Universal Love

[wonky]

@elfkin477

I think we should strive to cause as little pain possible to even those we only encounter in the shallowest of interactions, such as sharing the same space while out shopping. If you want to say that’s loving them all, knock yourself out.

I can agree with that. We can try to be mostly kind and mostly try to get along. We can be compassionate and helpful to others. We can look beyond naked self-interest. We can weigh others’ needs along with our own. I would call that general human decency, but if someone wanted to call it love, um, I would still call it general human decency.

[Kyla]

I agree with elfkin477 and jsgoddess. I feel no particular obligation to love everyone. I do, however, feel an obligation to be courteous and kind to strangers, with an increase in feeling toward those close to me.

[Wolverine]

@Der_Trihs

As for the result of universal love being inflicted on me; I’d probably end up scammed out of everything I own, and quite likely be killed sooner or later since I’d have zero judgment about people.

This is just the wrong perspective on “love.” I love my family, but I don’t let them steal from me. I love my son, but if he commits a serious crime, I won’t provide sanctuary or drive the getaway car. Love doesn’t override all rational thoughts and/or feelings.

Universal love to me is not an intense or profound feeling. It is more like a respect for others. I don’t want anyone to suffer and am happy when anyone succeeds. However, I still look out for myself just like when I compete with my siblings for love or attention from parents. Everyone is of the same family, just many generations removed. I still believe in punishing the black sheep though (Hilter, Stalin, et al).

[Der_Trihs]

@Wolverine

Universal love to me is not an intense or profound feeling. It is more like a respect for others.

That’s not “love”. That’s not even “like”.

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

You can’t love who you don’t know. And even then, it’s impossible for a sane person to love everyone she knows.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@Der_Trihs

They should at most love those closest to them. I doubt that it is even possible to “love everyone”; love is as much an emotion of exclusion as of inclusion. When you love person X, that means you put them at a higher priority than everyone else.

Nor is love especially desirable. It has the virtue that people enjoy it (which puts it well above, say, pain or despair as mental states go), but love isn’t especially admirable or positive in its effects. Love isn’t bad…but neither is it good.

Others have already taken Qin to task over not defining the word love. May i ask what you mean you can say soemthing is good or bad?

[LouisB]

Does the OP love everyone equally? If not, why? If so, he must believe loving everyone is right and proper, so why ask the question?

Does the OP love me?

[LouisB]

@LouisB

Does the OP love everyone equally? If not, why? If so, he must believe loving everyone is right and proper, so why ask the question?

Does the OP love me?

Still waiting for answers to these questions. Will answers be forthcoming?

[Blaster_Master]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/love

I’m one who strives to love everyone as I’ve to do; but that’s not the definition of love I would use in that context. In that particular context, it’s akin to things like the golden rule or whatever. It is specifically an action and doesn’t necessarily have any emotion attached to it; in fact, it’s quite possible in that context to love someone that you have a strong aversion for. However, by your definition, it’s not only impossible to love everyone, but even if it were possible, it’d be a bad idea. How can you possibly have profound attraction or affection for people you don’t even know exist? It would make such feelings utterly pointless and potentially harmful.

Similarly, by what rule excepts people like Hitler and Stalin? Hell, who’s to say the reason they didn’t end up commiting such attrocities isn’t precisely because they never received the love they needed? Where do you draw the line? Should you love a mass murderer? What about a rapist? At what point do the actions of a person become so bad that you stop loving them. If you’re goint to have universal love, it has to be universal or, well, it’s not universal love. And if you’re not going to love everyone, that’s fine, but you need to have a reasonable way of deciding who you do and don’t love.

Either way, since I think this is related to Biblical commandments, there’s a lot of confusion about what some of the different ones about love mean because there’s multiple words that are often translated as love.

[Thudlow_Boink]

Predictably, people posting to this thread have different ideas in mind of what they mean by “love,” and so there’s some amount of talking past one another. There are different kinds of love (see for example this current GQ thread).

As I interpret the OP’s question, the sort of love we’re talking about here does not necessarily mean or imply preferring one person over another; it is not a stronger form of liking; and it is not just an emotion.

It is, I’d say, a benevolence toward a person, caring about that person, bearing no ill will toward the person, wanting the best for the person, wishing that person’s ultimate well-being. Unless you believe that life is necessarily a competition, with winners and losers, where people can only prosper at the expense of others—and I don’t believe this—it is both theoretically possible and presumably desirable to love everyone at least in the sense of bearing no one any ill will, wishing that no one suffer unnecessarily, wishing that everyone would be well and happy and good. I could love an evil person like Hitler in the sense of hoping he could have repented and turned from his evil ways and found redemption.

Interestingly, I don’t recall Jesus ever advocating universal love as such—that is, he never said to “love everybody.” He was always more specific: “Love your neighbor,” “love your enemies,” “love one another.” Maybe that’s because we can’t really love people in the abstract, perfect strangers whom we know nothing about: we can only actively love people we have some connection to.

[MyFootsZZZ]

I think trying to put myself in other people’s shoes has really helped me be a generally liked person. I’m very liberal in my acceptance towards others, but I’m accepting towards people who are close-minded and not accepting themselves. It’s my opinion that the best way to express my thoughts is not to aggressively lecture people, but listen and then state what I think is wrong with their logic.

While I don’t feel ‘LOVE’ for people who, admittedly, piss me off. But I do know that I’m not perfect either. I also don’t really, logically, feel there’s a need to “HATE”, since I don’t believe you can really fault a person for their actions. I think we set up an age where we consider ourselves ‘adults’, and punish those who don’t play by the rules of our society. Some people are sick inside, some people are absolutely hideous inside. I’m just a determinist who believes people are set up to do what they do by things in their lives, big, small, internal and external.

I try to care about others. I TRY not to hate.

[LouisB]

I must have asked an unanswerable question.

[Malthus]

Sounds like the philosophy of Mo-tzu.

Mozi

Mozi tried to replace what he considered to be the long-entrenched Chinese over-attachment to family and clan structures with the concept of “impartial caring” or “universal love” (兼愛, jiān ài). In this, he argued directly against Confucians who had argued that it was natural and correct for people to care about different people in different degrees. Mozi, in contrast, argued that people in principle should care for all people equally, a notion that philosophers in other schools found absurd, as they interpreted this notion as implying no special amount of care or duty towards one’s parents and family. Overlooked by those critics, however, is a passage in the chapter on “Self-Cultivation” which states, “When people near-by are not befriended, there is no use endeavoring to attract those at a distance.” This point is also precisely articulated by a Mohist in a debate with Mencius (in the Mencius), where the Mohist argues in relation to carrying out universal love, that “We begin with what is near.” Also, in the first chapter of the writings of Mozi on universal love, Mozi argues that the best way of being filial to one’s parents is to be filial to the parents of others. The foundational principle is that benevolence, as well as malevolence, is requited, and that one will be treated by others as one treats others. Mozi quotes a popular passage from the Book of Odes to bring home this point: “When one throws to me a peach, I return to him a plum.” One’s parents will be treated by others as one treats the parents of others. In pursuing this line of argument, Mozi was directly appealing to the idea of enlightened self-interest in social relations. Also of note is the fact that Mozi differentiated between “intention” and “actuality,” thereby placing a central importance on the will to love, even though in practice it may very well be impossible to bring benefit to everyone.

[panache45]

To love everyone is to love no one.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@panache45

To love everyone is to love no one.

Is this specifically in response to what Malthus posted?

[Oakminster]

…and if you can’t be with the one you love, honey
Love the one you’re with.

[Lanzy]

no

[Magiver]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Should human beings love all of their fellow human beings or at least the vast majority excepting such people as Hitler or Stalin?

When I asked my mother what “love thy neighbor” meant she told me it didn’t mean you had to like everybody but that you had to give them the respect they were due.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@panache45

To love everyone is to love no one.

Bullshit. It’s impossible for humans to feel the emotion of love for all other persons equally, but not for us to be committed to treat all other persons in a loving (i.e., agapaeic) manner.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@LouisB

Does the OP love everyone equally? If not, why? If so, he must believe loving everyone is right and proper, so why ask the question?

Does the OP love me?

I try to love everyone although in some cases as with Hitler or Charles Manson or Stalin it is almost impossible.

@Thudlow_Boink

It is, I’d say, a benevolence toward a person, caring about that person, bearing no ill will toward the person, wanting the best for the person, wishing that person’s ultimate well-being. Unless you believe that life is necessarily a competition, with winners and losers, where people can only prosper at the expense of others—and I don’t believe this—it is both theoretically possible and presumably desirable to love everyone at least in the sense of bearing no one any ill will, wishing that no one suffer unnecessarily, wishing that everyone would be well and happy and good. I could love an evil person like Hitler in the sense of hoping he could have repented and turned from his evil ways and found redemption.

I think you have the best interpretation here. Thank you.

Interestingly, I don’t recall Jesus ever advocating universal love as such—that is, he never said to “love everybody.” He was always more specific: “Love your neighbor,” “love your enemies,” “love one another.” Maybe that’s because we can’t really love people in the abstract, perfect strangers whom we know nothing about: we can only actively love people we have some connection to.

Well if we’re supposed to love our enemies than its more possible to love people you’re neutral with.

@Magiver

When I asked my mother what “love thy neighbor” meant she told me it didn’t mean you had to like everybody but that you had to give them the respect they were due.

Certainly that was a convenient interpretation…