I wrote this comment to John Ryder, but am not sure that the rest will see it. So I'm repeating it in the hope that others of you would like to share a thought. Daryl?
John, I know I was being somewhat devious with this post. In fact, I started out with the discrepancies and intended to make the same point you are making. And then it seemed to me that there was something more to say, both more interesting and more worth saying.
We need more serious depth to our thinking before relying on “principle.” It has become for many merely convenience. And that might be all that needs to be said. In a follow-up post this weekend I’ll try to argue that as a practical (political) matter it can serve a useful purpose.
What troubled me, as I laid out the discrepancies, was the easy manner in which the “principle” could be dispensed with in order to reach the choice one feels necessary. It is if the principle is a lovely thing, but only worn at special occasions and those mainly performances.
Can an idea be so abstract as to lose practical meaning? There is such richness in the present moment, so much harm and joy in the immediate choice. Does the distinction, perceived, between the experiential moment and any interpretation of a precept, not force us to see our choices as having as much integrity as our “principles.”
Excepting the moral philosopher’s efforts to shore up our precepts with reassuring logic, why not consider the ordinary use of “principle” of a suspect attempt to guide action. In fact, as I believe lawyers say, when you don’t have the law on your side, you argue facts. That’s legitimate.
This is all well said, but I would make a further plea for the value of general principles. We can of course recognize that there can be exceptions and fuzzy cases where their applicability is unclear, but I would propose a general rule that if we find ourselves expressing contradictory opinions, or judgements that are inconsistent with our own general principles, we ought at least pause for a moment and reflect on that fact. We ought to ask ourselves in such a case whether we really do want to be inconsistent in our ideas, or whether we may want to revise our judgment.
I know I was being somewhat devious with this post. In fact, I started out with the discrepancies and intended to make the same point you are making. And then it seemed to me that there was something more to say, both more interesting and more worth saying.
We need more serious depth to our thinking before relying on “principle.” It has become for many merely convenience. And that might be all that needs to be said. In a follow-up post this weekend I’ll try to argue that as a practical (political) matter it can serve a useful purpose.
What troubled me, as I laid out the discrepancies, was the easy manner in which the “principle” could be dispensed with in order to reach the choice one feels necessary. It is if the principle is a lovely thing, but only worn at special occasions and those mainly performances.
Can an idea be so abstract as to lose practical meaning? There is such richness in the present moment, so much harm and joy in the immediate choice. Does the distinction, perceived, between the experiential moment and any interpretation of a precept, not force us to see our choices as having as much integrity as our “principles.”
Excepting the moral philosopher’s efforts to shore up our precepts with reassuring logic, why not consider the ordinary use of “principle” of a suspect attempt to guide action. In fact, as I believe lawyers say, when you don’t have the law on your side, you argue facts. That’s legitimate.
John, I know I was being somewhat devious with this post. In fact, I started out with the discrepancies and intended to make the same point you are making. And then it seemed to me that there was something more to say, both more interesting and more worth saying.
We need more serious depth to our thinking before relying on “principle.” It has become for many merely convenience. And that might be all that needs to be said. In a follow-up post this weekend I’ll try to argue that as a practical (political) matter it can serve a useful purpose.
What troubled me, as I laid out the discrepancies, was the easy manner in which the “principle” could be dispensed with in order to reach the choice one feels necessary. It is if the principle is a lovely thing, but only worn at special occasions and those mainly performances.
Can an idea be so abstract as to lose practical meaning? There is such richness in the present moment, so much harm and joy in the immediate choice. Does the distinction, perceived, between the experiential moment and any interpretation of a precept, not force us to see our choices as having as much integrity as our “principles.”
Excepting the moral philosopher’s efforts to shore up our precepts with reassuring logic, why not consider the ordinary use of “principle” of a suspect attempt to guide action. In fact, as I believe lawyers say, when you don’t have the law on your side, you argue facts. That’s legitimate.
I wrote this comment to John Ryder, but am not sure that the rest will see it. So I'm repeating it in the hope that others of you would like to share a thought. Daryl?
John, I know I was being somewhat devious with this post. In fact, I started out with the discrepancies and intended to make the same point you are making. And then it seemed to me that there was something more to say, both more interesting and more worth saying.
We need more serious depth to our thinking before relying on “principle.” It has become for many merely convenience. And that might be all that needs to be said. In a follow-up post this weekend I’ll try to argue that as a practical (political) matter it can serve a useful purpose.
What troubled me, as I laid out the discrepancies, was the easy manner in which the “principle” could be dispensed with in order to reach the choice one feels necessary. It is if the principle is a lovely thing, but only worn at special occasions and those mainly performances.
Can an idea be so abstract as to lose practical meaning? There is such richness in the present moment, so much harm and joy in the immediate choice. Does the distinction, perceived, between the experiential moment and any interpretation of a precept, not force us to see our choices as having as much integrity as our “principles.”
Excepting the moral philosopher’s efforts to shore up our precepts with reassuring logic, why not consider the ordinary use of “principle” of a suspect attempt to guide action. In fact, as I believe lawyers say, when you don’t have the law on your side, you argue facts. That’s legitimate.
This is all well said, but I would make a further plea for the value of general principles. We can of course recognize that there can be exceptions and fuzzy cases where their applicability is unclear, but I would propose a general rule that if we find ourselves expressing contradictory opinions, or judgements that are inconsistent with our own general principles, we ought at least pause for a moment and reflect on that fact. We ought to ask ourselves in such a case whether we really do want to be inconsistent in our ideas, or whether we may want to revise our judgment.
I know I was being somewhat devious with this post. In fact, I started out with the discrepancies and intended to make the same point you are making. And then it seemed to me that there was something more to say, both more interesting and more worth saying.
We need more serious depth to our thinking before relying on “principle.” It has become for many merely convenience. And that might be all that needs to be said. In a follow-up post this weekend I’ll try to argue that as a practical (political) matter it can serve a useful purpose.
What troubled me, as I laid out the discrepancies, was the easy manner in which the “principle” could be dispensed with in order to reach the choice one feels necessary. It is if the principle is a lovely thing, but only worn at special occasions and those mainly performances.
Can an idea be so abstract as to lose practical meaning? There is such richness in the present moment, so much harm and joy in the immediate choice. Does the distinction, perceived, between the experiential moment and any interpretation of a precept, not force us to see our choices as having as much integrity as our “principles.”
Excepting the moral philosopher’s efforts to shore up our precepts with reassuring logic, why not consider the ordinary use of “principle” of a suspect attempt to guide action. In fact, as I believe lawyers say, when you don’t have the law on your side, you argue facts. That’s legitimate.
John, I know I was being somewhat devious with this post. In fact, I started out with the discrepancies and intended to make the same point you are making. And then it seemed to me that there was something more to say, both more interesting and more worth saying.
We need more serious depth to our thinking before relying on “principle.” It has become for many merely convenience. And that might be all that needs to be said. In a follow-up post this weekend I’ll try to argue that as a practical (political) matter it can serve a useful purpose.
What troubled me, as I laid out the discrepancies, was the easy manner in which the “principle” could be dispensed with in order to reach the choice one feels necessary. It is if the principle is a lovely thing, but only worn at special occasions and those mainly performances.
Can an idea be so abstract as to lose practical meaning? There is such richness in the present moment, so much harm and joy in the immediate choice. Does the distinction, perceived, between the experiential moment and any interpretation of a precept, not force us to see our choices as having as much integrity as our “principles.”
Excepting the moral philosopher’s efforts to shore up our precepts with reassuring logic, why not consider the ordinary use of “principle” of a suspect attempt to guide action. In fact, as I believe lawyers say, when you don’t have the law on your side, you argue facts. That’s legitimate.