@sarahdoingthing Jim’s interpretation of “Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety” seems important insight >
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
@sarahdoingthing about ethics in general, but going back to original I doubt it’s what they had in mind. http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@sarahdoingthing In context, it’s an implication of “sola fide,” which is an orthogonal point (and irrelevant to non-Christians).1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@sarahdoingthing Supererogation is important and deserves more attention I think.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@sarahdoingthing I realized only recently that utilitarianism does not allow supererogation; everything not compulsory is forbidden.4 replies 2 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness@sarahdoingthing from social strategies of the form "if you don't do the strictly best thing, you should feel terrible".1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MemberOfSpecies
@MemberOfSpecies Agreed, but let me see if I can steelman your objection further… Separate measure of goodness from threshold of adequacy.4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@MemberOfSpecies However, I don’t see a way to get adequacy threshold out of utilitarianism by itself; needs supplement outside that theory.
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.