An Introduction to Agape
- theagapicproject
- Oct 13, 2022
- 6 min read
Updated: May 18, 2025
Unconditional love
The first and most defined characteristic of the Greek word for love ‘agape’ is its being ‘unconditional love’ (New World Encyclopedia, 2019). This puts it in opposition with other Greek words for love such as eros, romantic love, or philia, friendly/familial love, both of which are conditioned by one’s own emotional and relational attachments to the recipient.
Agape is not subject to any conditions, the agapist loves in all circumstances. As such, agape love persists regardless of whether the recipient ‘deserves’ it, or whether they have been unkind to the agapist, for instance. It also means that agape is not love given in return for anything as this would be conditional.
Agape is also conceived as universal love. This universality can be derived from unconditionality since excluding some people from agape would be introducing conditions for agape (i.e. requiring certain origins, relationship with the agent, gender, nationality, etc.).
Traditionally, agape has been focused on humans as beings created in the image of God (as stated in Genesis 1:26-27, Bible, 2011). Similarly, Eric J. Silverman believes that the agapist loves persons specifically, because “persons have the most objective value of anything in the empirical world” (2019, p. 12). And while persons might not necessarily only be humans, personhood is usually associated with humanity. Yet I argue, along with authors such as William Greenway (2016), that agape must also disregard any differences in species: again, excluding certain beings from agape based on their species would be conditional. Thus, agape is love for all life.
As has been established, agape is universal love. But what does ‘love’ mean here?
An active concern for the well-being of individuals
Gene Outka writes: “Agape is, in both its genesis and continuation, an active concern for the neighbor’s well-being which is somehow independent of particular actions of the other” (1972, p. 260). This definition identifies the crux of agape as caring about others’ well-being.
Outka also explains that agape holds an equal regard towards all regardless of anything, so acting according to agape means we are morally obliged to always hold an equal regard towards all. This equal regard is an equal consideration for everyone’s well-being, not necessarily an identical treatment since circumstances differ and require different responses (Outka, 1972, p. 20). Outka further describes: “the principle of equal regard enjoins man not to let his basic attitudes toward others be determined by the disparities in talent and achievement and the inequalities in attractiveness and social rank which differentiate men.” (1972, pp. 262-263).
So, following agape, we should do our best to improve the well-being of all, viewing each as equally worthy of this care, regardless of who they are and what they have done.
A desire for ongoing bonds
Silverman defines agape as a “disposition towards relationally appropriate acts of the will—consisting of desires for the ongoing good of persons and desires for ongoing proper bonds with persons—held as final ends” (2019, pp. 3 & 20). This highlights not only how we should pursue the ‘good’, or more precisely the well-being of individuals, but also good relations.
Agape has a relational component which allows us to distinguish between desiring adequate or inadequate (insufficient or excessive) bonds with a person, resulting in an unagapic disposition or partiality. For example, this gives us a "criteria to distinguish genuine love from mere sentiment, infatuation, or delusion" (Silverman, 2019, p. 22), and to identify misguided relations such as a relation of superiority in a colonial context.
Silverman contends that in our closest relationships, “justice is an inadequate goal. Something more is required in such relationships” (Silverman, 2019, p. 78). This is why Aquinas defines caritas (the Latin equivalent of agape) as friendship – rather than justice – toward all (Silverman, 2019, p. 81).
Agape viewed as a virtue (or character trait) can also account for inner states and provide guidance in terms of which internal dispositions we should develop (rather than only what actions to undertake). For example, Silverman explains how agape requires “at least some empathetic ability to understand the world from the beloved’s viewpoint” and that empathy “also plays an important role in engendering proper responsiveness” in the agapist (2019, p. 27). Agape is to shape all other virtues and be their end/direction.
Respecting individuals as autonomous
Outka affirms that from an agapic perspective, the neighbor “is never merely a means or instrument” (1972, p. 311), is always to be regarded as an end in itself. This means individuals must be respected as autonomous, as able to set their own goals, and not be manipulated for our own goals.
Patrick Quinn White argues: “The agapic agent is concerned with the welfare of others, but is likewise respectful of their choices. She reasons in accordance with constraints grounded in individuals' choices and will not promote another's wellbeing when doing so infringes on their autonomy” (2019, p. 36).
The idea that the agapist will not infringe on others’ autonomy to promote their well-being is contentious. There are many cases where an active concern for the other’s well-being seems to entail an impingement on the other’s autonomy, such as with young children or when one is about to harm another, or perhaps in cases of risks of self-harm. Though one may argue that these examples where well-being should be prioritized coincide with promoting long-term autonomy.
Beyond debates of how agape prioritizes well-being or autonomy when they conflict, it is clear that agape moves us both to actively care for the well-being and autonomy of all.
Agapic justice
Joseph Fletcher explains agape’s having a many-sided and wide-aimed outreach, being pluralist and multilateral, agape being “compelled to be calculating, careful, prudent, distributive” (1966, p. 89). He adds: “Justice is [agape] using its head, calculating its duties, obligations, opportunities, resources” (Fletcher, 1966, p. 95).
Agape has little to no affinity with retributive and meritarian justice. Being unconditional and characterized by a principle of equal regard for all, it has close affinity with egalitarian or distributive forms of justice (Outka, 1972, pp. 89-92).
To each according to their needs. Outka argues this conception of justice has the most overlap with agape. The focus on ‘needs’ in this conception matches an active concern for well-being, echoes the idea of caring for the neighbor ‘appropriately’, and it implies an emphasis on lessening “suffering, and usually without reference to desert” which coincides with agape’s ‘rectifying bias toward the disadvantaged’ (Outka, 1972, p. 91). Moreover, “it allows for differential treatment” since “Needs differ and treatments must vary accordingly” (Outka, 1972, p. 91).
So agapic justice entails a society that caters to the needs of all, that promotes the well-being, autonomy and relationships of all, regardless of whether the individuals have freely chosen not to contribute to society, to harm others or to generate additional costs for society. This does not mean individuals who are harmful are not stopped, but they are not to be punished for the sake of revenge or retribution. Society is to favor protection, reform and reinsertion, as well as more generally aiding those in need regardless of how much they are able or willing to contribute to society.
Similar concepts
Buddhist karuna is translated as compassion, and Buddhist mettā is translated as “Loving Kindness” and is understood as “the wish for all beings—oneself and others—to be well and happy” (Gethin, 1998, p. 187), and the Karaniya Mettā Sutta describes it like a motherly sacrificial love extended to all beings (Thera, 1995). Mettā strongly resembles Outka’s description of agape as an active concern for the wellbeing of all, and karuna coincides with Greenway’s description of agape as an “immediate, pre-intentional, initially passive, profoundly powerful dynamic of having been seized by love for a Face” (2016, pp. 6 & 42-43), an awakening to the “infinite worth of every creature” (2016, p. 6).
Greenway’s conception bears remarkable parallels with Buddhism as a broader view of reality and an understanding of morality, beyond the mere closeness of Greenway’s agape with Buddhist mettā and karuna. Indeed, both acknowledge the boundless value of any being, the suffering we all experience, and the place that loving kindness has in such a context. For both, love is not one of multiple ethical systems that are unprovable, but a moral reality that we all undergo and that “opens us to the most profound and meaningful dimensions of reality” (Greenway, 2016, p. 4).
See also Sir John Templeton’s book Agape love: Tradition in eight world religions (1999) for an accessible description of similar concepts to agape in different world religions.
Bibliography
Bible. 2011. Holy Bible, New International Version. Colorado Springs, CO: Biblica.
Fletcher, Joseph. 1966. Situation Ethics, The New Morality.
Gethin, R. 1998. The Foundations of Buddhism. [Online]. Kindle. Available at:
Greenway, William. 2016. Agape Ethics: Moral Realism and Love for All Life. Eugene, OR:
Cascade Books.
Outka, Gene. 1972. AGAPE: An Ethical Analysis. New Haven and London: Yale University
Press.
New World Encyclopedia (2019) Agape. Available at:
[Accessed 13 October 2022].
Silverman, Eric J. 2019. The Supremacy of Love: An Agape-centered Vision of Aristotelian
Virtue Ethics. Lanham and London: Lexington Books. Kindle.
Templeton, John. 1999. Agape love: Tradition in eight world religions. Radnor, PA:
Templeton Foundation Press.
Thera, Ñ. 1995. Karaniya Metta Sutta: Loving-Kindness. Available at:
October 2022].
White, Patrick Quinn. 2019. “Love first.” PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Comments