Sign into an existing account

Sounds good until you look at the implications, in abstract, it might be okay, until you start to actually think about the reality.

It's dehumanizing and justifies mass death and destruction.
Such an ideology requires you to treat everyone like components of a machine, indistinguishable, interchangeable, expendable, replaceable.
You see people as just numbers to be crunched.

Such an ideology demands that you reject your relationships with other human beings, something only a sociopath could do, for example, if you have to treat all children the same, it means that your child and that of a stranger are to be given equal moral consideration from you.

This is why when you ask a normal person a moral question, they have reservations about the utilitarian answer, but when you ask a sociopath, they will give the utilitarian answer with no difficulties.

Because universal love, omnibenevolence, is functionally identical to universal apathy, nihilism, love is exclusive and conditional by nature and necessity.

universal and unconditional love is only acceptable when you do not consider the implications of what nature it would necessarily demand of its practitioner, once you do consider the implications of how it would function in any scenarios, it becomes terrifyingly horrific because it has to be. All loving omnibenevolence is the stuff of apocalyptic scenarios where the world is run by robots who rile on accordance with their utilitarian moral programming.

It's worse when you consider the malthusean limit, there will necessarily be conflicts between the good of one person and the good of another, simply because everything relies upon some resource to survive and procreate, even non-living things have requirements for their continued existence.

Worse, as the number of beings in any environment increases, the quality of life for all beings in the environment decreases, the malthusean limit means that resources are stretched to the absolute minimum until the limit is reached where everyone is living on the barest minimum of what they need on the bottom row of Maslow hierarchy of needs.

Spelling of Maslows hierarchy, their lives will be miserable, all the upper levels of the hierarchy are going completely unsatisfied and the environment simply cannot allow for anything short of pure survival.

When the limit is passed, some fuckers gotta die, abd uts not going to be just those past the limit, either, it's going to cause a chain reaction of deaths until the population cones down to a number that all has their entire hierarchy of needs bring met, not just a return to bare survival needs in absolute misery.

What if these restrictions are removed? It's still utter hell, but of a different variety of nightmare. Look at the mouse utopia experiment, where the goal was just that, to give mice the absolute ideal living situations, conflict still emerged, even with no resources to fight over. The results were truly disturbing, and if you think it was only limited to mice, think again, they reproduced the same kind of results with many other social species.

In fact, the results could be seen in humanity, over and over, throughout history, we never had utopia, bevause merely approaching paradise necessarily led to the creation of the exact opposite, a dystopian nightmare.

Then we come to the impossibility of bring omnibenevolent lovers of one's fellow man eben if ideal conditions are met and full cooperation is guaranteed, even under these unrealistic conditions, we have the limits of the human brain.

Dunbar's number is the limit on how many relationships the human brain is cognitively capable of having, the upper limit for a particularly high functioning brain is about 200, the lower limit is around 100, the average is 150.

150 people, that's the maximum number of people your brain can process as being individual lifeforms that exist. Not counting that relationships with nonhuman like dogs also take up mental space, not to mention that this applies to all forms of relationships, it's not just love, but even hate as well, your enemies take up space in your brain just as your friends do, and the more you hate them, the more space they take up in there, having intense rivalries or feuds will result in being less capable of making friends with other people.

The worst part is that the more social connections you have, the shallower each of them become, because intense or detailed relationships also take up more space in you brain than those where your mind merely acknowledges their existence.

Meaning that to stretch out to the limit, you have no room for anything resembling love, or hate, because a close family member or best friend forever takes up more room than an acquaintance, theres a real reason that the more friends a person has, the less of a friend they are to them, the human brain is just not capable of managing both high quality relationships and a large quantity of them.

Worst of all, these relationships need not even be mutual or reciprocated, in fact, most relationships taking up space in your head right now are with people who do not even know you exist, they are Para social relationships and thet make up the majority of the relationships
that everyone has, in a well adjusted mind, these are the weakest relationships they have, but in the unhealthy mind such as that of a mentally disturbed fan, they can be far more intense than it is healthy for them to be.

So just getting together and loving one another is not only far more insidious and sinister than it sounds, not only is it a route to nightmare scenarios under the most unrealistically ideal conditions, it's also sonething that the limits on computation in the human brain makes into an impossible feat.

The people you love each takes up some amount of storage space in your brain, each person you love takes up more space in your brain the more you love them, sane applies to your enemies and your hate for them, and all of this applies not just to other humans, but to any kind of living being with whom you forn any kind of relationship with.