How does one ascribe morality value to love? Are you saying that… you know what? I don’t know what you’re saying. Perhaps if you explain what you mean by morality I’ll understand better.
Yes I missed it (or saw it and had a Senior Moment).
Apologies.
If you have a universal love for all human beings that wouldn’t be a problem. So its either love nobody or everybody I suppose.
Universal love for all might work only if all practiced universal love. Any other scenario is an open invitation to all those that would abuse that love.
What is horrible or psychotic about unconditional love? Yes, it would be crazy to stay with someone who abused you so badly they sent you to the hospital, even if you were their parent, but it’s definitely not psychotic to still love that person, and worry about them, while staying far away from them.
Sounds like a sentient hive species, actually. It still wouldn’t make people nice; it would just means that when it was decided to kill off a few million people for the good of the race, the people to be killed would walk willingly into the death chambers since they love the race so much.
Being in love with a serial killer or a tyrant and helping him because you love him.
Because unconditional anything is crazy. It is by definition irrational and amoral, since rational thought and morality are conditions.
OK which “loving” relationship do you have in mind here. The Wests and Myra Hindley can quickly be ignored as their relationships were far from loving.
I believe unconditional exists, and is good, but it can be killed. I know that appears to be a contradictions, but that’s how it works.
Unconditional love means loving someone, despite their failings and flaws. We are none of us perfect but most of us are loved.
We believe we effect those that we love; we feel responsiblity for those we love; we accept some responsibility for their failings and flaws.
However, there is a point that love cannot survive, some personal or moral or ethicaly betrayal. When the betrayal is so grevious that we understand that our understanding of the beloved is not the reality?
I think your definition of “unconditional” needs some work.
But we aren’t discussing a definition, we are discussing a concept. Language does not alway reflect reality.
I do not stop loving someone for a mistake or even for having different values, but I have stopped loving someone for a serious betrayal, of me, someone else I loved, or a principle.
Like others, I find the idea of unconditional love, unconditional anything, troubling. Our emotions should reflect reality if they are to mean anything. Otherwise, we’re essentially saying we’re programmed to feel X no matter the stimulus.
I find the idea that the people I love could in theory hate me, or I could grow to hate them, troubling as well.
Hmm. For me, I like it. That means that if they continue to love me, it’s for who I am, not because they have no choice in the matter.
I agree and was trying to figure how to state this earlier.
“Unconditional” by definition means “without condition”. So, if your SO punches you then for unconditional love to apply you need to love the fucker that hit you.
That works in the literal definition of the term.
I would argue that their needs to be reciprocity in “love”. Which is to say you do not need to love the fucker who hits you. Someone who smacks you is not displaying love so therefore you are not obliged to “love” them back.
What of the mother who surrenders her child to adoption by another family?
A decision made in love. An unconditional love surely.
She is acting against her own self interest, in favour of a harder choice, which she’ll live with the rest of her life.
Treating it decently would be a condition, dret?
You revived a two year old thread to bring up a point that had already been brought up(twice) and conceeded?
Sorry I forgot that the point was already made. 
There is unconditional love.
It is practiced by the God,
The One that most posters
here don’t believe exists.
I feel His love all the time.
Don’t throw rocks please.
Nope.