Quote:I'm seeing this espoused in some New Age people in my family and I am curious to see how it is perceived in analytic philosophy. I will paraphrase it in formal language:

Quote:All potential actions by the human subject are accepted as ethical, with the premise that acceptance of all potential actions by the human subject will lead to an inherent societal harmony. This is due to an all-accepting human subject being unable to fully reject anothers actions nor reject its own actions by the cause of pain.

A human subject that does not accept other human subjects completely in its actions would be inherently accommodated in the most painless manner possible.

It is seen that acting against any human subject by the cause of pain will only increase the probability of further pain in other human subjects by continuous retaliation, thus pain should be avoided as much possible even in the human subject that is causing pain.

What would this be considered? And how is it often disputed? They call this absolute unconditional love.