1. 1. Robert Wagoner also pictures preeminent love to be of the self-giving variety. In fact, he calls it “the epitome of love … [for] there is enormous power in selflessness” (137). Further, according to Wagoner, however love is defined, it must be understood as a relation of some kind (14). In fact, “from the Christian point of view love is something held in trust, something given, something I can enjoy only if I do not attempt to possess it” (47). Wagoner’s view is that love is something one can enjoy only if it is self-giving in its orientation, which backs up one of the main thrusts of this current article. This condition, I would submit, applies both to God as well as humans.
2. 2. Note that Oord published two texts dealing with love in 2010: Defining Love and The Nature of Love, the latter of which added “empathetic” to the definition of love.
3. 3. Hartshorne is inconsistent in his use of “love.” Sometimes he uses the word to speak of simple mutuality; other times he uses the word to speak of acting for the good. And he does not believe that mutuality always promotes the good.
4. 4. This cumbersome term means simply that we are to pursue the highest ethical goal, which is happiness.
5. Adams, Robert M. Finite and Infinite Goods: A Framework for Ethics. Oxford, Oxford U P, 1999.