All love is conditional, all relationships are exchanges.

I suppose I could consider myself one except for that fact that no time frame is specified. Granted my ethics do indeed extend from the idea that the point of life is happiness, but to define it this way leaves a dangerous hole. I deeply respect individual freedoms, but killing a billion people would make those left pretty happy due to increased resources, this does not mean I justify the execution of a billion people. So as defined by wiki and the like, no I am not a utilitarian. "That child doesn't need to earn his mother's love(.)" Right but some mothers do not love their children, which means there is some condition that is being met to induce love be it genetic or behavioral. You bring up a need for clarification. For the record: I mean any and all conditions. Besides there are millions of cases where by all accounts true love was present and then actions were taken that changed the situation resulting in the annihilation of love. This is a fact related to all emotion, they are conditional, that is how we know to feel them. Under these conditions I will feel love under these I will feel hate. Genetic relationship or the illusion of it is just as much a condition as anything else. The idea of unconditional love is just a tool to extract servitude despite counter desire from a target. "If you really loved me you'd do this." I think the first use of this was religion. But I could be wrong about that. The idea of unconditional love is a fundamental contradiction because love (and all other emotion) is by nature selective. Love has value because it is not given to everyone by everyone, if it were you would not recognize it as a discrete entity it would be seen as merely a species bond. For example we don't think of ants being capable of love, but what if they are, to a degree greater than any human? "you have created a false dichotomy between utility and identity" Hmmm. I don't think I have, am I really merely what I can give? That reasoning seems circular. I am what I give because what I am is what I give. (Replace ‘give' with ‘want' or ‘utility' or whatever.) Let's say Bob by nature spits out donuts, and loves watching people eat them and he meets Homer. Naturally they would enjoy each other's company. But Homer only likes the donuts and Bob only likes the eating. They mutually benefit, and were that condition to dissolve so would the association unless a new medium of exchange was found, this is not some mystical bond called ‘love' or ‘friendship'. The fluffy, valentines, hallmark, Kay diamonds, American nuclear family dream idea of one true love forever and ever no matter what, lets pay our 10 percent, is just totally bogus. It is an unreasonable demand and causes hoards of undue stress. We should not feel guilty for something we cannot change. And accepting this absurdity from the beginning opens the door psychologically to all other sorts of non-sense that makes you easier to control, like the idea that God unconditionally loves you but he'll send you to hell if X. If we would just own up to the facts of our nature we would be a lot better off. If we are ashamed of our nature, fine then let's change it as per Transhumanism. Saying there is unconditional love, when logically there cannot me and the glossing it over with platitudes like "the heart knows no logic" is both insulting and dangerously close to burying our heads in the sand. (not that this is what you've claimed) If people were more honest about what they want and more tolerant of others being honest, there would be a lot more happy people. My ethical world is based on one idea. "Honesty is the best policy." Because over time it is. Delusion is maladaptive. Lies = Pain. And thank you Connor for providing rational counterpoint. I'm glad you enjoy the topic. :)