Abstract: Based on the prominent immersive characteristics of virtual reality (VR), Milk proposed the visionary concept of an "ultimate empathy machine": positioning VR as the optimal apparatus for experiencing others' lives, sensations, and emotions, thereby fostering enhanced compassion and support among users. This groundbreaking proposition unveils a novel pathway distinct from traditional approaches to empathy enhancement, holding significant inspirational value for research into technological routes to augment human morality. However, this ambitious concept encounters substantial challenges from both theoretical and ethical perspectives that warrant thorough examination. From a theoretical standpoint, Milk's framework demonstrates critical deficiencies in three foundational aspects during its elaboration. Firstly, the conceptual boundaries of empathy remain inadequately delineated. The proposal conflates affective empathy (emotional resonance) with cognitive empathy (perspective-taking) while neglecting crucial distinctions between state empathy (temporary responses) and trait empathy (dispositional characteristics). Such conceptual ambiguity creates fundamental uncertainties regarding what precisely the machine purports to enhance. Secondly, the ethical imperative for systematic empathy augmentation lacks rigorous philosophical justification. While casually assuming the inherent value of empathy amplification, the proposal fails to engage with substantive debates in moral philosophy regarding empathy's dual nature - its potential as both a moral motivator and a source of biased decision-making. This oversight becomes particularly problematic given empirical evidence suggesting empathy's tendency to favor in-group members over out-groups. Thirdly, the technological capacity for meaningful empathy transformation remains empirically unsubstantiated. Current neuroscientific research indicates that while VR can induce temporary emotional arousal, the translation of these transient states into enduring personality changes or moral behavioral modifications remains scientifically contentious. The proposal's technological optimism appears disconnected from established psychological models of empathy development, which emphasize complex interactions between biological predispositions and longitudinal social learning. The ethical implications manifest more alarming dimensions when considering practical implementation. First-order concerns involve the metaphysical destabilization of self-other relationships. VR's hyper-realistic simulation of alternate subjectivities risks eroding the phenomenological boundaries essential to intersubjective understanding, potentially reducing human consciousness to interchangeable data patterns rather than unique embodied experiences. Second-order effects threaten personal identity integrity. Chronic immersion in virtual perspectives could induce narrative identity fragmentation, undermining the autobiographical coherence necessary for ethical agency. This "identity diffraction" phenomenon might leave users suspended between multiple virtual selves without achieving meaningful moral integration. Third-order consequences involve systemic empathy desensitization. Paradoxically, the proposed machine might induce emotional burnout through excessive empathy demands, or conversely, create compassion inflation through repeated simulated exposures. Historical precedents from media psychology suggest that overexposure to mediated suffering often leads to compassion fatigue rather than ethical improvement. Of course, the theoretical and practical issues raised by Milk's conception may not be entirely limited to the scope of the above elements. In conclusion, while Milk's proposition offers intriguing possibilities for moral technology, its current formulation requires substantial theoretical refinement and ethical scaffolding. The path forward demands collaborative efforts between VR engineers, moral philosophers, and cognitive scientists to transform this provocative concept into a viable framework for ethical human enhancement. But, at least as things stand. for the multidimensional reasons mentioned above, humans should use virtual reality technology judiciously.