Thursday, February 14, 2013
Agape and Violence?
The first question Timothy Jackson asks himself in Chapter Three ("Christian Love and Political Violence") of his book The Priority of Love is the following: How, if at all, may agape combat unjustifiable forms of violence, especially political violence? The second question he asks is: Does agape itself ever act violently? These are both ancient religious ethical questions and ones that still preoccupy contemporary conversations. I realize that they are both somewhat abstract, but I would like to see you respond to each and to do so as creatively and as thoughtfully as you can (hence why I only assigned one blogpost for HW tonight). Please use AT LEAST TWO PARAGRAPHS OF ABOUT SEVEN SENTENCES to respond to this prompt.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Whenever I consider the implementation of "agape" in the real world, I can't help but think of the Utilitarians' "greatest good for the greatest number" maxim. I contemplate situations in which a relatively moderate, brief violence may prevent destructive, extended violence. Although I was skeptical of consequentialist arguments in class the other day that a preemptive strike ALWAYS leads to more net violence ultimately, I find the "spiral of retaliation" described by Ramsey--and, one notes, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.--considerably more convincing. However, Jackson's observation that a violent strike (he uses the example of D-Day) can bring "good consequences" reminds me why my descriptive realist views prevailed initially. Jackson appropriately notes the most frequently cited, most distinctly Christian evidence that agapic love rules out all violence: it "is incompatible with the life and lessons of Jesus Christ as related in Scripture" (121). We addressed this briefly in class, in the context of realistic pacifism (with or without Eva's Jesus), but I want to take another look at it herein because I find this reason more problematic yet SIGNIFICANTLY more persuasive.
ReplyDeleteExplicit in one lecture this week was that a true pacifist would allow his or her country to be bombed six ways from Sunday before contemplating any kind of violent retaliation. I concur that this ethic is truly, authentically Christian, but I hesitate to advocate the implementation thereof for our secular country, only in part because of its religious roots. I think the obvious consequence of doing so would be that non-Christians could potentially DIE to protect Christian values. I propose a situation in which the United States radically decides to cease weapon production and close down all branches of the military, in order to better recognize "the life and lessons of Jesus Christ" as a nation. As sensitive as we've been to religious marginalization in this class, I should think that even a single death on American soil in the name of Christian passivity should be condemned at all costs. Normatively, I fantasize about a world in which we could lay down our arms and live in trust-based harmony rather than power-based coexistence. Descriptively, however, I worry not only about skeptical non-Christian--and, to an extent, Christian--reactions to turn-the-other-cheek foreign diplomacy, but also the possibility of volunteered protection from other countries in what would appear to be a moment of confusion or insanity for the United States. I remain confident that the most Christian of countries would act violently on the USA's behalf without regard for agape if the we were under attack.
If you're having trouble picturing this, think about the scene in "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" when he hesitates, on principle, to hit the "bi-furious" girl. What happens? Ramona fights her for him.
Timothy Jackson asks, “How, if at all, may agape combat unjustifiable forms of violence, especially political violence?” First, let me define Jackson’s view of agape. He says, “Agape is unconditional willing of the good for the other, equal regard for the well- being of the other, and passionate service open to self sacrifice.” Jackson’s definitions are he states that agape upholds the love for others, but sometimes needs violence to do, IF that person is harming others. The healing process will include love. He also says that punishment is love’s justice. I do agree with Jackson’s view that in order to achieve agape sometimes violence has to take place. For example, if a man was a murderer and used love as a healing process to achieve agape, this is combating agape. (←Does that make any sense??) This however, is the only example of combating agape I can think of. I think religion can play a big role in overcoming violent actions. Whether one believe in Christ, Hashem, or Muhammad, looking up to a higher power can sometimes lead one to good.
ReplyDeleteTimothy Jackson also asks, “Does agape itself ever act violently?” I have thought about this answer for a while, and can’t seem to find a right answer for it. Can one have “unconditional willing of the good,” and act violently. Don’t these ideas counteract each other? I guess one can “try” to help one’s well being by using force, but people have different notions of “helping.” One can say that the only way to help someone is by physical or mental violence. I agree with my previous statement if that one person is mentally or physically incapable of realizing their mistakes.?? Is it moral to be “helping one” by using force? I mean, you are helping one.
One of Jackson’s definitions of agape is “neighborly love”. If this is the case, then political violence, such as between the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, defies this basic definition of the term. Therefore, one of the primary ways in which agape can oppose violence is by promoting neighborly love, or just plain old LOVE. With or without Jesus. I know it sounds unrealistically optimistic and not practical, but I really do think that it should be intuitive to love each other, even if only as neighbors. If everyone followed through with agape (I’m assuming agape doesn’t have a religious connotation, so keep that in mind), they would help out their neighbors, and malicious intent/actions wouldn’t exist.
ReplyDeleteI think that my version of agape doesn’t act violently, but the version described by Jackson could, especially his points on “the participation in the very life of God”. Assuming he is referring to G-d God, and not Jesus God, living by God’s example can get pretty violent. For example, in the Old Testament God commands the Israelites to conquer lands, and punishes them (rather harshly) for some trivial things, such as hitting a rock instead of talking to it. If we are living in this example, then agape definitely accounts for violence. Even though God supposedly loves the Israelites, and even considers them “His chose people”, he acts violently to them.
The two questions Jackson asks himself are most definitely abstract and can certainly take different forms of meaning for each person who hears them. Jacksons questions both need his proper definition of agape in order for an answer. He defines agape as, “unconditional willing of the good for the other, equal regard for the well- being of the other, and passionate service open to self sacrifice." Agape can combat unjustifiable forms of violence (agression as we later defined it in class), especially political violence by promoting kinship and spreading love throughout the community. Where there is love, I believe, there is a need for " passionate service open to self sacrifice." If there is this passion and compassion there should be less violence. Perhaps in regard to politics this can take the form of finding a middle ground between two opposing opinions.
ReplyDeleteJacksons second question "does agape ever act violently?" struck a chord in me. I myself have a very personal outlook on this issue. I think agape can act violently in forms of abuse and (to tie it in to class) genocide. But this form of "agape" if you can call it that, surely has a definition far from what Jackson earlier defined it as. In the case of Jacksons definition, I don't think it can act violently. His definition registers as very pure to me. He believes there is a sense of "unconditional willing of good for the other" and "passionate service open to self sacrifice" which, to me, implies that violence is not a factor into "true" agape therefore, it cannot at violently.
I am going to use the definition of agape as an all encompassing love for every other human being. Perhaps motivated by God, but let's say it's also possibly not. Assuming every person lived by agape or had agape or however you might word that, then I do think it could combat violence, because your love for others would keep you from hurting them. If everyone loved each other unconditionally, we would have no reason to hurt each other. It would almost be pacifism, but different, because rather than staying nonviolent because of our morals, we would just have no reason to be violent. However, as the world is currently, I don't know that agape could help combat violence because not enough people have it. Too many people are motivated by things other than love, especially politically, which implies some sort of pressure from lots of other sources with ideas about what exactly should be done. I think it's difficult for us to use agape as something that is going to keep violence away, or to believe that somehow God will intervene because he loves us, but I also think that the other issue with agape is the dilemma that many of the thinkers we have read about have considered. If you love someone who is getting attacked, but in terms of agape you must also love the person attacking, what, then, can you do? You must find a way to help the person being attacked with hurting the person doing the act of violence, or do nothing at all. But you can't do nothing at all, because then you're not loving either of them. I don't think agape can help us get rid of violence because it puts us in a position similar to that of the moral saint, who is always having to consider what would be best for them to do and what would help the largest number of people that he has no time to actually do anything.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you can have love and violence. I don't think love can leave nonviolence behind, as Ramsey said. We leave love behind. I think love can have moments of passion where accidents occur - for example, we're reading Wuthering Heights in lit. and at one point Heathcliff and Cathy are just SO. IN. LOVE. that she tears some of his hair out and he bruises her because he holds her so tightly. Granted, they have an incredibly unhealthy relationship, but it was accidental. They were caught up. Using the definition we used earlier in class, violence implies the intention to harm someone. I don't believe you can truly love someone and harm them, regardless of how just it is. In that moment, you have left your love behind. Perhaps you loved them before, and perhaps you love them after, but violence does not come from love. It comes from the absence of love.
I understand that the idea of using agape violently contradicts what the foundations of agape are. It may appear paradoxical that one attempts to create love by using violence but I do believe that it might be require in some cases. First, addressing the first question, to my understanding, I believe that agape can and should combat unjustifiable acts of violence. Moreover, as it often does, this would involve, potentially, using a milder type of violence to overpower the other act of violence. I completely agree that violence can and often generates more violence but I also believe that there are certain forms of violence that require immediate eradication. Acts such as rape, genocide and torture are inhumane are require action, even if said action involves violence.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the second question, yes, I do believe that agape can and is uses as an act of violence. I agree with Noa in the point that this does appear to contradict. How can love act in a violent way? It is hard to conclude an argument that would not contradict itself when both core concepts are opposite by nature. I would attempt to argue that if a Christian, or any other person for that matter, were to attempt to follow a near-saint model, like Jesus for the sake of the argument, it is crucial that two points be taken into consideration; 1) that we must act as one who is saint-like, in not a religious aspect necessarily, meaning attempt to do ‘good’ and 2) it is necessary that one seeks to preserve the wellness of those in need and that force may sometimes be require. As paradoxical as it may appear, one who claims to want peace cannot stand aside and watch those in need suffer because violence is not permitted.
In class we defined agape, as "neighborly love" or "all in-compassing love," and with these definitions I think it is quite obvious that agape should try and can combat violence. In the general sense agape in the first place should somewhat combat violence since it does imply a love for everyone and everything. Agape has the ability, I believe, to help a person see the correct moral choices, such as choosing non-violence and in doing so it helps to fight violence in the world. I think agape could also end up causing violence by people trying to protect their loved ones, but I think that for the most part agape is able to prevent and fight violence. I think that it is much harder to prevent political violence, considering that political violence is so much more messy than Jackson's term of regular violence. Agape can prevent political violence somewhat just because of what it does and how it causes people to show love to everyone, but if political violence starts despite agape I don't think agape can really stop or combat the violence very well considering it is usually between two different parties.
ReplyDeleteI thought Jackson's second question, about whether agape can and ever act violently, was very interesting and thought provoking. I believe that agape can act violently as I slightly mentioned in the previous paragraph. I think that agape can act violently, because as Ramsey believed, I believe that love can cloud people's vision of what is just and what isn't. If one of your loved ones is being or attacked or attacking someone you're almost always going to end up taking their side because you do indeed love them and if you believe you're protecting your loved ones then you may act in violence because of this love you have for them. I believe that the idea and concept of agape can't be violent, but I do believe that it can very easily cause violence in the world.
The all encompassing form of love, agape, should combat aggression and political violence in that it in itself is the most important form of religious and moral love. Loving one's neighbor is the most important task in love of one's fellow human being.If agape "fought" political violence in every instance, there would be no ethnic cleansing or genocides (which did and do occur). Agape has the ability to help people see a more moral sense of love and existence but not every person has gotten to the point of understanding how such love can shape justifiable violence. Agape as neighborly love urges people to love and protect his or her brother, which should motivate war when deemed necessary but it's not yet always used as justification.
ReplyDeleteI believe, to answer the second question, that agape can and does act violently. IT can be necessary to be violent toward overly aggressive oppressors or aggressors toward the one you love. In order to protect, you can't just tell someone to stop being mean all the time. Force may be deemed as necessary for said protection. On the flip side, love should not act violently if it is against someone who is perceived to be wrong and unjust in a case of "terrible love". Love can be used violently in that case, but in my opinion, it should NOT be.
Agape is defined as all-encompassing love for all, but I think for that definition to be true a high degree of objectivity must be taken into account. You must love everyone, which means you can’t love any one person more than the random stranger you meet on the street. I think that if you achieve this true unconditional and unwavering love, then it can combat violence. If you love everyone to the highest degree, then you wouldn’t fight someone for harming your family or friends, anymore than you would fight your family for harming a complete stranger. You would love the stranger as much as your family, and harming them would be equal. I think agape in the truest sense restricts all forms of violence, and promotes true forgiveness. You can forgive many things from someone you love.
ReplyDeleteAgape promotes a passivity that makes me uneasy. The truth is some people deserve love, and some people don’t. Some people are kind and brave, and some people kill others for money and power. To say we should treat these people equally just doesn’t make sense to me. I’m not saying that any one person has the right to judge whether someone deserves love or not, but I do believe that it is human nature to try to make those decisions. We need to be able to distinguish right from wrong and we need to be able to love those who are kind to us, and who make us laugh, and who we see as good people. In the case of a war, we need to be able to pick a side. We need to be able to choose who to protect. Otherwise we are just standing by, separate from the violence surrounding us. We may feel sad, that those we love are getting injured, but that feeling would not translate into action, doing nothing to help anyone, though you claim to love them both. If you love everyone equally, I’m not sure is it possible to truly love anyone, and I think standing by while violence occurs is the same as if you created the violence yourself.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo me it seems that agape combats any sort of violence at all. The idea of unconditional love for every person is enacted through an aversion to violent action, even towards evil people. Because of the fact that agape considers all forms of violence to be unjustifiable, even in resistance against a violent aggressor, it combats violence with non-action. According to agape a response to violence should be forgiveness and love. This way you may spread the ideal of a loving society. In a way it makes sense that people who practice agape would try to stop violence with the exact opposite, because it would seem that responding to violence with more violence will only perpetuate human suffering. I personally disagree with this belief. The flaw here is that I don't believe you can stop violence and evil by simply doing nothing.
ReplyDeleteAgape cannot act violently. The whole idea of it seems to be to avoid violence in every way. According to agape, as we talked about in class, love and violence cannot coincide. In fact they are near opposites. One way that agape can lead to violence is by influencing people not to take action against violence. While it is never the source of the violence, agape can be part of the reason why violence is allowed to spread. But, even though agape may fail to stop violence, it will not act violently.
WE defined agape as the "neighborly' love and I think this is a correct definition. I Also agree with a lot of people on the comments that say that. Agape combats any violence because you can look at it in two ways. Something that is cruel or something that is doing to help you. You want to be a society that can be relied upon and this is something that would show a loving society. Like Ciaran said, I don't think it is possible to stop violence by not doing anything. But the problem with my argument is that history shows that it can be done. You can stop violence by practicing non violence that Gandhi practiced. I know that this is not the subject that relates a lot to this, but here is an example of non violence stopping violence. I believe the more you fight back, the larger the flame gets, and when it gets too big, you get burned.
ReplyDeleteThe whole point of agape is to be non violent but I do agree with the statement that Ciaran makes above. I believe that love and violence can't coincide. I however do not agree with his statement about agape leading to violence in that sense. I believe that sometimes, agape may lead to violence, but not for the reason of not taking action. I believe that true love for someone can help them if you act violently. It's like the line tough love.. You know your parents love you, but that moment when they do something that isn't to your benefit or doing something to hurt you or scream at you, that is tough love. Agape is the love that will stop violence, but I don't think that it will be violent.
Agape is something that in all likeliness, was created by man. If you look at it from that perspective, man created an exception for all of their wrongdoings. In this perspective, I would take a gander that gape is not something that can be used to justify violent acts. The idea that violence is something that is required to create harmony is null and void. The only thing that is required to create perfect harmony, is a willing to cooperate. In other words, agape by itself would work perfectly fin in creating harmony. When Agape is used as a sort of scapegoat, then it seems completely irrational. Acts of violence, whether sanctioned, or random, fall into a special category. A category of taboo offenses.
ReplyDeleteAs I spend more and more time on these questions, I’m finding I don’t really have one straight answer to them. I think it’s difficult to approach agape because it’s such an impossible ideal, and what it should it be able to do—combat violence—seems counterintuitive to its very existence. Agape doesn’t fight: it responds. And the key to agape is that it never changes its response: in all situations, agape responds with love and forgiveness to those involved. But violence is like a disease, and you can’t cure it by holding a person’s hand and letting him cry on your shoulder while he’s repeatedly stabbed. Maybe it’s like a long-term versus short-term type of effect, but in my opinion, agape shouldn’t have a time frame before it starts working. So, agape’s kind of like a jip in that it should be able to help but it doesn’t seem to work fast enough. The Bible throws me for a loop here, too. Jesus practices agape, and through it he’s able to combat all kinds of unjustifiable violence. But then you get to the modern world and look at the Red Cross and other relief organizations and while yes, they do a lot of good, I don’t see terrorists surrendering their weapons any time soon. To be fair, one could say nobody in the modern world truly practices agape like Jesus did. But that’s still kind of a cheap way out, so I think agape’s also confusing because it seems to have a quantity, not quality qualifier. Or, again, maybe the quality’s just not there yet.
ReplyDeleteAs far as acting violently…the type of agape I’m addressing would not act violently. But Shelby makes several good points in defending why her agape would act violently, so I guess that brings me back to my first question. Obviously, both of these questions are a bit too intertwined. If agape could combat violence, there would be no need for it to act violently. But because violence still exists even while agape (in my opinion) exists, agape must act violently. As my definition stands, though, agape can’t be associated with terrible love. On a last note, Rachel threw me for a loop with her comment about agape being flawed because humans need to be able to pick a side in a war. It might be human nature to want to pick a side, but that doesn’t mean our nature is moral. It’s also human nature to classify by race and gender and age and then judge the hell out of each category; but that practice suggests a human flaw, not a human advantage, and in my opinion it’s one we must try to stop as much as possible if we are ever to be morally correct beings.