Confucian principles are pretty good at the job, too - I'd say about as good as the Christian ones at providing timelessly applicable rules and building and maintaining stable societies. Probably not a coincidence that there's a lot of overlap between them.
I tend to agree with you. I have a slight perspective difference, which is that morality in an absolute, non-practical sense is an ideal standard towards which practicality strives for. So it matters in that sense, as a marker, like the idea of becoming like God from a Christian perspective.
Practically speaking, it’s not possible (at least in life as we know we’re capable of), because of the lack of agreement capacity at scale, or level of reason. But it’s like a dream, and that matters to us. We all tend to measure our lives by our dreams.
It sounds like you're defending the British way of thinking. I immediately think, "you'd enjoy reading Hume and Bagehot," and then I remember that your piece is about not reading Hume and Bagehot.
Also, I like that you immediately use a semi-colon after critiquing Mill's (ab)use of semi-colons.
Confucian principles are pretty good at the job, too - I'd say about as good as the Christian ones at providing timelessly applicable rules and building and maintaining stable societies. Probably not a coincidence that there's a lot of overlap between them.
I tend to agree with you. I have a slight perspective difference, which is that morality in an absolute, non-practical sense is an ideal standard towards which practicality strives for. So it matters in that sense, as a marker, like the idea of becoming like God from a Christian perspective.
Practically speaking, it’s not possible (at least in life as we know we’re capable of), because of the lack of agreement capacity at scale, or level of reason. But it’s like a dream, and that matters to us. We all tend to measure our lives by our dreams.
Well said
It sounds like you're defending the British way of thinking. I immediately think, "you'd enjoy reading Hume and Bagehot," and then I remember that your piece is about not reading Hume and Bagehot.
Also, I like that you immediately use a semi-colon after critiquing Mill's (ab)use of semi-colons.