I began an investigation last time into the existence of unconditional love. We decided that this inquiry is important for the Christian because if it turns out that such love does not exist, then Christianity is foolish; conversely, the atheistic world-view would be threatened if we could find instances of love that are not reducible to biological or social phenomena.
There is undoubtedly much love in the world in certain forms. There are at least three Greek words translated as “love”: agape, philos, and eros. The latter two are related in that they have to do with desire. When one has eros or philos, one has a lack of something, which results in the desire to fulfill that lack. Eros is of course where our word ‘erotic’ comes from, and indeed, eros usually indicates sensual desire. Philos is the other side of the coin: it is characterized by non-physical desire, as this love seeks fulfillment in some way that is not sensual. For example, a philosopher is supposed to love wisdom, and Philadelphia is the city of brotherly love.
To these two words for love, the New Testament adds a third: agape. It is much more difficult to define, but it forms a remarkable contrast with the former two words for love in at least one important aspect. With eros and philos, there is always a desirer fulfilling a desire. Therefore, in the end, these kinds of love are always egoistic, or selfish. I will use this contrast to characterize agape love as altruistic, or focused essentially on others. Many ethicists claim that all human actions are ultimately motivated by eros or philos, and that therefore there is no room for any other type of love. This claim has some initial appeal. Take the example of the kind shopkeeper: one might be tempted to say that his kindness toward the people that come into his store is motivated by agape love, but the skeptic could just say that his kindness really comes from his desire to retain his customers, whether he realizes it or not. Even most friendships can easily be described as motivated by philos, because we desire the company of other people: a person with no friends feels lonely. If we had no desire for fellowship, we would not seek out friends.
It gets worse for the person who wants to believe in agape love: even Jesus seems to praise selfish actions: “But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you” (Matt 5:3-4). Jesus here recommends going out of our way not to let our generosity be seen by people, because we will forfeit a greater heavenly reward. But if we seek a reward, even if it is eternal and not temporal, these kinds of actions are selfish.
These examples show that there is nothing wrong with selfishness in certain contexts. After all, it helps us become good friends, good neighbors, and good co-workers. But can I ever perform an action which doesn’t benefit myself in some way? And if I can’t, can I ever really say that I have purely unselfish or altruistic motivations? And if I never have altruistic motivations, can I insist that there is such a thing as agape love? And if there is no such thing as agape love, doesn’t this put Christianity in an awkward position?
