Great post, however I struggle with your example on “killing is wrong”. If the result of the conclusion of “don’t shoot” is that someone else dies, haven’t you allowed your principle of “killing is wrong” to be violated? You may not have directly violated it, however you have enabled someone else to violate it. Also, if you did not shoot, didn’t you violate your rule of “never so something wrong” because the result of not doing something allowed something wrong to happen…..
Bob, thanks for this challenge. I agree that in actual cases that are set up the right way, we may have reasons to change our principles. I was just trying to illustrate in the abstract what a chain of moral reasoning might look like. There are lots of tough philosophical cases that resemble the one you describe that raise problems for absolute principles.
Hey Brother. Love this post. Incredibly insightful and well-written. FYI. As a writer, I am a slow reader. 🙂 In my 'micro-experience' as a writer on Medium, I shortened my post to 3-4 minutes. Increased readership and gave me more options to post. Just a thought. Check me out on NEUFLODOC if you get a chance.
Thanks for the tip. I have been writing rather long and dense weekly articles as I am trying to map out a large surface area and sketch the boundaries of the concept of a micro-philosophy. That project is pretty much done, so now I plan to write more focused pieces that (hoepfully) should be easier to digest. How often do you publish?
Yes, we're all standing for something. It serves us a smoother ride when we have clarity what we base our sails on.
"Even the free-spirited artist wants to live a life following the principle that there are no principles, or no rules, or no limits to their creative expression."
“Self respect requires a self to respect.” ✊ great read, thank you for your breakdown of these complex and technical topics.
You’re welcome Gunther. I appreciate you taking the time to read it.
Great post, however I struggle with your example on “killing is wrong”. If the result of the conclusion of “don’t shoot” is that someone else dies, haven’t you allowed your principle of “killing is wrong” to be violated? You may not have directly violated it, however you have enabled someone else to violate it. Also, if you did not shoot, didn’t you violate your rule of “never so something wrong” because the result of not doing something allowed something wrong to happen…..
Bob, thanks for this challenge. I agree that in actual cases that are set up the right way, we may have reasons to change our principles. I was just trying to illustrate in the abstract what a chain of moral reasoning might look like. There are lots of tough philosophical cases that resemble the one you describe that raise problems for absolute principles.
Hey Brother. Love this post. Incredibly insightful and well-written. FYI. As a writer, I am a slow reader. 🙂 In my 'micro-experience' as a writer on Medium, I shortened my post to 3-4 minutes. Increased readership and gave me more options to post. Just a thought. Check me out on NEUFLODOC if you get a chance.
Thanks for the tip. I have been writing rather long and dense weekly articles as I am trying to map out a large surface area and sketch the boundaries of the concept of a micro-philosophy. That project is pretty much done, so now I plan to write more focused pieces that (hoepfully) should be easier to digest. How often do you publish?
Your articles are powerful.
Thank you!
Thank you for writing this.
Yes, we're all standing for something. It serves us a smoother ride when we have clarity what we base our sails on.
"Even the free-spirited artist wants to live a life following the principle that there are no principles, or no rules, or no limits to their creative expression."
Fantastic article Paul! You explain the nuances really very well.
I’m just wondering if you have any methods or practical ways of discovering your principles like you have had in your previous essays?
Keep up the great work!