I must argue for universal liberalism & if an argument for a different approach is better for overall human wellbeing, I'll change my mind.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
I wouldn't argue for ignoring moral implications in general; just they can't be truly universal by application.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @almdean
I can apply them universally. I can't make others do that.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Yes but even so, that merely makes them "moral" to you.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @almdean @HPluckrose
There's a quote 'Making things better never means better for everyone, but worse for some'. Sorry for interjecting, just wanted to say that
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Of course. People who currently benefit from unfair advantages lose them if we level the playing field.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @almdean
'The first will be last and last shall be first?' It's certainly not a new concept.. a cyclical progression like that suggests a repetition
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
No. That idea of a reversal goes along with the postmodern idea of reversing hierarchies & does not level the playing field.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Universal liberalism is about levelling. Eg when women began to be able to access professional qualifications as well as men.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @almdean
I understand but what guarantee that it will remain level? No ideology has ever withstood against corruption and perversion..
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
No guarantee. We'll have to keep working against this forever.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.