A completely different side to Mr Orr's article, yet superbly done... there's something in common showing up in both, rearing between the lines of both. I'll wait for the debate to confirm of course...
Is conserving liberty, not conservatism. The question is, are you conservatively Liberal or liberally Conservative? Is there such thing as freedom when you should take responsibility for you own values? Well, we can all again there is no freedom being forced to live by other people's values. Well, I can only hope that we all do agree on that one thing.
Another outstanding essay. As a self-confessed liberal, I should rest content. Yet I realise that there is something missing.
Liberty (modified by the Harm principle) is the top political value; agreed. But liberty to do what? In addition to the state (universal and compulsory) and all other associations (particular and voluntary) there is at least the possibility of a third combination: universal but not compelled. That is, values which by common consent ought to be generally promoted in order that the society itself may be survive and flourish.
Confucianism, shorn of its historical baggage, offers precisely such an ethos: humaneness in relationships - emanating first and foremost from those who rule and providing a moral exemplar to everyone else.
"From the loving example of one family a whole state becomes loving." The Great Learning 9.3, (attr Zengzi a student of Confucius, 5th century BC)
A completely different side to Mr Orr's article, yet superbly done... there's something in common showing up in both, rearing between the lines of both. I'll wait for the debate to confirm of course...
Quite interesting and provoking
Thanks Konstantin!
And thank you Proff. Hicks
Is conserving liberty, not conservatism. The question is, are you conservatively Liberal or liberally Conservative? Is there such thing as freedom when you should take responsibility for you own values? Well, we can all again there is no freedom being forced to live by other people's values. Well, I can only hope that we all do agree on that one thing.
Another outstanding essay. As a self-confessed liberal, I should rest content. Yet I realise that there is something missing.
Liberty (modified by the Harm principle) is the top political value; agreed. But liberty to do what? In addition to the state (universal and compulsory) and all other associations (particular and voluntary) there is at least the possibility of a third combination: universal but not compelled. That is, values which by common consent ought to be generally promoted in order that the society itself may be survive and flourish.
Confucianism, shorn of its historical baggage, offers precisely such an ethos: humaneness in relationships - emanating first and foremost from those who rule and providing a moral exemplar to everyone else.
"From the loving example of one family a whole state becomes loving." The Great Learning 9.3, (attr Zengzi a student of Confucius, 5th century BC)