The fact that ethic is a crucial element in all our lives is undeniable. From the times of ancient philosophers to illuminism and even in the contemporary world, ethic has always been a fundamental element to understand society and our social behaviors. In this article we are going to shortly analyze the problem of ethic both in religion and philosophy, in order to deepen the subject within the samaelite system . The main axiom of our speculation is based on a deconstruction of the homo stratoegicus who has been the center of the anthropological vision in modern days  without leaving completely aside the Hobbesian ideas of the homo homini lupus , which is particularly useful to understand, on a theoretical level, the functioning of human society.
The problem of Society
Since men have developed a theoretical thought, the analysis of society has been one of the main focal point of all the philosophical speculation. The problem, indeed quite ignored by new religions, is to understand how society is born and how it works on an intrinsic level. The general idea is that, to understand the functioning of society, men can develop a better attitudine in this great experiment that we call co-existence.
In order to facilitate the reader in the understanding of this very complex analysis we can say that, throughout all the history of philosophy, thinkers have adopted two different positions on this subject. On one side, we have the weight of the Aristotelian speculation which is based on the very famous sentence Ο ἄνθοπος φύσει πολιτικον ζῶον  which can be translated as: «Men is, by its own nature, a social animal»; on the other side we have the Hobbesian speculation, represented with the latin formula homo homini lupus which, of course, expresses a worst view on how society is born. If in fact Aristotle firmly believes that men live in society because it's in their own nature, Hobbes thinks that society is born only because otherwise men would have killed each other. Now, apart from this very pessimistic vision of what in modern days has been called homo stratoegicus, we must say that the Hobbesian speculation has been particularly relevant for the theorization of modern State theories. But how is all this linked with the problem of ethic?
Well, if we define ethic has the set of theoretical speculations about human behaviors related to the two concepts of good and evil , specifically into a society, our subject immediately becomes clearer. If moral is a subjective feeling on what is right and what is wrong , ethic is the set of informations about good and evil that we receive from society.
It is quite obvious why understanding society is so important within the analysis of the "ethical issue".
In addition to this, we must also consider that the way in which we define the subject, the man, is intrinsically connected to the ethic that we will be able to define and circumscribe within our work.
Therefore, we cannot ignore at all the political analysis of our lives if we want to be able to talk about ethic and moral.
For the reasons above, we must highlight that the current theorization expressed in this article are not universal. Because of the fact that ethic is a theoretical speculation within a society on the human behavior someway linked to the concepts of "good" and "evil", then it is totally impossible to create a universal ethic. Even if on one side we can identify a sort of what we may call "ethical globalization" thanks to the spreading of christianity all over the world, there will always been a society that does not share the christian ethic neither any other western-capitalistic kind of ethic. Our discourse is, for these reasons, merely theoretical and does not have any claim of universality.
Agàpe: the metaphysic of Love.
Agápe is a Greek word meaning «unconditional love» usually to define the love between brothers or family members. It has become famous in the freemason's vocabulary because of its intrinsic meaning of «sharing» and therefore it is usually linked to the celebration of ritual banquets or dinners. Once again, the Greek etymology says something different.
If on one side it's absolutely true that Agàpe means «unconditional love», we have to highlight how this concept included all types of love, without any further distinction. Within the concept of Agàpe we can find the love of two brothers, two or more lovers, the love of a devotee for God, the love of a man for mankind, the love for a parent, the love for a lover who does not love us back. Every peculiar manifestation of love is, in some way, included in the concept of Agàpe. When we are talking about Agápe, there is no more space for Eros (yearning for something or someone), Anteros (unrequited love), Himeros (uncontrollable desire), Ponthos (the desire that we are willing to reach), Storgé (parental love), Thélema (the love for what we want to do).
The reader may be quite surprised of the deep distinction of all types of love used within the Greek culture, where our society usually uses the world "Love" for any situation. But, if it is true that we think thanks to the words that we know, therefore we can easily see how the Greek thought on love was way deeper than ours. Greeks managed not only to distinguish a lot of kinds of Love, but also embodied the into mythical figures and deities, such as, precisely, Eros or Anteros, brothers born from the same mother  but different fathers.
The difference between the classical idea of Agápe and the modern one was born with christianity, which adopted this greek terminology to point at the banquets for the christians in the first period of christianity and, later in theology, to point at God's infinite love for humanity.
This new meaning of the word Agàpe, of course, was created out of necessity by the christians, but does not fully embodies the whole significance of this wonderful and extraordinary word. But in this case, which is the true significance of Agápe?
The samaelite view of love
Talking about Love in an LHP religion is quite uncommon, at least in the terms in which we are speaking in this article. Usually, love is seen as something very sexual, linked to the pleasures of the bodies rather than to the fulfillment of the soul. Understanding the samaelite vision of Agàpe is, for this very reason, quite difficult for all those who come from an LHP background.
Agàpe has nothing to do with the pleasure of bodies.
When we talk about Agàpe, in fact, we are talking about a rational love which can be manifested in many different ways and that, for this reason, can assume a lot of different manifestations. Since this concept is strongly linked to a significance of unconditional love, of course one of the main manifestation of Agàpe in Samaelism is what other religions usually call "charity". We do not adopt this term because of a very clear etymological reason: "charity" comes from the latin carus that can be translated as "loved one" or "loved person".
This term, in San Girolamo's Vulgata translated the Greek "Agàpe" and, from this very moment, the two ideas were destined to be forever linked to one another.
The idea of "someone loved" meaning that someone is "beloved" or "dear" by or to us implies also the idea that other people are not. This distinction is well manifested in Christian charity, specifically where Christianity have used this implication to distinguish on one side those who are worthy of being loved, and on the other side those who are not deserving of help, such as homosexuals, divorced people, transexuals and some decades ago also black people or foreigners in general and so on. In a few words, we can easily say that the concept of Charity if mainly refers to a type of love directed towards those who are love by us, on the other hand implies the fact that some other people (usually minorities or "divergent" people) are not worthy of love and help.
Diametrically opposed is the samaelite vision of Agàpe. By adopting this terminology and by refusing the christian "charity" we want to highlight how everyone is worthy of love and help, despite any physical or psychological or sexual peculiarity. Simply because there is no space for any distinction between the concept of Agàpe.
If I want to practice Agàpe as Samaelism teaches, therefore I must manage to balance my natural inclination to love more some people rather than others. Long story short, the love that I dedicate to God must be equal to the love that I dedicate to myself and at the same time must be equal to the love that I give towards the others, despite the fact that the may or may not follow my ideas, my religion, my conviction. I cannot approve someone's behavior but this does not exclude them from the Greek concept of Agàpe.
Apology of Agàpe: when loving others does not exclude selfishness
One of the main themes in LHP religions is selfishness or, in other words, the tendency to put one's own interests before any others. For this very reason LHP religions usually distinctively deny the christian behavior of "turn the other cheek" and we couldn't agree more on this. But how can we justify this denial of ours if we have based our ethic on the concept of "unconditional love"?. This is a theoretical issue that is worthy to be discussed.
Even though Samaelism approaches the concept of Agápe trying to reconstruct the original Greek meaning, we must say that our vision is of course influenced by our own theology and religious view. This is why we are going to give, before of a philosophical answer, a theological one.
Therefore, as we already have analyzed in this article, the samaelite cosmology is based on the idea that everything is made up of contraries, more specifically, Neikos (disintegration) and Philia (aggregation) both regulated by the action of Polemos, which is considered to be therein element of our Cosmo.
Now, starting from this evidence, we can adopt Nietzsche's speculation  on the distinction of the two "Eris". As Nietzsche said, even though Eris was the Deity of discord, Greeks used to identify a positive Eris, in the case in which the conflict led to an enhancement of men's conditions, and a negative Eris, in the case in which this conflict led only to someone's annihilation or death. Having adopted this distinction in the case of Polemos we can say that this conflicting force can assume a positive or negative meaning depending on the situation.
So, if the conflicting of men leads to an enhancement of human knowledge or condition, we must say that this conflict is absolutely positive; on the contrary, if this conflict only ends up in a physical fight and nothing more then we must say it is negative. So the samaelite does not turn the other cheek because sees in the conflict the opportunity to implement human condition.
Of course this does not mean that samaelites go around beating people with no reasons or engaging in fights out of nowhere.
A more philosophical reason on why samaelites should not turn the other cheeks is given by our social philosophy. If we look at society as that cohesive element that allows mankind to live peacefully, avoiding death and extinction , therefore any fight, whether physical or dialectical, leading nowhere, must be seen as a destructive element undermining our society. For this reason, it is in the interest of society, to extinguish immediately any destructive behavior, according to a country's laws, such as violence, discrimination, hatred and everything that is, by its own nature, a danger for our cohabitation.
As we have effectively analyzed in this article, the concept of Agàpe is a very complex idea, taken from the Greek mythology and declined, rationally, in contemporary times thanks to the help of political and social philosophy but even thanks to the samaelite theoretical thought. Talking about Agàpe means to recognize the complexity of our society and identify in an unconditional love, that nevertheless never undermines one's wellness, the most useful aggregative force within the society itself.
This love, equally shared among all the beings in the creation is the true foundation of a progressive, enlightened and free mankind.
 cfr. Ordo Adamantis Atri, Treatise on samaelite doctrine, Amazon 2021, pp. 181-227
 Ugo Fabietti, History of Anthropology, Zanichelli, Bologna 2020, pp. 203-241
 Plauto, II, 4, 88 & T. Hobbes, De Cive, any edition
 cfr. Aristotle, Politics, any edition
 cfr. Treccani, "Etica"
 cfr. I. Kant, Critic of practical reason, any edition
 i.e. Aphrodite
 cfr F. Nietzsche, Homer's Contest, any edition
 Ordo Adamantis Atri, Treatise on samaelite doctrine, Amazon 2021, pp.196-197