Is an act of love a good act?

[Balgus]

Good and Evil would depend on the circumstance.

An act of love can drive someone mad, while at the same time cause someone to do great deeds.

I have read books and seen movies where two best friends would fight over a love. one would get the girl, and the other would be driven to "evil" deeds all in the name of love.

In one case, three princes loved the same girl. The girl loved the second eldest. The youngest prince, loved her so much that he was willing to die with her, rather than see her marry another men.

In this case, is he evil? He killed an innocent girl. But he did it in the name of love. But we almost undoubtedly agree that kiling somone for a selfish reason (and this was) is evil. But it is motivated by love- the essence of good.

 

[Celebrim]

Balgus: All the cases you describe are selfish, and therefore not love.

 

[DonAdam]

I don't think anyone here has tried to differentiate between different kinds of love.

I'll use the Greek terms (no promise on spelling):

eros: erotic love. I think any sensible person would have to admit that this one is up for grabs. Regardless of one's views on sex and marriage, it is clear that acts motivated by this can be downright heinous, like rape or adultery.

I just totally forgot the term for brotherly love. This is the love that exists between friends and siblings. Again, this can go wrong. If my friend is a bloody murderer and I cover up for him...

Then there is agape, or the latin charitas, or the english charity. This was a very infrequently used term until it was commanded by Christians to describe God's love for man. The most concise definition I've ever found satisfactory for day to day human existence (though it fails to capture the theological dimensions) is " to will the good of another." This makes it a kind of love that can be practiced universally, regardless of whether one even knows the other person.
This one is most important because I think it illumines what my answer would be to this question.

I'll try to avoid making "religious arguments," and just give an example from Catholic interpretation of Paul's three fundamental theological virtues, faith, hope, and charity. All three represent a response to God's saving initiative, but charity is the only one that really contains any morally imperative content, whereas faith and hope are more descriptive (ie, charity says "I should," faith says "This is").
Faith and hope play the role, then, not of getting the believer to do something but rather determining what it is that he should do. They direct the energy of charity. If charity is to will the good of another, faith and hope (esp faith) tell you what that good is.

Going back to the original question, my answer would be this: properly informed, brotherly love or charity always leads to good acts, as I will do what is truly good for the other person.
Eros I would have to do more thinking on, and so I will not as yet venture forth an opinion.

If any part of this post is too religious (I tried to avoid saying yay or nay to any religious arguments, but rather to just give them as example) the moderators are, of course, more than welcome to delete it and I apologize.

 

[Balgus]

Celebrim:
Balgus: All the cases you describe are selfish, and therefore not love.

I understand what you mean, but who can really define what love is. In essence, it is like beauty, and completely dependent on the person who is describing it.

I beleive that a man can love a woman so much that he cannot live without her, and convinces himself that it is better for him to die with her, and thus live with her in eternity in the after life, than to live in agony without her.

I understand your point, that his motives are selfishness, and does not constitue Love, but who can really give such an abstract feeling a concrete definition?

 

[FireLance]

Love, hate, good, evil - all these do not exist in isolation. You cannot simply "love". You must always "love" something.

From that perspective, I define "love" as the desire to actively do "good" to the object of "love". I define "hate" as the desire to actively do "evil" to the object of "hate".

The situation is further complicated by the difference between intentions and actual outcomes. You may want to do "good" or "evil" to something, and actually accomplish the exact opposite.

So, does "good" always result from "love"? Not necessarily - you may want to do "good" but end up doing "evil" instead.

Even if you suceed in doing "good" to the object of your "love", you may have accomplished it by doing "evil" to others.

By doing some kind of averaging out of the "good" and the "evil" caused by your action, it may be possible to label the action as either "good" or "evil". For simplicity, many people tend to use the "greatest good for the greatest number" approach. Hence, killing a monster that would otherwise kill many other people is "good". Some of those who killed the monster may have acted out of "love". Still, wouldn't you say that "evil" has been done to the monster?

 

[Alzrius]

My advice here is to go read the framing fiction from the beginning of each chapter of Ravenloft 3E. Each vignette shows some horrible things being done in the name of love.

The reason I mention these is that, love is a good intention, but good intentions pave the road to hell, as well as the road to heaven. Where you're coming from when performing an act isn't so important as the act itself.

 

[John Crichton]

Since this is a general question I will try and keep my response as general as I can -

I have always believed that love and hate draw from the same pool of emotion. That said, the emotion itself has no good or evil attachment until applied to a situation. Love can be good or evil just as hate can be good or evil. All depends on how it is applied to any given situation. Therefore it is neutral at its core, to me.

 

[barsoomcore]

I voted "no connection" but only because I don't believe there are such things as good or evil.

I dislike morals. Standards, yes, morals, no. I don't shoplift not because (insert breathy Faith-Being-Buffy voice here) "It's wrong." I don't shoplift because it's beneath me. Because I want to treat people's property with respect because that's the kind of guy I want to be.

I believe that to love is the greatest thing we can do. I don't believe there is anything more important than to love. Love everyone. When we love, we free ourselves from pain and suffering. We open ourselves up to beauty and happiness.

Blah blah blah.

Love is an action of its own. It is always the correct response, the healthiest choice, the most humane and respectful action you can take. "Acts of love" is a misnomer, I humbly suggest.

 

[Mangrum]

If not for love, there would be no Ravenloft.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Completely depends on the act for me. Some acts I wouldn't even consider noble and praiseworthy, but might have been done for love. I cannot take an act out of context, so I cannot answer the poll.