1.5.9.1 Love Alone is Not Enough

Version 1.0 October 2022                             (Previous Version)

Some people, perhaps especially Christians, suggest that if we are primarily motivated by Love as the predominant guideline for our behaviour, then we will treat other people fairly and share our resources with the needy and so on.  As a theoretical idea, viewed superficially, without reference to reality, this seems like a fine idea.  But if we look at what actually happens, things are more complex and reality is different to the expectation. 

●   Some say (seriously) that the poor and needy need tough love, that making life too easy will lead to idleness and allow the poor to be led astray.  (Whereas for the elites, non-work time allows us to indulge in refined cultural pursuits rather than leading to moral degradation.)  So we should let the poor suffer, because this will motivate them to work harder, live more frugally and behave in a more disciplined and moral way. 

●   Many think that the poor and needy have a choice whether or not to be that way.  They chose to leave school early, or spend too much on alcohol or other drugs, or simply don't work hard enough.  Some think that the bad choices were made in previous lives rather than this one, the doctrine of Karma, so they think the world is just, and the apparent unfairness is due to karma, and past lives.  In this case there is no need for a loving on-looker to take action, because this is the way the world should be for people to learn how to live better.

●   Some say that the poor and needy have no choice and can do little on their own, so the loving response is to supply them with free goods and services to alleviate their suffering. 

*    But the aid recipients are often expected to respond appropriately, with gratitude, changes in  behaviour, and sometimes even a complete change of lifestyle.  (Consider European Christian missionaries in colonial times converting indigenes in the Americas, Africa and Australia by forcing them into mission stations, banning indigenous dress, language, customs and religion.) 

*    The donors may have no real respect for the recipients in this so called loving response.  The goods and services delivered may be withdrawn, eg when the funding runs out or another crisis takes priority.  The poor and needy have no entitlements under the Love Alone approach.

*    And others who see goods and services being provided to those who they think don't deserve them are likely to feel it is unfair and be resentful.  They may rebel, try to steal the goods and services for themselves, or stop trying to look after themselves so they can get stuff for free. 

*    We can still justify providing goods and services to the poor, but doing it on the basis of Love Alone is not the best policy.  We need to take a wider set of values into account.

 ●  Closer to home, within families and small communities, some of us are loved more or less than others, and we ourselves love some people very much and others not much at all.  At a local level, love is tied to visceral emotions and consequent feelings mediated by emotions such as lust, greed, disgust and envy.  We must avoid excessive controlling behaviour on the one hand and excessive permissiveness on the other.  On its own, as a moral guideline, Love Alone is prone to degenerate to favouritism, or more or less random acts of kindness, rather than result in  principled outcomes.

It seems that the needy cannot depend upon the love of others, or how they show their love.

Acknowledging this, the advocates for Love Alone say that these problems arise because of our selfish natures, or because our love is not strong enough, or that our love has not been sufficiently informed.  In REALigion, we address these failings of Love Alone.  We say other criteria must be considered in the decision making process when we are making ethical decisions.