comment: >
  
  That is a good caveat. If you tell me how to give you a delta, you can have one! (I don’t use this subreddit often)
context: ​
  
  Even if after all this you did not stop loving this person, I suspectthat it seems plausible to say that, were someone to tell you that yourcontinuing to love this person is unhealthy and ultimately a negativething, we’d be hard pressed to say they’re wrong.
  
  But WHY is it wrong? WHY is it unhealthy?  I don't think it's particularly helpful or healthy to tell someone they are automatically in the wrong for continuing to have feels for their problematic loved one.
  Where is this line that, when crossed, turns into someone being wrong for loving? What are the specific criteria/conditions/timeline?  At arrest? When charged? When the guilty verdict is read? Two weeks after that? Two months after that?
  Sure, there are a gazillion scenarios in which someone may stop loving someone. But your notion that there should be some set of conditions that apply to all feelings of love is not something I agree with. Even you conceded that love isn't necessarily a conscious decision.
  I'm of the belief that love is both a feeling and a behavior. The behavior part of it we have control over. The feeling part of it, not so much. Judgments like "should" are for the things we can control, not the things we can't. >
  
  Right, you have a good point about my use of the word should. On your breakdown of what love is, I’d say that when people are terrible enough we should stop the behaviours of love, and would be better off if we could shake the feelings of love. Is that better? 
  As for exactly what the threshold is, I think I’m not sure I could provide a list of individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for when this threshold is reached, but I hardly think that’s a devastating blow against what I’m saying. 
  P.S., how do I give you a delta? I haven’t used this subreddit in years!
  !delta >
  
  !delta >
  
  This delta has been rejected. You can't award OP a delta.
  Allowing this would wrongly suggest that you can post here with the aim of convincing others.
  If you were explaining when/how to award a delta, please use a reddit quote for the symbol next time.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  You can take this in the context of the unconditional love of Jesus Christ (agape), that the 'unconditional' in unconditional love is found upon the unconditional possibility of repentance and forgiveness. Let's try to put that in context of your example as well:
  
  Consider somebody who you’d consider to be a good candidate for being worthy of unconditional love (a parent, a child, a best friend, etc.). Now imagine if that person independently and of sound mind adopted a world view you find abhorrent (e.g., neo-Nazism).
  
  Unconditional love doesnt mean to 'love what they have done' (which seems to what you seem to be implying as the implication of loving someone) --- loving someone means that 'no matter what you did I still believe that you have a good nature and will realise that you have done wrongly'. The tale of the prodigal son probably serve as a good case example as well (if you know the story of that). >
  
  So unconditional love, on this view, is not about my feelings about you, but about my belief that your nature is fundamentally good, no matter what? I suppose, on that reading, unconditional love would manage to dodge my criticism. However, I’m not sure how compelling a conception of unconditional love that is entirely based on the concept of believing is. Most people think of love in terms of feeling, and maybe action, too. Not a knock down argument, but it does that this interpretation may be fairly idiosyncratic. >
  
  
  is not about my feelings about you, but about my belief that your nature is fundamentally good, no matter what? 
  
  These are not exclusive --- my point is just that to 'love someone' (whatever you make that to be) doesnt have to involve 'loving the actions that they have committed' . Again per your Nazi example, loving a Nazi does not necessarily imply loving Nazism or their specific acts with regards to Nazism. >
  
  I’m not suggesting you have to love what someone has done to love someone. I am assuming a purely psychological/emotional account of love. Perhaps you could say a little more about what you take love to be? >
  
  If you are only talking about the emotion of love, then love is simply the pleasure that you experience because of another person.
  In that case it has no bearing whether it's conditional or unconditional, so long as it still remains pleasurable to the lover.
  You seem to be bringing a moral judgement into this, like the wrongness of being a Nazi should correlate to the love they receive, but that is something other than emotional. >
  
  you mistake what love actually does,   love does not mean you don't call a person on his bullshit or protect them from the law,  love means that you sometimes need to be cruel to keep the one you love on the right path in life, and even if they resent you for the intervention you can still love them until they become/return to who the can/used to be.
  and even if they never change you can still love them for what they could have been.
  love is unconditional because if it has conditions its not love its a transaction, not because love allows a person to do anything with no repercussions >
  
  
  and even if they never change you can still love them for what they could have been
  
  At this point you're not loving a person, you're loving wish for better outcomes. >
  
  given that most become unable to change when they are dead that's correct in some ways though its a matter of perception >
  
  
  Consider somebody who you’d consider to be a good candidate for being worthy of unconditional love (a parent, a child, a best friend, etc.). Now imagine if that person independently and of sound mind adopted a world view you find abhorrent (e.g., neo-Nazism). Suppose further that they murdered several others who you loved dearly, and showed no remorse for their crimes. Suppose even further that their interests and personality changed such that 1) you no longer have anything in common with them, and 2) they act and speak in ways that you despise. Now, in this case, I suggest that it would be perfectly acceptable, even healthy, to stop loving them (not that loving is necessarily something you consciously decide do).
  
  You know you can not like someone, be ashamed of someone, think they've done terrible things, disavow all their actions, and still love them?
  Why is that unhealthy?
  You can still have boundaries. >
  
  If you can love someone, while very strongly disliking (maybe even hating) them, and having such strong boundaries that they’re not even in your life at all, then I struggle to see 1) why we should call that love, and 2) If it really is love, why we should think it is healthy.
  Out of curiosity, is there a definition of love that you subscribe to? >
  
  Because love isn’t a choice homie, you do or you don’t. >
  
  I don’t think it’s a choice, either; this has no bearing on whether loving certain people can be bad for you. >
  
  Yeah but the point is that it isn’t a logical choice you weigh and measure. >
  
  Sure. Again, it’s not relevant to whether unconditional love, if it were possible, would be a good thing/healthy/desirable/something to celebrate or hold as an ideal >
  
  Unconditional love is the only type of love, and it is a good, healthy, desirable ideal we should celebrate. 
  ​
  Why? 
  ​
  Because if we can't choose to love, whats the point in the debate here? Its like arguing whether water is good despite the existence of salt water. 
  To give a personal example - I have a friend of mine that has had their fair share of mental health issues that have negatively impacted myself and their other friends. They have been in my life for 18 years now, they are as close to me as family. 
  They did not have the best situation growing up. Myself and their other friends from their teenage and childhood years have been a source of love and stability for them into adulthood.
  As much as I have been hurt by their behavior, as much as they may have an unhealthy presence in my life at times, I really cannot stand the thought of them not being in my life at all. I want them to be happy, and I want to do what I can to help them get there. 
  I have personally talked that friend off the edge several times, as have their other friends. Were it not for unconditional love they would not be here right now. >
  
  Saying that unconditional love is the only type of love is just defining unconditional love into existence.
  Why should whether we can choose to love someone be relevant here? Have you ever stopped loving someone? If so, you’ve just proven that not all love is unconditional - unless of course you want to retroactively claim that it was never love it all, which just seems very ad hoc to me.
  If love is a feeling, which I take it to be, there’s little reason to think that it’s a feeling that must hold unconditionally, or that it, if it did hold unconditionally, it would be a good thing. If I was madly and unconditionally in love with a convicted serial killer, and I just could not shake the feeling, despite the fact that I know their actions to be heinous, it would make my life a confusing painful mess. It would mean that, even when I decided that I should not consume content about their crimes, promote their views, or associate with those few sickos who idolize them, my feelings of love would make me conflicted about doing all of these things. Unconditional love would be an impediment to doing what is healthy and right. >
  
  Here's the gist:
  Everyone deserves love. It is one of the pillars in our hierarchy of needs.
  There is a difference between love and maintained affiliation. While my brother and I are on opposing ends of the political spectrum and at odds in just about every way as human beings, I still don't love him less. I'd be there for him if his path took a turn for the worst. I'd give him the shirt off my back. 
  But I don't really like him. I don't affiliate with him. I wouldn't invite him over for a beer. I am not close to him.
  Bad people tend to turn bad due to a lack of support in some aspect of their lives. Neo-nazis tend to come from environments without a positive social element and are recruited by fabricating a sense of belonging and a culprit being given for their poor lot in life. Had they felt love from their dad and been part of something that made them feel included and positive about life they likely wouldn't fall into these exploitative traps. 
  I can't help but feel pity for those who end up going down these dark paths because in all honesty it was likely caused by elements of pain, poverty, or social ostracism that led them there. >
  
  I’m not really sure what you’re getting at.  I don’t think unconditional love is real, nor do i think that, even if it were, it would be something we should hold as an ideal. However, I know that some people don’t see things this way. Hence why I made this post; I’m wondering if any of these people have anything to say for unconditional love that I haven’t considered. 
  Perhaps I could have made my title a little clearer - something like CMV: unconditional love is not real, and, if it were, it wouldn’t be a good thing >
  
  “Change my view, love should not be unconditional”
  It’s not, that’s just a saying. Your view doesn’t need to be “changed”. The people who would argue that love IS unconditional would be the typical Social Media commentators who might also post nothing but the nice parts of their lives online. >
  
  Your tone is kinda hostile, but we seem to be mostly in agreement. Of all the parts of my post, my claim that some people think unconditional love is real is about the last one I thought would be criticized. >
  
  
  Your tone is kinda hostile 
  
  Sorry, didn’t intend to “sound” that way! I’m 50 yrs old and I was already in my mid 20’s when the Internet happened. To me, using “tone” to perceive text is weird because I grew up minding my actual tone when engaging people in person, while written notes for things have always been “direct”. I think most of the thoughts I put down on things like social media are direct and to the point, IOW, I am not minding “my tone” because in my mind, tone is something that pushes air (and you also pay attention to a person’s body language and their actual cadence when speaking). >
  
  A solid point - fair enough! >
  
  
  But if all this is the case, then it seems there were either some conditions to your loving this person, and thus your love for them was not unconditional, or your continuing to love them is not a good thing, and thus unconditional love is not something to be desired/celebrated.
  
  Isn't it also possible to continue to love someone in those cases, while distancing yourself from them and their actions/views?
  Love is only about how you feel towards someone; there are no specific actions or inactions that (while they can be highly correlated) are required if you love someone. >
  
  It may be possible, though i have my doubts. However, even if it were, I don’t think we should think that feeling love in that situation is a good thing. Everyone who finds themselves in that position would be better off without it. As I mentioned in the other comment, my title should probably have been something like “CMV: unconditional love either isn’t real, or is real but is not healthy/a good thing”. >
  
  What's unhealthy about it when they also create distance at the same time?
  There are even people who love their enemies. >
  
  Are you saying no love should be unconditional? Or just that some love can be not unconditional? >
  
  I definitely could have been more clear. I think love probably can’t be unconditional. I suspect every person has a breaking point, where the amount damage a person has done to them or their loved ones is simply too great, and or the sheer horribleness of their personality/opinions is simply too overwhelming. At this point, I suspect it may be psychologically impossible to keep loving that person. But that’s an empirical hypothesis I can’t test. 
  I think the point I’m more interested in pressing is that we shouldn’t even want unconditional love to be possible; if unconditional love is real, it’s an undesirable and unhealthy thing. 
  Hope that helps. >
  
  Your argument amounts to what I think is fundamentally the problem with all liberal moral arguments; so I guess this is simply a difference in what people value and neither of us can convince each other any differently.
  But just because it's hard, or even "impossible", doesn't mean it's undesirable or that we should give up the ideal. We should strive to be as close to it as possible, not just resort to the lowest common denominator.
  I believe that the difference between a human and an animal is that humans can choose to do what is right and good in the face of hardship and self-sacrifice; animals just follow their instinctual desires.
  It's kind of like JFK's speech about doing things not because they're easy, but because they're hard. 
  I don't want humans to all just follow their instinctual desires. Or else, we're just animals. But maybe, you don't think humans are better than animals in the first place. >
  
  I’m not sure where you’re getting liberalism from. I’m not saying we should simply follow our desires. It may very well be the case that it is right to feel love for certain people no matter what. I just don’t see any reason to think that that’s true. If you’ve got one, I’d be happy to hear it - even if it’s one you suspect I won’t accept. >
  
  It's simply the same type of arguments that moral liberals use for pretty much all of their stances. 
  Most people think love is desirable and that it is "good". Maximizing good makes sense. If you don't think love is desirable, then that's your stance. 
  I'm sure you're going to bring up about how people can be abusive and toxic and how it may hurt a person to be around someone like that, but, more than a pragmatic rebuttal, the important distinction is, again, that I feel that people should aim for good because it's good, not because there's a practical benefit. 
  That's the fundamental difference in mindset.
  Of course, practically speaking, choosing to love and forgive will often be better for a person's own mental health as well. Even if it's something as bad as like, they murdered your family; holding that anger within you doesn't help anyone, but it harms yourself, where as choosing to forgive and love (I understand forgiveness and love are different, but they are connected) will help cure your own wounds.
  But again, that's a practical argument, but isn't the reason why one would want to aim for maximum moral good; rather, that is because of the belief that we should try to aim for perfection, to do hard things even if there is no practical benefit because it's good, because we're better than resorting to following our instinctual desires all the time. >
  
  So if your premise is that love is always and intrinsically good, then I can see why you think unconditional love is always good, too. Why do you think love is always and intrinsically good, out of curiosity? 
  Also, what do you understand love to be? A feeling? An attitude? Certain dispositions? A combination of the three? >
  
  This is a good question, and one I can't answer. In fact, I've always wondered what love is myself. I also am not even sure that love is always good under any circumstance; but that does seem to be a type of opinion that is commonly pushed. 
  Also, this is why I made the distinction in my first post about whether "no love should be unconditional" or simply that some don't have to be. I can agree with the second, but the first would require rigorous proof that there isn't a circumstance/type of love that should be "unconditional". 
  But generally, probably some sort of self-sacrifice for the benefit of someone else is a good start on love? >
  
  Interesting that you’re leaning towards a more action-based account of love. I myself lean more psychological/emotional, and tend to view actions as possible expressions of love, but not constituting love themselves. >
  
  it's not necessarily "action" though; I could be sacrificing my intuitive want to be angry or hurt or otherwise put blame on you, and try very hard to focus on the good things to get back in an emotional state of love, for example. >
  
  It seems you’re saying love is about making certain kinds of sacrifices for the sake getting back to an emotional state of love. 
  There may be a circularity problem here, but I’m not positive.
  Either way, what is this “emotional state of love” if not love itself? Whatever else it is, is it more important than love? >
  
  Love and acceptance are not the same thing. You can love people as people, despite the kind of person they are or the choices they make. Especially since really caring for someone means you want them to improve.
  In no way does loving/forgiving someone suggest that you have to let them back into your life if they've hurt you, or that you need to agree with someone's views. It just means you chose not to have anything against them that you will openly bring up. Or that you won't let those differences or something affect you.
  Loving someone unconditionally is more about not letting them negatively affect you >
  
  My heart doesn't always do what I tell it to. 
  Sometimes love is unconditional. Not because I want it to be. >
  
  Right, so even if love is unconditional in these cases, it’s not a good thing that it is, right? I guess I’m really targeting the notion that unconditional love - if it’s even possible - would not be a healthy thing. >
  
  How are you defining love here? What implications of love do you consider inherent to loving someone?
  I have some truly shitty family members. One in particular is a garbage person I have chosen to have nothing to do with. I still love him.
  Loving someone unconditionally doesn't mean you can't consider them a terrible person. Loving someone unconditionally doesn't mean you have them in your life no matter what. Loving someone unconditional doesn't mean you believe they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions.
  Love is merely a feeling. It seems like your view conflates "loving unconditionally" with lots of behaviors that aren't necessarily part of loving someone unconditionally. >
  
  I think loving is more or less a strong positive feeling that may or may not be distinct from liking. I don’t think I’m conflating love with any behaviours in particular. When someone is a terrible enough person, and we still feel love for them, I’m suggesting that that’s unhealthy and that we’d be better off if we did not feel that way. >
  
  Why is it unhealthy to have love for someone we think is a terrible person? You haven't actually explained your reasoning, you've just made this statement several times.
  I would argue that having love for people we think are terrible would make the world a better place, as it means we're more likely to help them improve, less likely to subject them to suffering, etc.
  And what makes someone a terrible person? Not so long ago we had people disowning family members for the way they voted. We still have people disowning family members because of their sexuality, which they believe makes them a "terrible person". Is that acceptable?
  What parameters are there on your view? >
  
  Sometimes words are exaggerated. Language can be full of embellishment. You are being way too literal and overthinking it, simple as that. When people say that have unconditional love, they don't mean it literally... it's not a contract. 
  But let's consider that for a second anyway. Even in contracts, the law has wiggle room to consider things like reasonable assumptions, reasonable interpretations, extenuating circumstances, etc. 
  For example. Let's say Bob asks Jim for help painting. Jim replies "Sure Bob. I will help you paint on Tuesday." This is an unconditional statement... Jim gives no conditions on helping Bob. But then, Monday night there is an asteroid that destroys the town. Would anyone suggest Jim lied? Would they suggest Jim broke a contract? Would a court force Jim to help Bob move? No, because Jim made that promise with the best available information at the time, and no reasonable person would interpret Jim's statement so literally as to expect that he would help Bob move even if an asteroid hit the town. >
  
  So, to be clear, you’re saying that people don’t actually think love is unconditional? That, when they think hard enough about it, they’ll realize that it’s just a convenient linguistic tool meant to convey very strong love? Because that’s exactly what I think, though I know for a fact that not everybody else thinks so >
  
  Yeah I think when they say it, it is said within reason. The implication is that "I will always love you even if you mess up or upset me" not that "I will love you even if you become a psychopath that murders my family."
  But then, I also would guess that the worst people in the whole world still had moms or spouses that loved them. So I guess it is possible. >
  
  
  Now, in this case, I suggest that it would be perfectly acceptable, even healthy, to stop loving them (not that loving is necessarily something you consciously decide do).
  
  I think you need to define how you view the term "love". When a parent disciplines their child for an incorrect behavior, do they cease to love that child? A disciplining parent hates the incorrect behavior but still loves their child. Even in all the above examples you gave, the person itself is still distinct from their actions. You're allowed to hate everything they do and speak and think but can still have an unwavering affection for them. >
  
  I typically view love as completely psychological/emotional - i often think of it as a very strong form “like” but i recognize that there’s probably some differences between liking and loving. There are behaviours that can be expressions of love, but I don’t view them as love itself. Not married to this view, just how i look at things. Hope that helps! >
  
  The context in which I hear the phrase "Unconditional love" is usually in the context of parenting. Which I can understand the desire to extrapolate that phrase to other types of love. The ancient Greeks had multiple words for "love":
  
  Eros - Romantic passion
  Philia - Deep friendship
  Ludus - Playful love
  Agape - Selfless love
  Pragma - Long-standing love
  Philautia - Self-love
  Storge - Familial love
  
  It doesn't help that English has one word that we use to try to describe all the above. Maybe you're misunderstanding the way in which the phrase "unconditional love" is commonly used. As to me, I hear it often as unconditional Storge. >
  
  Do you think familial love can be unconditional? And if so, if it holds in cases where the loved person is an absolute monster, do you think the lover would be better off if they didn’t love them anymore? Even if only in the sense that it makes their decision to cut ties with them psychologically/emotionally easier >
  
  
  Do you think familial love can be unconditional?
  
  I think so
  
  And if so, if it holds in cases where the loved person is an absolute monster, do you think the lover would be better off if they didn’t love them anymore?
  
  Depends on what you mean by "better off". The Storge type of love can also be an Agape type of love. The lover that exhibits this love is not loving for the betterment of themselves, as it is by definition selfless.
  A common biblical trope and saying is "Love your enemies". Is this for the betterment of the lover? Or for the betterment of the beloved? I guess it could be both, depending on how you see it playing out.
  The expressions of that love can take a variety of different forms. Like I said earlier, you love a spouse with an Eros, romantic and passionate gestures while you might love a child with Storge, firm, comforting and correcting gestures. If cutting ties with someone psychologically/emotionally is the best way to express one of the above loves, then that love is still considered unconditional. >
  
  Your scenario is reaching the point of simplify constructing an impossible paradox to try to prove your point.  It’s like saying “you can’t say all squares have 4 corners.  Imagine I created a square that somehow still fit all the rules of it being a square, yet it only had 3 corners.”  
  There are all sorts of reasons one might fall into Nazi ideology without realizing the path they are on.   There are all sorts of reasons someone might kill someone else that is justified, and of course in the hypothetical you can add the fact that they are 100% aware of what they are doing and fully grasp the severity of the action, but in the real world you have no way to know that or even if they are having issues that need medication as they are unable to perceive the world correctly.  
  Love isn’t something you simply choose to do, and in the same sense it isn’t something you simply choose not to do.  I love my children, and no matter what they do, I will always feel that love for them. >
  
  Love is only unconditional in the context of parents with their children. Biologically, humans are optimized to develop with unconditional love, and parents are incentivized to provide it for their children. 
  Beyond that, love is what it is. I don't believe Love itself is healthy or unhealthy, it's just an emotion you experience. According to developmental science, in regards to emotions, your health is only ever at risk when you deny/repress them. 
  I think you may be conflating healthy love with healthy relationships, your examples were all of unhealthy relationship decisions justified by love. 
  Lastly, be careful with judgments. It seemed like you were very quick to dub love as "good" or "bad" based on the conditions surrounding the emotion. For your own mental health, mess around with the idea that good and bad are external classifications based on arbitrary environmental norms; love itself is a foundational human experience, integral to our existence as a social species. It isn't good or bad, it's a lung or a heart. It is what it is and we need it psychologically to thrive. >
  
  
  Love is only unconditional in the context of parents with their children. Biologically, humans are optimized to develop with unconditional love, and parents are incentived to provide it for their children. 
  
  I find that hard to believe giving the numbers of parents falling foul of the law for child abuse and the many more children who are estranged from their parents. Parents are inclined to love and care for their children but I'd hardly call the typical experience unconditional >
  
  I agree with you wholeheartedly. It's a biological imperative, but humans are also the animal least constrained by their instincts on the planet. And when a child is raised without unconditional love and acceptance, it has an effect on that child's entire worldview. And when that future adult has children, if they were not taught the basics of what it means to be a parent, they'll fall back on what they learned from their parents. We are children raised by the children of children who were abused. 
  The current state of society doesn't change the science. Studies have been done for the last hundred years tracking general satisfaction and fulfillment of children raised in a variety of environments, and conclusively the children raised with present parents and unconditional love/acceptance reported the highest average satisfaction/fulfillment in life, and the lowest incidence of mental health disorders like depression/adhd/bpd etc. >
  
  Have you tried googling the phrase "unconditional love"? Cause I just did and the first 4 or 5 links all pointed out that the ideal can be taken too far and become unhealthy or toxic.
  So it's pretty much like any other healthy/virtuous behavoir. >
  
  Taking an ideal based around doing something/feeling something - no matter what - and testing it in extreme scenarios is not “taking it too far”: it’s taking it to a place that it is by definition supposed  to extend to. 
  You can say that love - when the person is sufficiently monstrous - is unhealthy, but unconditional love is supposed to hold (and be healthy) even when people are monstrous.
  If I thought i unconditional honesty was undesirable (I do) and you said unconditional honesty is a good idea, it just can be taken too far, I’d say you’re not talking about unconditional honesty, you’re talking about regular ole good sometimes-and-bad-sometimes honesty >
  
  
  Taking an ideal based around doing something/feeling something - no matter what
  
  Who, specifically, is defining unconditional love as something that should be done no matter what?
  
  but unconditional love is supposed to hold (and be healthy) even when people are monstrous
  
  Is it? Cause according to what I read after doing a quick googlin' says otherwise... >
  
  I’m understanding unconditional love to mean loving something or somebody no matter what - loving them without any conditions. If google is giving you some other definition, okay. I’m not really interested in a terminological dispute: I think that the kind of love I’m talking about probably isn’t psychologically possible, and, if it is, it isn’t healthy. If you think that too, but just call said love “unconditional love”, then great! We agree. >
  
  
  I’m understanding unconditional love to mean loving something or somebody no matter what - loving them without any conditions
  
  And I'm asking who, specifically, is advocating for that? Because if you can't find anyone specifically advocating for that than you are you actually argueing against?
  Where did that understanding come from?
  What I'm trying to point out is that any reasonable understanding of the concept of "unconditional love" will take not excuse harm or toxicity. So what you are asking people in this forum to do is convince you of something obviously unreasonable. >
  
  Again, not interested in a terminological dispute. I think a literal reading of the term unconditional love is both common and intuitive. I’m not going to go looking for sources for you. If you want, you can pretend my CMV was “unconditional love is a misleadingly named concept”. Hope that helps >
  
  
  Again, not interested in a terminological dispute
  
  That is hard to avoid when the basis of your view is a fundemental misunderstanding of what people actually mean when they use the terminology you are objecting to.
  
  I think a literal reading of the term unconditional love is both common and intuitive
  
  And yet... completely absent from any of the sources I found with a quick Google search.
  
  If you want, you can pretend my CMV was “unconditional love is a misleadingly named concept”
  
  It's not though, unless you assume that when people talk about unconditional love, they are actively accepting the harm that a literal interpertation would result in. Can you give any specific examples of specific people you believe do this?
  I'm guessing that you still havn't even bothered to Google the phrase? >
  
  That's the same page I found!
  It also says this:
  
  What it isn’t
  Confusion and misconceptions about the true nature of unconditional love can seem to suggest this type of love reflects unhealthy or toxic relationship dynamics.
  There’s an important distinction between offering love and forgiveness and continuing to accept harmful actions. It’s also important to understand you can love someone unconditionally without staying with them unconditionally.
  To clear things up a bit more, here’s what unconditional love does not mean.
  Ignoring relationship issues
  Conflict is normal (and healthy) in relationships. Unconditional love doesn’t mean you avoid this conflict or look away from problematic behavior.
  Say your partner spends your joint savings on an expensive exercise bike — a choice you completely disagree with — when you’d agreed to save up for a house. You might not stop loving them, but neither do you ignore the breach of trust.
  Depending on the circumstances, you might agree to work together on rebuilding trust (and your savings), but you might also see no future in the relationship. You can walk away still holding forgiveness and love in your heart.
  Neglecting your own needs
  It’s true that unconditional love can involve some sacrifice, but these sacrifices shouldn’t require you to give up everything you need and want for yourself.
  Attempting to meet all your partner’s needs can seem like one way of expressing unconditional love, but this can actually create an unhealthy dynamic in your relationship. No one person can provide another person with everything they need.
  You should feel comfortable setting boundaries around things you don’t want to do. What’s more, they should respect your limits and consider any requests you make.
  When they can’t provide the support you need, they might offer a potential compromise or help you think of some other solution.
  Even when your love doesn’t depend on their ability to meet your needs, you still have those needs — everyone does.
  Unconditional love can’t fuel a healthy relationship on its own. It’s essential to take care of your own needs, too, or you won’t be in any position to support someone else.
  Tolerating abuse
  A sense of safety is a basic human need.
  Perhaps your partner says unkind things after drinking. You might tell yourself, “They wouldn’t shout at me if they weren’t drunk.” You might accept that this is who they are and make the choice to forgive their words and continue loving them.
  But unconditional love doesn’t mean staying in an unhealthy situation when you’re better off letting go.
  You want them to be happy, but what if quitting drinking and dealing with the issues that trigger the urge to drink would improve their health and help them find greater happiness?
  Again, you can offer forgiveness and love even after safely leaving the relationship.
  Blanket tolerance for harmful behavior can prevent them from making needed changes. Though remember that this absolutely doesn’t mean you’re to blame. The responsibility for their actions rests entirely in their hands.
  
  So.... yeah? It's a lot more reasonable and nuanced than your literal interpertation.
  
  virtually everyone I’ve ever broached this subject with has thought that unconditional love means love without any conditions
  
  Past the point of abuse, harm, and toxicity? Virtually everyone you've talked to about this has believed that, in those terms? That seems unlikely. >
  
  Ah, i think i see the problem. That extra part says that unconditional love ISN’T the same as accepting abuse. Of course it’s not; it’s love without conditions! The fact that you can love somebody and still cut ties with them is not something I want to deny. Allowing for this does not challenge the definition that this article states and elaborates on - which is the exact same one i put forward! Love, I assume and so does this article apparently, is psychological/emotional. It’s a feeling. It logically entails no behaviours. That’s why we can cut ties with people that we love. 
  I’m not saying that unconditional love is this thing that requires sticking by someone no matter what. That WOULD be a bad reading of the concept. I’m saying that unconditional love is a kind positive feeling towards someone that holds no matter what - it holds even if they’ve behaved so monstrously that we must cut them out of our lives. The article uses the same literal interpretation that I do; our miscommunication is about what is entailed by loving someone. You thought that I meant that loving entails certain actions (like sticking by them) when I don’t mean to say that. 
  In particular, I’m saying that
  1) I doubt this kind of love (a strong positive feeling that logically entails no specific actions and holds no matter what) is psychologically possible
  2) If it is, I doubt it is good for us/something to be celebrated >
  
  I agree 100% that truly unconditional love is a silly idea. In extreme examples such as the ones you mentioned in your posts, it wouldn’t be healthy to continue loving such a person.
  However, if you use a much less literal version of unconditional love, I think it’s a useful and healthy thing. This would be loving someone even if they make mistakes, change over time, do something embarrassing, hurt you in some way, etc. All of this should be within reason: if they become a murderous nazi, it’s reasonable not to love them anymore; if they espouse some political views you don’t completely agree with, that’s a different story.
  Of course, you could say this isn’t truly unconditional love, because there are conditions. But I think this is a better view of the concept in practical terms. There is of course subjectivity as to where the line should be drawn, but I think looking at it in this way still conveys an important message (loving someone without expecting value in return or the person to maintain your specific standards) while not being too extreme (feeling compelled to “love” someone who is a complete monster) >
  
  I agree with just about everything you said! I disagree only with your implying that people don’t really think love can be/is unconditional, or that unconditional love, if it were real, would be a good thing. I think many people, especially those who are religiously inclined, do take these views. >
  
  I agree with that as well. Some people do take unconditional love very literally, however I think it’s a misguided view and those people should have a more nuanced view on the concept. But I’ll also add that these people may not be as common as you think, and you can’t necessarily tell what someone’s definition of the phrase is just because they use it.