Agape
Selfless, unconditional love that seeks the good of others without expecting anything in return; central to Christian ethics.
Altruism
Concern for the well-being of others at a cost to oneself; acting to benefit others without self-interest.
Egoism
The view that people should (or do) act in their own self-interest, either as a moral choice (ethical egoism) or as a psychological fact (psychological egoism).
Love
A complex emotional and ethical bond involving care, attachment, and concern for another's well-being; can take forms like affection, desire, friendship, or selfless devotion.
THE ARGUMENT
Altruism is often defined as treating the other person as you would yourself within the confines of self-respect. Jesus said nobody can really have two masters and will serve one more than the other. The definition will not do. Auguste Comte was its opponent. Utilitarianism warns that there are times you must be totally about other people. Real altruism is about totally living for others and renouncing self-care - you do enough to stay healthy, and it is not for yourself but for others.
Real altruism claims that the most important doctrine is that the human being has no right to exist for their own sake. It says that you should not exist except to help others. The altruistic outlook, probably despite itself, implies that there is no such thing as human rights. Who wants rights if they mean you have to be about others all the time?
Altruism need not be based around God or religion. There are secular altruists too.
That aside, Jesus held that we must live for God and then the neighbour but only for the sake of God. This is a religious variation of the usual altruistic idea that man must live for neighbour. It is called agape - a love for others that gets no payoff biological or otherwise. Agape is the basic principle in the Christian faith - or at least the faith says it is.
But if you can help another person, does it mean you must root out any desire for a reward or for feeling good even if that is only 1% of your reasons for acting? If you can, then why not?
Also it is only by suffering as much as you can for others, you can show your love is real. It is not about merely demonstrating that it is real, it is about needing to know so you can learn from it and inspire others.
Agape is said to be not inherently self-destructive. But it is inherently the key to giving all of yourself for others until nothing is left. So it is saying yes to something that might destroy.
It is said to come from a place of strength within rather than a self-hating one. But it takes strength to abuse yourself too and so that is confusing. You are told that time will tell you where your sacrifice is coming from. If you are still healthy and happy while you serve and the serving brings good results that is the test. But how long do you have to wait? "We often assume that anything happening after our actions is a consequence of them, even when there may be no real connection. The time test is unhelpful for it will be too late when you find out that you harmed yourself and wanted to. And if you are that bad at discerning your strength and its source time is not going to help you see the light.
Jesus said that agape towards God matters more than agape towards your neighbour which actually a harsher and tougher version of agape. Agape commands you to serve your neighbour at your own loss. God makes bigger demands than any neighbour would. Jesus, for example, said that God was perfect and asks everybody to be as perfect as him.
God is that which is so good nothing and no one more good can exist. Even religions that say you are perfect in dealing with your fellow human being deny that you are perfect with God. Christians say there are flaws even in the good we do for God - always. For some secularists and atheists, you are never really unselfish with others. For believers in God you are never ever really unselfish in your dealings with God.
“Lord, the end of another messed-up day. I let you down at every turn. I’ve lived for myself all through” (page 4, Friday Penance, John C Edwards SJ, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1985). The Church says we do good works but only in the eyes of man. A selfish person is pleased when those who are totally self-interested do things that happen to work out for him. He will call them good. Calling people good does not necessarily mean they are being said to be agape or altruistic.
It is easier to sacrifice for a neighbour you do see than a God who may not exist! Also, if you try agape with God and find it is easier to give it to a neighbour, that is a very negative way to approach the neighbour. They are only helped for they are second-best in your estimation.
Agape, like altruism in general, cares about your motives most of all. It is the kind of thinking that cares about spirituality and not people. It is totally ridiculous to say to a man who fears losing his wife to another, "You should fear the loss of her because it will mean you won't be able to be altruistic to her if she leaves." If that should be the way he should think he would not fear losing her at all!
Agape ignores how there is self-interest in everything we do. To show that we need to overthrow the argument, "While their desire to do something comes from them, it does not mean that in some way, perhaps small, it is about them. We see people helping others and seeking nothing back". Being about them means it is for their sake and not about others or God.
If human beings are fundamentally acting creatures, and if the mere act of doing something brings with it an inbuilt psychological reward. There is a reward in just doing it. There are other ones such as a sense of purpose, satisfaction, or pleasure — then this fact can support a mild form of psychological egoism. That is, even when people appear to act selflessly or altruistically, they may still be motivated, at least in part, by the internal rewards that come from acting itself. Action, under this view, is not just a means to external outcomes but also a source of intrinsic psychological benefit. Therefore, while this does not imply that all actions are selfish in a narrow or cynical sense, it suggests that many human behaviors are driven by the internal satisfaction that comes from engaging in purposeful activity — a soft or moderate form of egoism rooted in our very nature as acting beings.
You are an ethical egoist if you believe you should only help if you make it even in a small way about yourself. This makes egoism about choice not your psychological makeup. We could be surprised at how many closeted ethical egoists there are out there.
The Bible says that agape is about looking after the weak and even the wicked though there is a risk that this could destroy you. Thus it denies that love is merely about biology about you surviving by looking after friends and family. It seems to oppose the fact that evolution causes the destruction of the weak and causes the rise of the strong. Many think that evolution intends survival of the most versatile - it does not. It just happens and does not happen perfectly or always as one might expect. It is causing not intending. A medicine for pain does not necessarily work against all pain. The medicine can help but it does not plan to help. Evolution is not a plan. It just is.
Agape opposes the materialistic view of evolution. Even if evolutionists, say that evolution causes us to love the sick and infirm and that is fine, that is a very weak basis for treating them well. If being good to them is hard, such a flimsy argument will not help. It will hinder.
Love and compassion are grey approximations for we have to make a good guess at what is best for the other. Nobody fully loves or shows compassion and there is a darker side along with it. If you cannot do that well at them then somebody telling you to be loving and compassionate is only causing frustration and setting you up to fail. Religion should not be posing as a paragon of love and offering a God who is an ideal of perfection that makes you feel ineffectual and small. A grey religion should take the blame as a religion when members do evil as long as the members identify with it.
Accordingly, criticisms of agape include the observation that nobody really engages in it and so it is idealised in an unattainable way. It is true that people falling short of it does not mean it is a bad idea. There could still be a lot of value in it. But then why is nobody offered alternatives? Agape is a religious form of altruism so maybe just plain altruism is better? Why do we need agape - why do we need a God to tell us what it is and to live it? Is his input really for the best? The stress and value put on agape is concerning.
The agape concept attracts people but it is ultimately very flawed. It is much better to advocate for enlightened self-interest. I prefer enlightened self-interest because it balances caring for others with caring for myself. Unlike agape, which demands total selflessness and sacrifice even at your own expense, enlightened self-interest encourages helping others in ways that also support your well-being.
Agape sets an unrealistic moral standard and can lead to guilt, burnout, or being taken advantage of. Enlightened self-interest is more practical and sustainable—it promotes empathy and cooperation without denying your own needs or value.
In the end, it’s a more balanced and human approach to ethics.