abstract: Moral philosophy should create concepts and formulate arguments to articulate and assess the statements and behaviors of the morally devoted and the traditions (such as religious and ethical systems) founded by the morally devoted. Many moral devotees and their traditions advocate love as the ideal to live by. Therefore, moral philosophy needs an account of love as an ideal. I define an ideal as an instrument for organizing a life and show that this definition is more adequate than previous definitions. Ideals can be founded on virtues, and I show that love is a virtue. I define love as a composite attitude whose elements are benevolence, consideration, perception of moment (importance or significance), and receptivity. I define receptivity as the ability to be with someone without imposing careless or compulsive expectations. I argue that receptivity curbs the excesses and supplements the defects of the other elements. Love as an ideal is often understood as universal love. However, there are three problems with universal love: it could be too demanding, it could prevent intimacy and special relationships, and it could require a person to love their abuser. I argue that love can be extended to all human beings without posing unacceptable risks, once love is correctly defined and the ideal correctly understood. Because of the revelations of ecology and the ongoing transformation of sensibilities about the value of the nonhuman, love should be extended to the nonhuman. I argue that love can be given to the nonhuman in the same way it is to the human, with appropriate variations. But how much of the nonhuman would an ideal direct one to love? I argue for two limits to universal love: it does not make sense to extend it to nonliving things, and it can be extended to all living things. I show that loving all living things does not depend on whether they can reciprocate, and I argue that it would not prevent one from living a recognizably human life. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Philosophy 2020

筆者把墨子的兼愛思想與耶穌的博愛思想作比較，把墨子的非攻思想與耶穌對攻伐戰爭及其因素的看法作比較，並且把墨子的天志思想與耶穌對天的觀念作比較；此篇論文也討論當時猶太社會。猶太教派別對耶穌思想的影響和春秋戰國政治動盪對墨子思想的影響。 / Motze's philosohpy of Universal Love is compared to Jesus's philosophy of Brotherly love; Motze's thoughts concerning the will of Heaven are compared to Jesus's concept of God and Heaven. The influence of Jewish sects and Jewish society during the time of Roman rule on the philosophy of Jesus and the influence of the unstable political conditions during the Spring and Autumn/Warring States period on Motxe's thought are also discussed.