“The principle of love is simply not enough to live a good life.” Critically evaluate this statement.
Introduction
Define: Agape love- Unconditional love, the only ethical norm in situationism.
Importance: If the principle of love is not enough to live a good life, then as individuals, we all need
to appeal to different characteristics in order to live a truly good life e.g. reason, other Biblical
teachings etc.
Scholars: Spohn, Hayes, Tillich
Conclusion: It is accurate to state that the principle of love is simply not enough to live a good life.
Paragraph 1
Point: It is inaccurate to state that the principle of love is simply not enough to live a good life.
Argument: As it relates to Christian moral principles, whilst some choose a more legalistic route in
that they believe only biblical ethical commands should be followed to lead a good life, many believe
that only love (agape) is necessary.
The basis for this starts with Jesus, as he commands his followers to “love your neighbour as
yourself” (Luke 10:27). Jesus kept returning to the theme of love, so it seems reasonable for
Christian ethics to reflect this approach in order to lead a good life.
Scholars like Tillich maintain that love is not a simple concept, rather, love encompasses fairness,
reliability, honesty, and selflessness. Therefore, it can be argued that the principle of love is enough
to live a good life, as love is the embodiment of a plethora of different loving attributes. The benefit
of prioritising love in all situations, is that love is malleable and can be applied to ever-changing
circumstances throughout time.
Counterargument: Whilst Tillich recognised that love encompasses many different elements, Tillich
himself balanced agape love with wisdom, as a way in which to correct the objective nature of love.
Love is too subjective and an emotional approach, so it needs to work alongside biblical teaching and
sacred tradition.
Paragraph 2
Point: It is accurate to state that the principle of love is simply not enough to live a good life.
Argument: William Spohn and Richard Hayes argue that in order to live a good life, Christians should
combine Biblical teaching, Church teaching and human reason. Whilst biblical teaching is sacred and
should be respected, Richard Hayes notes that ‘the interpretation of scripture can never occur in a
vacuum.’ Christian priests have a vocation and training that enables them to interpret and transmit
the Word of God and the teachings of Jesus to others, so this should play a significant role in helping
Christians lead a good life.
Additionally, reason is needed to make sense of experience and respond to it, to process and reflect
on the Bible and tradition and apply the guidance obtained from those sources to the problem.
, Combining Biblical teaching, Church teaching and human reason gives you access to a plethora of
resources to make decisions. Although not entirely objective, the combination of these three factors
prove to be a better guide in living a good life, compared to the principle of love alone.
Counterargument: It is unknown how much emphasis a Christian should put on each of these three
factors. For example, if you attend a Protestant church, one can observe that the Bible has a much
greater authority than the church. However, in a Catholic Church, there is a magisterium (teaching
authority) which grants Catholic church teachings with God-given authority that us equal to the
authority of scripture.
Paragraph 3
Point: It is accurate to state that the principle of love is simply not enough to live a good life.
Argument: The influence of reason when combining Biblical teaching, Church teaching and reason
provides a superior guid to living a good life than the principle of love alone. This is because Biblical
and Church teaching keeps life and decision-making rooted in Christian faith, however reason allows
a Christian to adapt these teachings to the modern day.
Hays noted that “reason itself is always culturally influenced.” Christians must negotiate between
normative actions of the world they are living in, and Biblical teachings to live a good life. As a
Christian, if you are still confused, you can consult your Church who provide information on specific
issues such as sexual ethics, contraception, divorce etc. Different churches also encourage the use of
prayer and reasoning to decide. Therefore, there is a much more comprehensive method to consult
when making decisions and trying to live a good life, compared to the principle of love alone.
Counterargument: Perhaps having too many outlets in which to try and make a decision can become
confusing, especially for more impressionable Christians. With the principle of love alone, perhaps a
Christian will become less confused and reach conclusions quicker.
Introduction
Define: Agape love- Unconditional love, the only ethical norm in situationism.
Importance: If the principle of love is not enough to live a good life, then as individuals, we all need
to appeal to different characteristics in order to live a truly good life e.g. reason, other Biblical
teachings etc.
Scholars: Spohn, Hayes, Tillich
Conclusion: It is accurate to state that the principle of love is simply not enough to live a good life.
Paragraph 1
Point: It is inaccurate to state that the principle of love is simply not enough to live a good life.
Argument: As it relates to Christian moral principles, whilst some choose a more legalistic route in
that they believe only biblical ethical commands should be followed to lead a good life, many believe
that only love (agape) is necessary.
The basis for this starts with Jesus, as he commands his followers to “love your neighbour as
yourself” (Luke 10:27). Jesus kept returning to the theme of love, so it seems reasonable for
Christian ethics to reflect this approach in order to lead a good life.
Scholars like Tillich maintain that love is not a simple concept, rather, love encompasses fairness,
reliability, honesty, and selflessness. Therefore, it can be argued that the principle of love is enough
to live a good life, as love is the embodiment of a plethora of different loving attributes. The benefit
of prioritising love in all situations, is that love is malleable and can be applied to ever-changing
circumstances throughout time.
Counterargument: Whilst Tillich recognised that love encompasses many different elements, Tillich
himself balanced agape love with wisdom, as a way in which to correct the objective nature of love.
Love is too subjective and an emotional approach, so it needs to work alongside biblical teaching and
sacred tradition.
Paragraph 2
Point: It is accurate to state that the principle of love is simply not enough to live a good life.
Argument: William Spohn and Richard Hayes argue that in order to live a good life, Christians should
combine Biblical teaching, Church teaching and human reason. Whilst biblical teaching is sacred and
should be respected, Richard Hayes notes that ‘the interpretation of scripture can never occur in a
vacuum.’ Christian priests have a vocation and training that enables them to interpret and transmit
the Word of God and the teachings of Jesus to others, so this should play a significant role in helping
Christians lead a good life.
Additionally, reason is needed to make sense of experience and respond to it, to process and reflect
on the Bible and tradition and apply the guidance obtained from those sources to the problem.
, Combining Biblical teaching, Church teaching and human reason gives you access to a plethora of
resources to make decisions. Although not entirely objective, the combination of these three factors
prove to be a better guide in living a good life, compared to the principle of love alone.
Counterargument: It is unknown how much emphasis a Christian should put on each of these three
factors. For example, if you attend a Protestant church, one can observe that the Bible has a much
greater authority than the church. However, in a Catholic Church, there is a magisterium (teaching
authority) which grants Catholic church teachings with God-given authority that us equal to the
authority of scripture.
Paragraph 3
Point: It is accurate to state that the principle of love is simply not enough to live a good life.
Argument: The influence of reason when combining Biblical teaching, Church teaching and reason
provides a superior guid to living a good life than the principle of love alone. This is because Biblical
and Church teaching keeps life and decision-making rooted in Christian faith, however reason allows
a Christian to adapt these teachings to the modern day.
Hays noted that “reason itself is always culturally influenced.” Christians must negotiate between
normative actions of the world they are living in, and Biblical teachings to live a good life. As a
Christian, if you are still confused, you can consult your Church who provide information on specific
issues such as sexual ethics, contraception, divorce etc. Different churches also encourage the use of
prayer and reasoning to decide. Therefore, there is a much more comprehensive method to consult
when making decisions and trying to live a good life, compared to the principle of love alone.
Counterargument: Perhaps having too many outlets in which to try and make a decision can become
confusing, especially for more impressionable Christians. With the principle of love alone, perhaps a
Christian will become less confused and reach conclusions quicker.
