He who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is
morally right, whether his motive is duty or the hope of
being paid for his trouble; he who betrays a friend who
trusts him is guilty of a crime, even if his aim is to serve
another friend to whom he is under greater obligations.
This way of thinking can be applied to love, and to the acts
inspired by it. We can argue that the acts inspired by love
can have many negative implications: love of power can be
harmful, as can the love of luxury, or even an excess of
(immoderate) love towards our children (it can spoil them).
The consequences and the utility are more important than the intentions
(that's what «consequentialism» and «utilitarianism»
stress).
We can also postulate that reason, or generosity, or charity
(which does not necessarily imply love) can be more
important than love itself. What’s important is the act’s
worth, and not what is behind it, be it love or any other
intention or feeling.
These arguments (philosophically known as «consequentialism»
and «utilitarianism») are strong, but it’s folly to devalue love.
Consequences aren’t always the most important. Love and
other feelings behind consequences define us, and we can’t
minimize love. To deny it, is to fall into an inhuman and
abstract world, a world that is not ours. Acting without
love can be very impoverishing.
In a sense, Stuart Mill - a major exponent of
consequentialism and utilitarianism - himself pleaded this position, when
he wrote:
It is better to be a human being unsatisfied than a pig
satisfied; better to be Socrates unsatisfied than a fool
satisfied. And if the fool or the pig is of a different
opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the
question. The other, to make the comparison, understands
both sides.
Português
