Is an act of love a good act?

[The Sigil]

I meant both, really. Love can be for one person, for a deity, an organization, or even for people in general. Someone might sacrifice himself to save a community, out of love for the entire community, for instance.

And I'm a girl, which might explain the question.

While this treads on the "no religion discussions" rule, I'll throw it out merely as a hypothetical example:

Suppose that children who die before the age of, say, 8 automatically go to heaven... and as a loving father, I want to ensure that my children make it to heaven... so at age 7, I murder each of my children to allow them automatic entry to heaven. Love motivates me to do "what is best" for my children, and "what is best" for them, in all earnestness, is to guarantee them entry into heaven, right?

In the above example, the action of killing children is motivated by love and a legitimate desire to see them get "the best." Does that make it a good act? Or is the premeditated killing my own helpless and innocent children an evil act?

Obviously, love cannot make an act good. Motivation does not excuse evil actions... "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" and all that.

Is love itself good? Maybe. It depends on the object of affection. If the object of the affection is another sentient being, it is a good thing, as true love promotes placing others above self (which I happen to think is "good"). If the object of affection is a principle or other abstract concept (or a deity), I think it depends on the nature of the thing and the reason for the love - if the love of something is based on it being the means to an end, I think you have to look at the end intended. A paladin might love power, for example - because he is focused only on using that power to bring greater goodness and health and joy to the populace at large (not just paying lip service, but actually using the power he gains to do so to the best of his ability). In this case, the love of power is not the end, but the means to an end - and the end is motivated by a love of others. The "evil necromancer/demonologist" also loves power - but his end is perhaps to impose his own will on others. Both love power, but the paladin loves the people more than the power, while the necromancer loves the power more than the people.

This is getting WAY too complex, so I'll sum it up as succintly as I can... love is good when it is for the right reason. Knowing whether or not it is is like describing salt - you can't relly describe it fully without reverting to "salty" (which doesn't help - it tastes like it tastes? Of course it does!) but once you have experienced it, you know what it is. Having experienced it with my wife and at the birth of each of my kids, I know what it is, but I don't know that language has the words nor mind the conceptualization to fully and effectively convey it with no opportunity for misunderstanding and no lack of descriptive force.

So, love is a fine motivator, but does not justify actions as "good" and love itself is not always good - it depends on what is loved and why. At least as we commonly use the term "love" - again, "love of money, love of power, love of self, etc." are neutral to evil.

If one subscribes to the theory that "evil love" is not really love at all but a manifestation of selfishness, thus narrowly defining love to "love of other sentients and of virtuous principles et al" then I could consider love as "absolute good." I happen to think this is a good way of describing it, but semantically, I have to give in to practicality. I'll call the kind of love mentioned above "charitable love." "Charitable love" is always good.

To further that thought, "evil" people can be motivated by "charitable love." So it is possible for an evil person to do good (and vice versa) - it's the patterns of behavior that lead to "good" and "evil" labels.

*chuckles* Reminds of the My Fair Lady crackback...

"The difference between you [and the Colonel] is that he treats everyone like a queen - and you treat everyone like a flower girl."

"*snort* The question is NOT, 'how does the Colonel treat you [vs how I treat you].' The question is, 'Have you ever seen me treat anyone else better [than I treat you]?'"

This actually does a good job describing my perception of "good" and "evil" characters - "good" characters interact with almost everyone with the goal of lifting, helping, and improving them. By and large, they care about others - not just "a few others I like" but "all others. OTOH, "Evil" characters care only about themselves and possibly "a few others I like" but on the whole, their interactions with others are not motivated by the desire to lift others - they flat out don't care about them. Neutral characters? Well, they don't go out of their way to be nice, but don't go out of their way to be mean, either. They don't intrinsically value others more than self, but then, they don't value self to the exclusion of others, either (include "close friends" in definition of self).

Good -> By and large, values others more than self (does not mean "does not value self.")

Neutral -> By and large, values self more than others, but DOES also value others - hence a big gain for others for a small price for self may be acceptable to a neutral character.

Evil -> Values self, does not value others.

--The Sigil

 

[Angcuru]

The Inquisition was harsh, I'm being critical.

 

[Merlion]

I think it also depends, as far as situations, as to wether its real actual love or percieved/misguided love. Love is NOT just desire...in fact pure love is often thought of as having no element of desire...its about caring for something to an extremely high degree. I think all things being equal and all information being avaible, an act of evil would never knowingly proceed from actual love.
Then theirs also intent. thetefore I tend to think any act motivated by actual love is going to be a good act at the very least on the level of intent.
I cant really see much but good proceeding, knowingly, from an act motivated by actual love. I voted the second option but on reflection I probably should have voted the first.

 

[boothbey]

It's been said repeatedly, and I agree, that the act itself will determine if it is good or evil. Intentions can play a part, but that has to be determined in a case by case basis.

There is the arguement than any act performed for love (be it an individual, organization, whatever) is inherently selfish. Love is a good feeling, and doing something for the object of that love is an even better feeling...and quite addictive.

 

[The Sigil]

The Inquisition was harsh, I'm being critical.

Down, boy. Religious discussion of this timbre is forbidden on the boards (yes, attacking a religious belief in this manner is also "religious talk.") It's insulting to Christians, which will quickly turn this thread religious as they respond to your attacks on their faith, which will quickly get the thread closed.

--The Sigil

 

[randomling]

Hm, this is turning out to be interesting.

I voted acts of love were always good. But I guess that my fault in asking the question was not realizing that love = good and good = love are not the same thing. I certainly think that, in the D&D game, most if not all good acts are motivated by love (or, at least, by altruism, which is a watered-down version of love). However, it's perfectly possible for love to motivated nongood and even evil acts. So we are not talking about a two-way street here.

All things good are done out of love.

But not all things done out of love are good.

Discuss.

 

[bwgwl]

"That which is done out of love always occurs beyond good and evil." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

(that's always been my favorite quote from him.)

i'd say love not only isn't good or evil, it doesn't fit anywhere on the alignment spectrum. it simply doesn't have anything to do with ethics or morality.

as others have said, it can be used as a justification for just about anything.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

posted by The Sigil, from My Fair Lady
"The difference between you [and the Colonel] is that he treats everyone like a queen - and you treat everyone like a flower girl."

"*snort* The question is NOT, 'how does the Colonel treat you [vs how I treat you].' The question is, 'Have you ever seen me treat anyone else better [than I treat you]?'"

And that is the best line in the play, IMHO. Henry Higgins does many things out of love, it could be argued, the least of which is letting Liza go at the end of it (I'm talking about Pygmalion here, the original play. In the muscial, she returns to him...interesting, no?)

Oh, and I voted for for the second option.

 

[Darkness]

Right, please keep possibly inflammatory remarks about real-world religion out of this, folks.

Anyway... Poll entry re-phrased, as per randomling's request.

 

[Celebrim]

I voted that it was a fine motivation, but not automatically good. But, I must confess - I'm just guessing. I do not actually know the answer.

I do know that this is a discussion not best carried out in English (and its even worse in French).

English does not make distinctions between love, so it ends up grouping very disimilar things together. I can say, "I love my wife.", "I love pizza.", and "I love my country." and I mean all sorts of different things.

When I say, "I love pizza." or "I love this game.", I do not actually mean that I love these things. I mean, "This thing makes me feel good." But I certainly do not empathize with the pizza, nor am I likely to go out and die for the love of a good pizza. I don't really care about the pizza that much.

Now, it is possible that something might make me feel so good that I would go out and die for 'the love' of that something. But, I don't think that that is really love, though I suspect that most people can't tell the difference and maybe some people aren't capable of much more than that. This is something like 'the love of heroin', in that it doesn't seem all that healthy to me.

It might be possible that that something that makes me feel good and which is valuable to me is a person or persons, and this might be closer to love and might look alot like love. But I think in the test it wouldn't act very much like love at all. Instead, I think it will end up in a jealous rage, or otherwise groping to get back that loved person under your control. Still, at least here there is an object which can receive love.

Then there is love which people tend to use to mean 'strongly like a person'. This is a whole lot like love, but it is of the more limited sort. Maybe it is love. I don't know. But I think it is more like mutual conveinence or alliance: "Heh, lets do our best to shoulder each other burden's, at least as long as we are going in the same direction and your burden is about as heavy as mine." It is 'love' that is predicated on recipocation of the same. A contractual love. It is a 'good' thing, but it seems to me that it isn't that much of a love if you only love people that love you back.

Then there is love. And I don't even know that it exists, but I'd like to say that when I say "I love my wife.", I really mean it. Love all the way. Love no matter what. Love even if it means letting her go and breaking my heart, if that is what is best for her. Love meaning, "I'm taking your bullet." Love meaning, "Even if you treat me bad, I'm still going to repay you with kindness."

Some people say that is unhealthy. I suppose it can be if you aren't really helping anyone.

But I'm not sure its ever evil.