There is a tricky question people may find themselves pondering when discussing the argument of the human capacity to care about others. The question goes: "you are holding on to your grandmother's hand and the hand of a newborn that you do not know as they hang over the edge of a cliff. You have to let one go to save the other. Who do you let fall to their death?" Those who are faced with this dilemma may immediately acknowledge that they would save their grandmother due to the fact that she is considered a priority. In The Myth of Universal Love, Stephen T. Asma discusses the thought that many people consider their close knit group, made up of people such as family, friends, and allies, to be prominent expressors of loyalty, generosity, and gratitude. By expressing those traits, those people are more likely, Asma argues, to obtain love from an individual. However, Asma fails to continue his argument as to how loyalty, generosity, and gratitude make loving those close to us so simple, and completely disregarding the argument against the utilitarian principle, making his argument weak. In his argument, Asma states that in order to reciprocate genuine love for one another "you need to have my back, even when I'm sometimes wrong". When looking at the United States government as part of a close knit group of United States citizens, the loyalty of the citizens to the government is prominent. When dealing with foreign affairs such as genocide, there has been recurring evidence that the United States has been completely aware of the atrocities occurring in other countries while averting their attention to more domestic political concerns. The reason the United States remains uninvolved in risky foreign affairs is to maintain the security within the country to keep United States citizens safe. By not risking the trust bound together between citizens and their government, loyalty remains in within that close knit group of love. Instead o