Love Is Not the Most Relevant Factor in Determining Obligations
In an interview on Fox, JD Vance said “As an American leader, but also just as an American citizen, your compassion belongs first to your fellow citizens. That doesn’t mean you hate people from outside of your own borders, but there’s this old-school (and I think it’s a very Christian) concept, by the way—that you love your family, and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country, and then, after that, you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world.” He later referred to the concept as Ordo Amoris, which is a concept originated by St. Augustine and developed further by St. Thomas Aquinas. Pope Francis disagreed with Vance’s understanding of the concept, citing the parable of the Good Samaritan, and Pope Leo XIV, while a cardinal, seems also to have disagreed with Vance. One could also cite the parable of the sheep and the goats from Matthew 25: 31-46:
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
Vance followed up on one criticism by a former member of the British Parliament, Rory Stewart, by saying: “Just google ‘ordo amoris.’ Aside from that, the idea that there isn’t a hierarchy of obligations violates basic common sense. Does Rory really think his moral duties to his own children are the same as his duties to a stranger who lives thousands of miles away? Does anyone?” While this may be an old school concept, it hardly seems Christian.
For a fuller treatment of the concept of Ordo Amoris, see the article by David P. Cassidy “Augustine, Aquinas, the Veep, and the Ordo Amoris”, but I want to point out here that our moral responsibilities do not necessarily depend on, nor coincide with, whom we love or should love or have relationships with anyway. So, no matter what the right Catholic or Protestant understanding is about whom we should “love” more or have more general responsibilities or obligations to, love is not the most relevant factor for determining obligations. We have responsibilities to others whether we love them or not. And even though it may be easier to do more for those whom we love, that does not make love the basis of obligations.
One easy example to see is having to choose between stopping to help strangers injured at an accident scene (or tending to their uninjured young children while first responders treat the adults) versus keeping your planned visit with your mother to watch a movie rerun being televised that night. Clearly there is more of an obligation to the strangers than to your mother in that kind of case, no matter how much more you love your mother and no matter how much more of an obligation you might have to your mother versus a stranger for something equally important to both.
Moreover, even in regard to brotherly love, people often have much more affection for a professional colleague, religious affiliate, someone with the same philosophy, a kindred spirit with other mutual interests, or friend from another country than for people in their own country, particularly those in their own country whose behavior is abhorrent, wasteful, or inane. If I had to choose between saving a young, talented Chinese musician or mathematician on the one hand and saving JD Vance on the other, I would not choose to save JD, even though I grew up within 30 miles of where he did and even though we both have degrees in philosophy. But I believe he either intentionally misuses philosophy as sophistry or that he is just not very good at it, and that a child with intellectual or artistic talent from a foreign land is more valuable and deserves more. Similarly, if I had to choose between saving a young, loving child from Gaza or from Venezuela versus saving JD, I would choose the foreign children over him. And, presumably if he read this, he might do the same if he had to choose between saving them or me.
Whether one “loves” the foreigner more or not, one may feel more responsibility or a greater obligation or even mere preference for the foreigner for reasons other than mere proximity. President Kennedy said of the U.S. relationship with Canada: “Geography has made us neighbors; history has made us friends.” Your neighbors, particularly if they are bad neighbors (or if you are) are not necessarily your friends. Someone once said that love was the result of protracted propinquity, but many neighbors over the centuries have shown that not always to apply either to individuals or to bordering countries.
The particular issue Vance was talking about is immigration policy, and how we treat migrants or what we owe desperate refugees surely needs not be predicated on love other than an abstract “love for humanity” or fellow human beings, apart from any familial or neighborly love. The Catholic concept of Ordo Amoris places loving God above all others, but Jesus made it pretty clear that one had an obligation to others and that one demonstrated love for God by helping His children, whether strangers or not, and perhaps even particularly if they were strangers in need. That would be consistent with the case above about putting accident victims you did not know above being your mother’s TV companion that night. Whether you feel an obligation to others simply because they are fellow human beings or because they are children of God, the obligation might always be greater for a stranger than for a person closer to you, depending on the degree or significance of their different needs at the time.
But there is more to it, because helping someone does not necessarily mean making a sacrifice yourself or having to deny someone else a benefit. 1) Immigration is not a zero-sum game where someone has to lose in order for someone else to benefit, and 2) even where an act requires someone or some group to sacrifice in order to benefit another, there is a moral principle governing that which does not depend on love, even though love may sometimes make fulfilling an obligation involving sacrifice easier to do.
With regard to the first point, immigrants often contribute to their adopted country’s well-being and success, from those who do onerous low-paid work to those who make great discoveries or economic advances. Insofar as every immigrant is potentially two hands to help rather than just one mouth to feed, we should have policies that help immigrants successfully contribute to society and receive proper reward and compensation in return for their contribution. That should be true about how we treat our own citizens too. Even if you are not altruistically inclined, it can even just be in your own best interest to help a stranger be able to help others in the future, including helping you or helping someone who helps you.
(Of course, obviously we don’t want to let in violent criminals, but we don’t want fellow homegrown criminals either, and statistically immigrants have a lower ratio of violent criminals than citizens born here. But regardless of the ratios, no, we don’t want to knowingly have violent criminals, whether immigrants or natural born citizens free to harm others. But we cannot reasonably prevent crime by getting rid of everyone – immigrant or natural born American – who might possibly commit a crime. JD’s and Trump’s argument that any murderous vicious undocumented immigrant implies no undocumented immigrants should be allowed is an overgeneralization and a particularly egregious one when it involves lies such as those about Haitians eating people’s pets. Someone with a degree in philosophy in particular should know better unless inept or malicious.)
With regard to the second point, the moral principle involved in anyone’s having to risk or sacrifice for another person in cases where there is no benefit to the agent making the sacrifice or taking the risk is that, insofar as the act is not wrong for some other reason – (such as violating a right, distributing burdens and benefits unreasonably or unfairly, causing or attempting unnecessary harm, omitting an important potentially likely good, violating a specially incurred obligation such as repaying a loan or keeping a promise, etc.) -- then It is fair or reasonable to expect, and possibly even require, people to do things at little risk or cost to themselves that bring great benefit, prevent great harm, or create a much greater balance of benefit over harm, to others. Apart from cases where an agent has some special higher obligation that he has assumed or incurred, as the risk or cost to the agent increases and/or the benefit to others decreases, an agent is less obligated to perform the act. At some point along these scales, the obligation ceases altogether, though the act may be commendable or "saintly" to voluntarily perform (that is, it may be "over and above the call of duty"). At other points, the act may be so unfair to the agent -- may be so self-sacrificing for the agent to perform, even if voluntary, and/or of so little benefit to others, that it would be wrong. (Not every voluntary act of sacrifice or martyrdom is all right or acceptable.) In other words, apart from some specific reason to the contrary, you generally should help decent, deserving other people when it would mean a lot to them and cost you almost nothing or relatively little.
So the only real question about letting in refugees is whether it requires any unreasonable sacrifice on the part of Americans or not. And it seems difficult to imagine that we could not find reasonable ways to absorb, accommodate, and assimilate more hard working migrants than we do, and help them and their children become productive members of society, particularly given that many Republicans believe as Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville put it, “we need to have more kids; we need more kids” presumably at least in part because we need to replenish a younger labor supply to meet the needs of caring for those aging out of the workforce. Yet they don’t want migrant children, although the track record in America of the successes of subsequent generations of immigrant families is a very admirable one. It seems to me if we spent a small fraction of the effort helping them that we spend trying to hinder them from being here or becoming successful, we would all be better off.
If you don’t make education and research readily available for people to pursue, then when you need knowledgeable people to help you, either the knowledge will not be available to anyone or there will not be people available to you who have it. It is better to live in an intelligent, compassionate, and knowledgeable community and society than in one that is uneducated, willfully ignorant, or unkind and uncaring.
And love need not have anything to do with it. It just requires decency toward deserving fellow human beings and the absence of animosity, xenophobia, and hate.
Finally, it should be clear that a principle that requires less and less assistance or benevolence for those further and further outside your area of love, also then requires their benevolence or assistance less and less to you, since you will be further and further outside their area of love. And it would be a crummy society and world indeed if people neither felt nor had any obligation to others simply because they were not close family, friends, or neighbors. Our shared humanity requires, and deserves, more than that. For as President John F. Kennedy said “For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.” And as Clarence Darrow wrote, “The best that we can do is to be kindly and helpful toward our friends and fellow passengers who are clinging to the same speck of dirt while we are drifting side by side to our common doom.”