Agape

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." 1 Corinthians 13:4-7

Yesterday at Sunday mass, my priest recited this biblical passage. The topic of his homily was love. He distinguished between different kinds of love - in Greek there are four kinds. The kind of love in this passage is called agape. Agape is a completely selfless love, for the lover receives nothing in return. Agape is 100% benefitting the recipient. Agape is not a new concept to me, it was the theme of many concepts in my Catholic high school.

Last week in Animal Planet, we discussed the line between love and exploitation. Many of us love our pets; I don't know why you would get one if you didn't love animals. I am subservient to my animals the majority of the time because they are too sweet and adorable for me to be anything else. However, pet ownership brings up an ethical question that many of us don't want to face - do we exploit animals by claiming their ownership?

From a lifetime pet owner/lover standpoint, my immediate reaction is no. My pets have a pretty darn good life. My dog has multiple beds, a large back yard to run around in, delicious food, a warm house, and people that adore her. My two cats have a gigantic playground (my house) - nowhere is off limits, not even the kitchen counter/stove top. My cats are treated like princes. One night when one of my cats was extraordinarily hungry, we put a stool in between my mom and grandpa and a plate on the table so that he could eat with us as well. And let me not forget to mention, they are fawned over like new born babies - one of them isn't even a kitten, he's 12!

But is the act of ownership exploitation in even a small sense? Some could argue that a parent owns a child until age 18. Usually parents and pet owners provide the necessities for survival, give their child or pet attention, and make critical decisions for them in their best interests. The problem arises when we define "best interests". It is relatively easy to make a simple decision for a human baby - we were all human babies at one point and know basically what one needs/desires. But we were never animals. I was never a baby kitten, even though I rock mine to sleep as he purrs. I was never a dog, but I take her on walks and runs as she bolts ahead, trying to run faster with her tongue hanging out. I was never a cat, but I cuddle up next to him while he's sleeping to keep him company and provide more body heat.

Exploitation is defined as "use or utilization". I get pleasure out of rocking my baby kitten to sleep. I enjoy having a companion run with me when no one else will. I love sleeping with a fuzzy little heat radiator beside me. Am I exploiting my animals? Because they haven't specifically told me what they need/desire and because I haven't been a cat or a dog, I don't actually know for sure if they like being rocked to sleep, ran, or cuddled with. Sometimes when I hold my kitten he pushes away. Sometimes when I walk my dog she tries to turn around. Sometimes when I try to sleep next to my cat, he gets up and moves, irritatedly.

In class, someone brought up the idea of altruism - does it exist? Is there such thing as a completely selfless act? Does agape exist? If I enjoy doing things for my animals, and I "think" that it is in their best interest, is that selfless? Am I doing it for myself, or for my animals? The same question can be applied human to human - even if you know something is in someone's best interest, is performing a selfless act ever completely selfless? Don't we all gain happiness in knowing that we did something for another person? An extreme example of a selfless act is martyrdom. I find it hard to argue that martyrdom is not completely selfless. I've never been a martyr, so I can't really say much about that...

Furthermore, as someone asked in class, if everyone does gain happiness and satisfaction in knowing that their selfless acts benefitted another person, EVEN if it benefitted themselves by making them happier, is that necessarily bad?

After thinking about this question a lot, I have personally decided that the word selfless should be redefined. I don't think it matters if a person gains satisfaction or happiness by doing community service, a kind deed, or an unexpected act of compassion. A "selfless" act should mean an act that was done with the PRIMARY goal to benefit someone else. If an individual is happier after performing a selfless act, great. Isn't that the goal - to give and receive happiness and love, and agape? The world could use more of it! So yes, I believe that altruism does exist.

Regarding animals - is it possible to act in their best interest? Is it possible to show them unconditional love? We will never fully know what animals are thinking and what they want and what they need - but we can do our best. And if we gain something out of owning pets and making them our companions? I don't think that's a bad thing at all. Some may argue that humans have done animals a massive disservice by domesticating them in the first place. But now, there is an over abundance of domesticated animals. Domesticated animals are euthanized every day in shelters. Regardless if "owning" an animal and "using" him or her for companionship is unethical, I believe it is our duty to show the animals that we have claimed, and especially the ones that we haven't, love and compassion to the best of our abilities.