Conquest is Bad Because Altruistic

 Conquest is done for the sake of the conquered, which is why it's wrong. I keep finding genocide is the right solution. 

 To conquer another society, your society has to be superior. It has to be a plain better society, especially if it plans to hold the territory long term. Your society is then imposing its superior ways upon the foreigner, and that's conquest. 

 Like sure Rome will build you a triumph or something, and I'm not saying triumphs are bad or anything, but it's not worth nearly as much as it's considered to be worth. Conquest is unprofitable. 

 Consider the wealth cap. To improve their society requires going over their wealth cap. They're certainly not going to pay for the delta - you're going to pay for it. 

 Consider, is it virtuous to spend the blood and treasure of your friends and allies to fund improvements of foreign strangers, or is that treachery?

 Consider that altruism is always wrong.

 Consider that you could have minded your own business. If they have sins, that's between them and God. Consider hubris. Their society is already just for them, because justice is immutable. If you attempt to overturn this justice, it will be just that it doesn't work out for you.

 To avoid these things, the solution is genocide. The kids and women too.  At least sterilize them. I would say feeling sympathy for children is an obsolete instinct, but feeling sympathy for foreign children seems to be a degenerate modernism instead.

 Personnel is policy - you won the war, their policy is inferior, meaning their persons are inferior. You don't want to mix your superior bloodlines with their thin, muddy trash water. Relieve them of the misery of their inferiority.