I had to read this a couple of times before I could even make sense of what you thought you were trying to say.
But, after a couple of aspirin, I realized that I only need to respond to your statement with two simple words. But those two words require a somewhat lengthy preface.
It kind of reminds reminds me of those 3-d illusions that were so popular a few years back- if you crossed your eyes at a seemingly repetitive pattern, you’d see a 3-d image and get a headache.
The problem is that you’re comparing two different qualities of “the good,” as though they could somehow be mutually exclusive.
In reality, however, beneficence refers to the favorability of a “good,” which sufficiency refers to the adequacy of a “good.”
(Just a quick note-Sometimes people erroneously think that “sufficiency” refers exclusively to quantity- for example, “I have sufficient funds to pay my rent.” But the reference is qualitative, not quantitative. Where people get off is that “sufficiency” can be a qualitative measure of a given quantity, such that the statement indicates that the amount of funds I have (quantity) is sufficient (quality of the specific amount of funds) to paying my rent. I bring this up because if your attempt at juxtaposing “sufficiency” and “beneficence” was aimed at using “sufficiency” as a quantitative measure, then you should be aware of that error before reading any further.)
Anyway, from the problem with your logic is that both “beneficence” and “sufficiency” are prerequisites for something to be “a good.”
That is, “a good” cannot exist which is is either not sufficient or not beneficial.
That’s why your comment made my eyes hurt- you posed the statement that beneficence is insufficient to support liberty as though it was a novel idea.
But in reality, what you said is true of all “goods.” All goods must be both sufficient and beneficial.
After all that, I think my two-word response is very fitting…
“Well, duh.” :coffeeread:
No I didn’t. Did you read what I wrote?
Here it is again…
Don’t know how you interpret that as even in the same ballpark as “an absolute.”
Yes, I am- because to compel someone is to compromise their liberty through the use of force or pressure.
Antithesis might not be a strong enough word.
- If human foible is the condition that gives rise to the need to enforce norms, it is impossible to isolate and protect the development or enforcement of those norms from the problem of human foible.
- The need for understanding morality at the level of the individual is supplanted and replaced by attempts to operationalize moral norms into particular prohibitions called “laws.” This is precisely why the Church’s moral teachings have shifted from the “confessional manual” model to the call for all people to strive for a well formed conscience.
I understand your point, but it is objectively true that life is limited, unless it is your contention that by intellect man is able to propel himself to infinity.
OK. That wins the typing contest.
