In other posts this month I dealt with the concept of Love as the background of the moral universe,. ,  Below I pull out several statements from comment sections to construct a dialogue with hopes of spurring on more discussion.
Why does God love? Aren't you just substituting "love" for "the good"? At some point, all metaethical questions ultimately must "reduce to pragmatism or mystification." You say that love and being are bound up closely together. Either you are subsuming being under the rubric of love or you must say that there is some greater value that unites love and being together.
Why does God love? I don't think that's the kind of question we can answer. I resist the idea of being put in a position of having to explain God who is beyond our understanding. I think we have ample reason given the assumptions of the Christian tradition,to assume that God loves I'm willing to accept that without understanding why. But this leads Seven to assert that I am confusing love with the good, I think love is bound up with the good unless by "love" one understands only sexual or primitive or childish notions of "love." She's 'purdy' I want to sleep with her. I love movies about Batman, I love ice cream, But I'm talking about agape, often translates as "charity." The will to the Good of the other (Tillich).
Is there a greater value that embodies both love and being? First , from an ontological perspective being must proceed love, since to love one must first be. Bit the two are bound up in other senses, Namely, both are giving out and positive as in constructive to name a few. We might connected them "the good" in this sense. The relationship between love and the good is dialectical. That is we can;t say the good is the basis of love or that love is the basis of the good. That love is good would give good priority but Good is based upon love. Perhaps this is typical of the human need to dissect and label everything;and not everything can be so treated.
Why on earth would you think that the good has to be 'passionless'? We ought to be passionately committed to what's good.
I don't, you said you make it so by expecting everything to be understood.
God's character is already set according to what is good, so in that sense the good is metaphysically prior to God's actions. You could say the good isn't prior to God's nature since the good is "baked into" his character, but the reason it is baked in is because it IS good, so it is logically prior, if that makes any sense. It's not that these character traits are arbitrarily part of God and then because of that fact they become good, but the other way around.
That is a pseudo problem. If we devise good as a form of love then the problem is eliminated. Above I try to resolve it by appeal to a dialectical relationship.I think love is the motivation for the good and the good may be a more general application of love; I suspect it's really a language problem. We are trying to describe and clarify relationships that are based upon aspects of being that are beyond our comprehension.
Now in term of the statement you made about God's character and the good I think in that sense the notion of good as in good character does go back to love. We think in terms of higher value to which we must conform or to which we value but in terms of God we don't have that, since God is the highest appoint. Good is a catch all term that covers both pragmatism and morality; love designates God's specific attitude in his will to the 'good' of the other,
I do understand that this statement assumes good is prior to love but because we don't have a term to designate good as in the conditions for flourishing of someone with good as in individual values, likes or dislikes. We could say the will to the best conditions for the other.
We value what we do independent of what God or anyone or anything else values. I know you're not saying we value love because God does. That's DCT. You're saying: "To love is the background of the moral law, or deeply implicated in the moral law, to love is God's character, therefore God is the background of the moral law." Even if any of that were true, which it isn't, it would have nothing to do with why we value what we value.
First I want to know how you are so certain that it isn't true? How can you know that we don't value things because Gd put it into us to value said thing? You are assuming aren't you that moral laws are all man made? How do you know there is not a basic moral law written on the heart? (Roams 2:7-14). That can still be the case and the moral law be derivative of love.
One of the hardest things for people to do is accept that God loves us,especially when that is dis confirmed by everything in our lives. Yet clear implication of all that I said thus far is that God does love us,God loves me and each of us. We have to be able to say that to affirm faith,I think that inability due to self loathing is responsible for a lot of atheism.
 Joseph Hinman, "Love the basis of everything (expansion)," Metacrock's blog (APRIL 10, 2019)
 ____________. "Jason Thibodeau's Euthyphro dilemma," Metacrock;s blog (4/8/19)