Agapism is better than utilitarianism

Introduction

Agapism is the morality of “agape veneration”. The only law of agapism is to act as much as possible through and for agape.
And if we don't feel agape, we must try to develop and cultivate our agape, and act as if we had agape.

Agape is a type of love that is unconditional, free and universal. (It differs from other types of love, such as eros love, which is romantic love.)
Agape consists in wishing everyone the best. Not to harbor negative emotions such as hate, resentment, rancor, etc., against them. To celebrate their happiness and deplore their misfortune. To carry them in our heart with kindness, gentleness and tenderness. Etc.

Since agape is unconditional, free and universal, the question of “who should be included in the moral circle?” is easily answered; every sentient being is included, be it a wicked criminal or an animal. We wish the best for every being, due to the unconditional nature of agape.

In this post, I'll show that by taking the law of agape as the only moral law, we can solve some of the problems of utilitarianism; agape implies disobedience to sadism and the primacy of reducing suffering.
I'm also going to show that agapism doesn't imply consenting to everything, letting oneself be stepped on, rejecting necessary violence, sacrificing oneself for anything, etc.

Resemblance with utilitarianism

Agapism can look a little like utilitarianism.

Indeed, since agape is unconditional, unselfish and universal, an agapist must love every being with the same force. There is no preferential treatment, otherwise it wouldn't be agape love (in a sense, agape implies a form of justice, without having to add anything to agapism).

Furthermore, agape involves wishing every being the best; the least suffering and the most happiness.

With these two points, it may seem that agapism is equivalent to utilitarianism; wishing the minimum of suffering and the maximum of happiness for every being, without preferential treatment. But as we shall see, agapism differs from utilitarianism in certain respects.

Disobedience to sadism

We're in a vacuum (no societal consequences).

First situation
A sadistic gang has a thirst for violence and wants to torture an innocent. The gang's thirst for violence is so strong that if they don't torture the innocent, they'll suffer more than the innocent would if he were tortured.
We have a choice: stop the sadistic gang, or let them. What's the right choice?

Second situation
A group of sick people desperately need the organs of an innocent. The group is so sick that if they don't get the innocent's organs, they'll suffer more than the innocent would if his organs were taken.
We have a choice: stop the sick group from taking the organs, or let them. What’s the right choice?

In a vacuum, utilitarianism tends to answer that, in both cases, we must not prevent the harm to the innocent.
This verdict seems acceptable in the second situation; after all, the sick group is desperate and needs the organs more than the innocent. But it does not seem acceptable in the first situation.

Agapism, on the other hand, answers that the sadistic gang must be prevented from torturing, but not the sick group from taking the organs.

Even if agapism wishes the best for all, even if agapism prescribes loving even sadists, agapism is about acting by and for agape.

In the first situation, the sadistic gang is motivated by an anti-agape thing; sadism, the thirst for violence. To let the gang do what it wants to do is to allow a profoundly anti-agape will to be fulfilled; it's to make an anti-agape goal our goal; it's to become an accomplice of anti-agape.

Herein lies a difference between agapism and utilitarianism. In agapism, we seek to experience agape, and in experiencing agape, we venerate happiness and repudiate suffering, but also; in agapism, we venerate agape and repudiate anti-agape.

An agapist therefore has a reason to side with the innocent in the first situation, because the gang is motivated by anti-agape. An agapist is repelled to be complicit with anti-agape, even if it would be preferable for the general welfare, because he worships agape.

Utilitarianism, on the other hand, only worships well-being, and is unable to distinguish between the two situations, unless it adds several unnatural amendments to its utilitarianism.

In the second situation, agapism's answer is to let the sick group take the organs. Neither side is motivated by anti-agape, and taking the organs is better for the general welfare. We see that, as in utilitarianism, there are no “inalienable rights” in agapism (at least, there aren't in a vacuum, but perhaps agapism can demand them in societal contexts); agapism can recommend “theft” if the object is more useful to others, as in the second situation.

Primacy of suffering reduction

An alien offers us this deal: if you agree to me putting an innocent person in hell, I'll put a bunch of people (who don't suffer) in heaven.
What's the right choice?

Here, even though it sounds horrible, utilitarianism has a hard time refusing the alien's deal. A utilitarian who wants to refuse should adopt “negative utilitarianism”; a form of utilitarianism according to which reducing suffering prevails over increasing happiness. I like negative utilitarianism a lot, but it can sometimes feel a bit “ad hoc”; why assign more value to negative valence than to positive valence?

An agapist, on the other hand, can only refuse the alien's deal, and do so without adding ad hoc complexities to his morality, because a form of “primacy of the reduction of suffering” flows naturally from agape.

Indeed, in love, there's a form of asymmetry. Knowing that a loved one is suffering devastates us, and knowing that a loved one is living a happy, fulfilled life is a joy for us but a joy that doesn't carry us away with the same intensity as the loved one's happiness.

In love, your suffering is my suffering, while your happiness, even if I celebrate it, is your happiness.

The suffering of a loved one provokes an emotional urgency, an affective panic, quite different from the “sweet joy” for his happiness, which is never as powerful an ecstasy as the happiness of the beloved.

We can see, then, that agapism implies the primacy of reducing suffering over increasing happiness, because in love there is an intrinsic asymmetry. There's no need to add an ad hoc amendment to agapism, because the primacy of suffering reduction flows naturally from love.

Bonus: Cluelessness

It may not seem like it, but it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, for utilitarianism to get out of the problem of “cluelessness”. Maybe I'll make a post about it one day, but I've done a lot of reading on the subject, and I find it hard to see how one can have a non-null expected utility (or even form an expected utility at all) for any action whatsoever.

Agapism, on the other hand, is better able to avoid the problem of cluelessness. Even if we don't know whether giving a thirsty person a drink “increases the general well-being in all space-time”, if we love him, we'll give him a drink. “Agape carries” our actions regardless of cluelessness.

Strength

Some might think that agapism, because of its unconditional and universal love, implies a form of softness, that it implies consenting to everything, letting oneself be stepped on, sacrificing oneself for anything, etc. But nothing could be further from the truth.

An agapist knows that, for the good of others, it is sometimes necessary to be tough, it is even sometimes necessary to use violence, whether for the good of people whom a wicked person might hurt, or even for the good of that very wicked person. Loving the bad people doesn't mean not opposing them.

Nor is agapism a form of soft passivity. An agapist, out of love, wants to be better for others. This means working on one's talents, striving for power, etc. To help others, you need to be knowledgeable, courageous etc. To help others, it's not enough to smile foolishly at everyone; you have to think about the best projects.

Nor is agapism a total gift of self. An agapist loves every sentient being, including himself. In agapism, there is no preferential treatment, and therefore no preferential treatment for others; love is universal and unconditional, and therefore this love must also be directed towards ourselves.

Conclusion

We saw in this post that agapism, the worship of agape, the law of acting by and for agape, keeps the good stuff of utilitarianism but not the bad, and does so without adding ad hoc amendments.
Agape implies a form of justice, a form of disobedience to sadism, and a form of primacy of suffering reduction. Everything flows naturally from agape.
The concern that agape leads to weakness, passivity or self-sacrifice has also been addressed.