I’m still uncertain how to reply to this. Given the vagueness of the category, I agree these might be called virtues.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @edelwax and
I would describe them as “methods,” instead, but my use of that word is also somewhat technical (deriving from Dzogchen).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @edelwax and
The advantage of “methods” is that it suggests these are things you can work at quite directly, where “values” might be ideals that are so vague they don’t really inform practical action, and “virtues” might sound like they’re innate.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @edelwax and
Can you give examples of what you mean by values so vague they don't inform practical actions?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Fairness, freedom, decency. These can be invoked to justify either side of many policy disputes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @edelwax and
Hm I see. They can be abused by someone as justification because they are more abstract. But if you are honest and e.g. you value freedom, it can surely help you decide/form your action/policy that will increase freedom or protect it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @urza_cc @Meaningness and
To elaborate - I was born in communist country so I know very well how freedom, or lack of it, looks. I might not be able to give perfect definition of freedom but that doesn't make it any less real value usable as guide to form your actions/decisions/policies.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes, generally freedom is good, and not many people would disagree. So are all the other supposed values. E.g. security, which is often claimed to trade off against freedom. So these give little if sny guidance in specific cases.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @edelwax and
But that is why they are called values. If someone values freedom more then security their resulting policy should be different from someone valuing security over freedom.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I think few if any people value one over the other absolutely. If you take freedom as an absolute, you end up with a de Sadian ethics in which everyone is free to rape and torture whomever they please.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Some people will come down more often on the side of one or the other. But this may be driven by practical specifics rather than a general weighting factor.
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.