The missing piece in this philosophy is that actions and resources you can apply to “back up the love with actions” are limited. You CAN’T give everyone an environment where they’ll thrive. You can give a few a lot of assistance, or a few more a little, or everyone a tiny bit.
Which means you are forced to make comparative decisions. Those who are “inefficient” in their wants and behaviors require a bigger commitment to help, depriving those who are more compatible with YOUR wants and abilities. Many are so different that they’re hard to cooperate with, meaning there’s actually less resources than if you’d focused your attention and actions on more-capable-of-cooperation partners.
I think it’s fine (and psychologically beneficial) to love everyone, in a sense that you internally value their humanity. I don’t see how it’s meaningful in terms of actions—you should still acknowledge that the rest of humanity is better off without some individuals.
The missing piece in this philosophy is that actions and resources you can apply to “back up the love with actions” are limited. You CAN’T give everyone an environment where they’ll thrive. You can give a few a lot of assistance, or a few more a little, or everyone a tiny bit.
Which means you are forced to make comparative decisions. Those who are “inefficient” in their wants and behaviors require a bigger commitment to help, depriving those who are more compatible with YOUR wants and abilities. Many are so different that they’re hard to cooperate with, meaning there’s actually less resources than if you’d focused your attention and actions on more-capable-of-cooperation partners.
I think it’s fine (and psychologically beneficial) to love everyone, in a sense that you internally value their humanity. I don’t see how it’s meaningful in terms of actions—you should still acknowledge that the rest of humanity is better off without some individuals.