Oddbean

▲ ▼

 @230738d5 that’s certainly a choice you can make.  But the concept of the common good has been near and dear to many of us for most of our lifetimes. I believe there is one. I believe we’ve strayed from from a collective nature (if not spirt) that built most of the modern world, however imperfectly.

▲ ▼

 @40cd5708 

Appreciate the convo!

I assume good intentions in your service of common good. 

I believe also that if those like you wish to serve some assumed common good, then you must have some responsibilty to define your terms better. One person might assume that content moderation (or even censorship!) is a common good, another might assume absolute free speech is a common good. Wherever one’s definition lies along that spectrum, one ought to be as clear as possible where that is.

▲ ▼

 @230738d5 I don’t know.  It sounds like you’re insisting that aspirational precepts and goals be bound to specific use cases.  I think the “common good” is more inate than that. Sure, it’s fluid, but I think it should be.  Scoundrels will always distort the meaning of any phrase to suit their ends.  Most people still assume it merely refers to putting the collective needs above the individual’s when making policies or decisions likely or sure to affect both.

▲ ▼

 @40cd5708 

Aspirations are baseline.

As you say, they are fluid & ambiguous by definition.

The modern problem is that “aspiration” is now corporate speak for “pretty stories that people like to hear, but we dont really know what they mean”

To call an idea or project “aspirational” in a meeting is a kiss of death for that idea or project.

Aspirations are no substitute for principles.

▲ ▼

 @230738d5 Well, then it’s a good thing I won’t be in any meetings with you, eh?  I’m moving on from this conversation :)