Environmental Ethics 15 (1):3-25 (1993)
|Abstract||Christian ethics are usually based on a theology of love. In the case of Christian relationships to nature, Christian environmental writers have either suggested eros as a primary source for Christian love, without dealing with traditional Christian arguments against eros, or have assumed agape (spiritual love or sacrificial love) is the appropriate mode, without defining how agape should function in human relationships with the nonhuman portion of the universe. I demonstrate that God’s love for nature has the same form and characteristics as God’s love for human beings, and that because agape is self-giving, it is preferable to eros in relationships with the environment. Agape concerning nature (I) is spontaneous and unmotivated, (2) is indifferent to value, (3) creates value, (4) initiates relationships with the divine, (5) recognizes individuality, (6) provides freedom, and (7) produces action and suffering. Agape might best be defined, not as Platonic ascent above the world, but as completely self-giving engagement with the world. Human love for nature is often limited by a human inability to accept love, including divine love, from nature. Flowing from God, agape cannot require reciprocity; yet agape understands what “the other has to give and can offer it complete valuation. Agape is the ideal form of human interaction with nature, because agape does not require equal status or ability, or common goals or needs. Love between humans and members of the land (or sea) community can be sacrificial, and should be distinguished by a loss of self-regard and a willingness to suffer. Further philosophical and theological discussion of the role of reciprocity and sacrifice in love for nature is highly desirable|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Susan P. Bratton (1992). Loving Nature: Eros or Agape? Environmental Ethics 14 (1):3-25.
Edward Collins Vacek (1996). Love, Christian and Diverse: A Response to Colin Grant. Journal of Religious Ethics 24 (1):29 - 34.
Colin Grant (1996). For the Love of God: Agape. Journal of Religious Ethics 24 (1):3 - 21.
Robert Merrihew Adams (1980). Pure Love. Journal of Religious Ethics 8 (1):83 - 99.
A. L. Peck (1933). Agape and Eros Agape and Eros: A Study of the Christian Idea of Love. Part I. By Anders Nygren. Authorized Translation by A. G. Hebert. London: S.P.C.K., 1932. Cloth, 6s. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 47 (04):137-139.
David Sanderlin (1993). Charity According to St. John of the Cross: A Disinterested Love for Interesting Special Relationships, Including Marriage. Journal of Religious Ethics 21 (1):87 - 115.
Catherine Osborne (1994). Eros Unveiled: Plato and the God of Love. Oxford University Press.
David A. Craig & John P. Ferré (2006). Agape as an Ethic of Care for Journalism. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 21 (2 & 3):123 – 140.
Carter Heyward (1996). Lamenting the Loss of Love: A Response to Colin Grant. Journal of Religious Ethics 24 (1):23 - 28.
Stephen J. Pope (1995). Review: Love in Contemporary Christian Ethics. [REVIEW] Journal of Religious Ethics 23 (1):165 - 197.
Barbara Hilkert Andolsen (1981). Agape in Feminist Ethics. Journal of Religious Ethics 9 (1):69 - 83.
Simon May (2011). Love: A History. Yale University Press.
Gene Outka (1996). Theocentric Agape and the Self: An Asymmetrical Affirmation in Response to Colin Grant's Either/Or. Journal of Religious Ethics 24 (1):35 - 42.
Simon May (2011). Love: A Secret History. Yale University Press.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2011-01-09
Total downloads2 ( #232,575 of 549,122 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,361 of 549,122 )
How can I increase my downloads?