@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 Supererogation seems like a social psychology concept pretending that it applies on the philosophical level.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MemberOfSpecies
@MemberOfSpecies This I think I’d disagree with. Criterion of adequacy could be purely individual and abstracted from social/cultural detail1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness So perhaps I should have said something like "game theory" or "negotiation", where the players can be different (sub)selves.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@MemberOfSpecies Yes, that makes sense!
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.