LOVE, PARTIALITY, AND MORALITY AN ANALYSIS OF THOMAS AQUINAS’S THEORY OF LOVE A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Katharyn Denise Waidler May 2012 © 2012 Katharyn Denise Waidler LOVE, PARTIALITY, AND MORALITY AN ANALYSIS OF THOMAS AQUINAS’S THEORY OF LOVE Katharyn D. Waidler, Ph.D. Cornell University, 2012 Philosophers convinced by Bernard Williams that there is a potential psychological conflict between the demands of love and the requirements of morality have approached the problem in various ways. The objective of this dissertation is to rehearse some of the ways in which contemporary philosophers have attempted to resolve the potential conflict with respect to love in some of its various forms and to show how each attempt to do so ultimately fails. Then I develop and defend an alternative theory of love and its motivations found in the work of Thomas Aquinas. The dissertation is devoted to the examination of some of the most compelling contemporary approaches to addressing the potential conflict between the goals and special relationships which provide our lives with meaning, and the so-called moral point of view which is understood to be impersonal and impartial. I attempt to show what is compelling about each approach to the problem, but argue that each one ultimately fails to resolve the problem satisfactorily. I shall then show how Aquinas’s more comprehensive theory of the relation between certain forms of love and morality addresses the potential worry by showing how, on his account, the love characteristic of friendship is at once personal and partial and yet deeply moral. Hence, on his account there is no potential conflict between the special relationships which provide one’s life with meaning and purpose and the requirements of morality. Love, according to Aquinas, in a certain sense grounds morality and provides us with normative reasons for promoting the good of certain other persons as part of promoting one’s own good and the good in general. In the final chapter I show that although the love characteristic of friendship is personal and partial, the highest form of love—caritas or the love characteristic of friendship toward God—is at once partial insofar as it entails normative reasons for prioritizing certain relationships over others, and yet impartial insofar as it entails loving all persons as possessing intrinsic value as creatures made in God’s image and loved by God. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Katharyn Waidler is currently an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Ill. where she has taught courses introductory courses in philosophy and ethics as well as upper division seminars in Ancient and Medieval philosophy for the past four years. Having grown up in Boulder, CO, she went to the University of Colorado where she majored in English Literature and after which taught four years of High School English courses. She became interested in philosophy under the tutelage of David A. Horner who was at the time completing his thesis for a D.Phil. at Oxford University. Her primary interests are in eudaemonist and virtue ethical theories, especially as developed by Thomas Aquinas. After receiving her Ph.D. at Cornell University, she is now interested in putting theory to practice, encouraging others (and herself!) to figure out precisely what is means for individual personals to live the best life for a human being. iii For my parents: P. Lynne Murray Waidler and Rick Waidler “It is not unfitting if the obligation of gratitude has no limit.” —Thomas Aquinas iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I gratefully acknowledge the help of all the members of dissertation committee. I came to Cornell in order to work with Scott MacDonald because I admired the penetrating insights and the clarity of his work. I was to discover that Scott treats his advising role with as much care and respect as he does his research. I will always be deeply grateful for his involvement in the entire process of this dissertation from its conception to its execution and all of the stages in between. Scott has always been generous with his written comments but even more so with his mentoring. He spent countless hours in conversation with me, helping me develop my own perspective and to see what is truly interesting and unique about Aquinas’s theories of the different kinds of love. I thank Scott for challenging me to be more reflective and creative in the development of my philosophical interests, and for compelling me to treat the texts with which I worked with rigor and respect. His high standards challenged me to provide a more detailed and robust account of Aquinas’s views about the nature of different kinds of love and their implications for morality. I thank Scott for being a most wise, most generous, and most respectful teacher and mentor. I thank Terence Irwin for the high standards to which he holds each of his students. His helpful comments allowed me to see places where my interpretations were either misguided or hopelessly vague, in order that I might gain keen insights in the text and to more carefully draw out their implications. Professor Irwin’s course in the History of Ethics helped me to see more clearly how Aquinas’s theories fit in the v context of his Greek and Christian predecessors. Through this course I first became aware of the centrality of love in much ancient and medieval philosophical thought and to see the philosophical development of the concept. As a committee member, Professor Irwin made judicious comments, especially in my A-exam when he challenged me to be more careful and clear in sections of the dissertation most integral to my work. His example as a scholar and teacher is unparalleled. I thank Nick Sturgeon for his careful comments especially on Chapters One and Two of the dissertation. Professor Sturgeon was the first to introduce me to the problem in ethics with which this dissertation is concerned. I’m grateful to him for helping me learn how to read literature in contemporary ethics, and for the many lists of required readings which helped me to gain footing in this field with which I previously had a mere acquaintance. His influence on my thinking as an ethicist is unquantifiable. I am also grateful for Professor Sturgeon’s willingness at any time to discuss these matters with him. After meeting with him, I always carried with me a new insight or thought which helped me to write with more rigor and precision. I thank Charles Brittain for his supererogatory participation in the writing of this dissertation. Charles joined my committee after I had passed the A-exam, but his influence on my writing and thinking has been invaluable all along. In particular, I am grateful to Charles for helping me to work through Aquinas’s Latin - certainly not my strength. His helpful corrections on my translations helped me to identify places where I had missed the point, or failed to see how the history of a particular word vi gave it a special meaning. Moreover, Charles provided very helpful comments at the defense of my dissertation, especially with respect to the influences of Aquinas’s Greek predecessors. Responding to these comments has caused me to dig deeper into understanding what is really unique to Aquinas as well as to develop insights as to how Aquinas interprets Greek concepts vis-à-vis his Christian commitments. I am confident that the dissertation is much better in view of having thought through these issues. There are others who, though they were not formally associated with the writing of this dissertation I want to thank for their great help and influence. I thank David A. Horner for his inspiration in studying philosophy to begin with. At the time in which I worked most closely with Dave as his student and as his T.A., he was teaching at the Dayspring Center for Christian Studies (a Christian study center located adjacent to the University of Colorado) while at the same time finishing his D. Phil. at Oxford University. Taking classes with Dave is a rare treat as he blends together insights from philosophy and Christianity, challenging each of his students to take their academic work seriously, as deeply informing their Christian commitments and vice versa. Dave sprinkles stories and humor into his teaching which is part of what makes him so compelling and inspiring. He is able to demonstrate how even the most fancy philosophical concepts and arguments impact mundane and everyday aspects of life. I thank Dave for the countless hours of illuminating conversations about all different areas of philosophy, but in particular those about eudaimonism and vii virtue ethics, areas which I went on to pursue in my own research. Dave has provided me with a model of excellence in Christian teaching and scholarship; but most importantly, he has provided me with a model of excellent character. His study of the virtues, in particular the virtue of charity, deeply inform the kind of person Dave is. Dave taught me not only to want to be a better scholar, but to be a better person. I thank him mostly for being the best, most generous, most inspiring teacher I have ever had. I thank other members of the Dayspring faculty, Garry DeWeese and Rick Howe. Garry was teaching courses at Dayspring while at the same time finishing his Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of Colorado. His rigorous standards, breadth and depth of knowledge challenged me to dip deeper in my own understanding of key texts and arguments in the philosophy of religion.