper concept than many realize), the human approach towards love (not to be confused for lust) is indicative to who God is. Love through free will (agape) is in fact, stronger than unconditional love because it encourages the man and woman to leave the comfort of their family as a part of the covenant. This is not to say that every family is this perfect example of unconditional love, but I am saying that even within the happy families, the children leave their parents to cling to their spouse. It is the kind of love that is willing to sacrifice. A parent is often willing to sacrifice everything for the child, but is the child willing to sacrifice everything for the parent? We already know God is willing to fully sacrifice for us through our understanding of Jesus, but we are also called to be willing to sacrifice ourselves for Him. Thus, agape parallels the spousal relationship more-so than unconditional love within a family.
Without the will, the sacrificial aspect is not enacted to the same extent

Another interesting post. Thank you. I am not going to reflect on the theological part, since I don’t accept it, and because it would derail the thread.

Concentrating on the human part only. The parent might sacrifice everything for the children, but also the opposite is possible (though the first one is more frequent). The reason is that by the time the child can meaningfully sacrifice for the parent (a 5 years old cannot make such a decision), the child may already a family of his own, and this bond is stronger.

These sacrifices are both based on the emotions, not a detached “unconditional” love. Entering into a spousal relationship only requires volition when the people want to enter into the legal or official confirmation of that relationship. The occurrence of the emotional part (eros) happens without volition (excluding the pre-arranged marriages, which are purely social contracts, and the spouses will not sacrifice anything for each other). I don’t see any data supporting that the spousal “sacrificies” are more valuable than a blood-related ones. The unconditional and almost instinctive sacrifice of a parent for the children is the closest approximation of “agape” that I can think of. And that is not volitional.

 

[R_Daneel]

That would be very subjective, I suspect. If as in your example both people who gave money to the beggar looked like human people even though one was a robot I would say that the beggar would treat both as human people and would feel a different sense of gratitude to a person than to a machine. Indeed, around here, if the beggar knew the person giving him the money was really a machine he would pick up the machine and go off and and keep it as a useful source of money. He would not have any feeling towards the machine but would consider all his lucky days had come at once.
So objectively speaking I would see a beggar being grateful to another human being, if the beggar found out the person with the money was really a machine I would see an ingrate beggar running off with a machine full of money.

Yes, what you say is logical, under the assumption that the person and the machine can be told apart, and that the machine is not a good approximation of a person. What if they cannot be distinguished, or if the machine (using this term very loosely) is sophisticated enough?

Think about the “machine” as a humaniform robot, which behaves identically to a human, with the exception that “it” must help if “it” sees a valid reason for it. It cannot be fooled into continuous “help”, because it is much more than a money-dispensing gadget. In other words, the “machine” is almost human, except it is the replica of a very good human, who puts the well-being of others in front of his own. But it is not stupid, it cannot be fooled any more than a “real” and smart human could be fooled. (Of course many humans can be fooled.)

 

[Thing]

Yes, what you say is logical, under the assumption that the person and the machine can be told apart, and that the machine is not a good approximation of a person. What if they cannot be distinguished, or if the machine (using this term very loosely) is sophisticated enough?

Think about the “machine” as a humaniform robot, which behaves identically to a human, with the exception that “it” must help if “it” sees a valid reason for it. It cannot be fooled into continuous “help”, because it is much more than a money-dispensing gadget. In other words, the “machine” is almost human, except it is the replica of a very good human, who puts the well-being of others in front of his own. But it is not stupid, it cannot be fooled any more than a “real” and smart human could be fooled. (Of course many humans can be fooled.)

You are basically talking about a bank manager who must approve a loan if there is a valid reason for it.
As opposed to a random stranger giving alms to a beggar by their own volition.

And your question is. Which act is superior?

 

[R_Daneel]

You are basically talking about a bank manager who must approve a loan if there is a valid reason for it.
As opposed to a random stranger giving alms to a beggar by their own volition.

And your question is. Which act is superior?

Not exactly. From your example the “caeteris paribus” is missing. It is next to impossible to compare the two scenarios. because the circumstances are too different. What I am asking pertains to those scenarios, where the only difference is the volitional aspect or the lack of it. You might have formulated your problem as: “the bank manager, who must approve a loan to a very rich person to buy a third yacht and the random stranger whose few dollar volitional donation would save the beggar’s child from starvation”. Obviously we all would find the second problem’s solution “superior”, but it would have nothing to do with the volitional aspect of it.

 

[Thing]

Not exactly. From your example the “caeteris paribus” is missing. It is next to impossible to compare the two scenarios. because the circumstances are too different. What I am asking pertains to those scenarios, where the only difference is the volitional aspect or the lack of it. You might have formulated your problem as: “the bank manager, who must approve a loan to a very rich person to buy a third yacht and the random stranger whose few dollar volitional donation would save the beggar’s child from starvation”. Obviously we all would find the second problem’s solution “superior”, but it would have nothing to do with the volitional aspect of it.

The bank manager who *must *approve a loan *if *there is a valid reason for it, and there is and he does. On his way home he drops twenty dollars into the beggars hat by his own volition.
Which is the superior act?

 

[Thing]

Or the state employee who *must *distribute twenty dollar blankets to the beggars *if *there is a valid reason. And on her way home the state employee drops twenty dollars into the beggars hat by her own volition.
Which act is superior?

 

[anns82]

Another interesting post. Thank you. I am not going to reflect on the theological part, since I don’t accept it, and because it would derail the thread.

Concentrating on the human part only. The parent might sacrifice everything for the children, but also the opposite is possible (though the first one is more frequent). The reason is that by the time the child can meaningfully sacrifice for the parent (a 5 years old cannot make such a decision), the child may already a family of his own, and this bond is stronger.

These sacrifices are both based on the emotions, not a detached “unconditional” love. Entering into a spousal relationship only requires volition when the people want to enter into the legal or official confirmation of that relationship. The occurrence of the emotional part (eros) happens without volition (excluding the pre-arranged marriages, which are purely social contracts, and the spouses will not sacrifice anything for each other). I don’t see any data supporting that the spousal “sacrificies” are more valuable than a blood-related ones. The unconditional and almost instinctive sacrifice of a parent for the children is the closest approximation of “agape” that I can think of. And that is not volitional.

I’m sorry, I am a little confused because you started the thread wanting to discuss the notion of “divine love” and it’s relationship to the will, but you do not want to consider the theological part.

I don’t quite understand your want to detach the emotional element of love, as if emotions can be completely detached from the human experience. I don’t think Love, whether or not it is unconditional, can be described as “detached” because it only occurs within a relationship. I’m not sure if you are hinting more towards emotion in terms of sexual arousal and pleasure, in which case I agree that it can confuse the distinction of love as a response to a deeper understanding of the inherent value of the other, to simply an appreciation of “how the other person makes you feel.” A person who thinks he/she in love simply because of the warm fuzzy feelings is misunderstanding the true nature of love.

The spousal sacrifices can be seen in the lifetime commitment between two people. With their vows, they sacrifice their “I” for “We.” It may seems like semantics, but the amount of sacrifice entailed is dependent on the type of challenges the couple comes across. While there is solidarity within a family, as a child becomes an adult, the focus is on creating a life for his/her self. Thus, the independence of the child is recognized when the dependency no longer exists, and it is sacrificed when someone realizes his/her life is more complete as a part of the other.

 

[tonyrey]

There are plenty of outward signs of inward vice. Are you immune to contempt and scorn shown in the expression on a person’s face?
It is only your added assumption that the person’s face will reflect his emotions. It is not necessarily there.

 

[R_Daneel]

The bank manager who *must *approve a loan *if *there is a valid reason for it, and there is and he does. On his way home he drops twenty dollars into the beggars hat by his own volition.
Which is the superior act?

Still not comparable.

Or the state employee who *must *distribute twenty dollar blankets to the beggars *if *there is a valid reason. And on her way home the state employee drops twenty dollars into the beggars hat by her own volition.
Which act is superior?

No difference. Maybe not both actions are “praiseworthy”, if that is the direction you want to go. But what is “praiseworthy” is a subjective assessment. The objective good is the same.