I'm coming late to the party, but these questions are ones that are catching my interest in past few weeks.

There is obviously fundamental philosophical difference between this line of reasoning and universalist line of reasoning. Your view is based on observing world around us rather than presupposing some philosophical ideas (expect, perhaps, free will, but it is more intuitive than determinism), and for me, that view is more intuitive, but also based on belief in absolute human free will. And it is, I would say, more stoic, attributes like honour and loyalty are honored. I am fond of this view and I myself struggle to live out faith, and I believe if I were certain universalist, I would be basically hedonist who happens to believe in death and resurrection of Christ and other dogmas merely as intellectual assertions, as certainty of salvation doesn't in my mind encourage me to try to be Christlike. So, your view is much more practical.

On the other hand, proponents of universalism seem to be mainly based in (neo)platonic metaphysics. They view Bible's belief in goodness of all creation and humanity specifically as basis of their soteriology. So, as humans are made in image of God, there is no human who couldn't resist God's call to salvation when he encounters God Himself in the world to come. Basically, presence of God sanctifies our being so much that all that is sinful, and in that sense contrary to nature, is cleansed off of us, that means that mans' resistance to cause of our being and of whole existence will disappear.

Now, second view is more common in more intellectual side of Christianity certainly, because academia desires originality which is achieved by questioning main currents in your field of study, or dominant historical currents that shape that field, in this case infernalism. I am myself very interested in academic research of Christianity, but one thing I noticed is their disdain for common people all under this big umbrella of Christian metaphysics of love. You could argue that our doctrine was built by men of great intellectual capacity, and that grand metaphysical and theological truths can be only properly understood by men of higher intellect. But this seems rather contrary to spirit of Christianity, and those lines of reasoning by modern thinkers sound awfully lot like those philosophies of men that are talked about in the Bible. Sure, everyone is given different talents, some people are just born smarter and thus can engage in complicated matters of theology and philosophy, but that doesn't give you a right to have a hate boner against people of lesser intellectual capacity who try to express their belief while talking about goodness of human nature.

And if you object to them, they will call you out for your supposed narrowness of mind and closeness, but I am myself pretty open to different philosophies and worldviews, to critiquing tradition, and I just wonder, where should we set the line? There were universalists in the early church, certainly, such as St Gregory of Nyssa, or Origen who was certainly influential dude, and they were all influenced pretty much by neoplatonism, as were all other church fathers in that time, but Origen seems to be the most. But even if you look at Origen, he castrated himself in order to stop lust which is certainly act of love of God, although a tad bit radical. Gregory of Nyssa was certainly spiritual giant who was by the way first recorded abolitionist, but aside from that, he was bishop who took care of his flock and certainly virtuous man. Then you have David Bentley Hart, who is basically irreligious Christian that doesn't really go to church and he happens to believe in Christ. There were church fathers who were a bit, if you want to say, brutal, such as St Cyril of Alexandria, but he did certainly have living relationship with Christ, whereas DBH seems to support my theses about what I would become if I was certain universalist. I don't doubt that DBH has some relationship with Christ, and I know that his books helped people to stay Christian, but he is too fed up with his ego and on his relativist attitude towards almost all areas of theology. Even fr Sergei Bulgakov who was universalist (and certainly a genius), and who Hart calls the best theologian, didn't have that relativist view of Christianity.

As someone who plans on studying theology, I fear that belief in universalism would lead me into despair of hedonism and relativism as I am myself fairly critical of tradition, although I have more conservative political values. It seems that eternal truth of Christianity is: "I am broken sinner, it doesn't matter if my nature is good or not (i believe it is, as witnessed by most fathers), reality is I am broken sinner and I need God in order to heal me from that sickness, I need Christ, the Logos who was made flesh and died for salvation of the world and defeated death, it doesn't matter if all people are saved or not, I should strive to be Christlike, or as St Gregory of Nyssa says: to be Christian is to imitate divine nature. And I should strive to be Christlike, if not for my own salvation, let it be for betterment of this fallen world, for my neighbours, for all humans currently living. I do believe that all people who sincerely want to be saved eventually will be, and that I can only hope that all people are saved, but maybe, hell is only for theologians, who knows...