Liberty is not itself a virtue, but it is the condition without which no virtue can meritoriously or properly be exercised. Not even obedience; for obedience at the point of a gun is not a virtue.
This entry has been sitting here ticking like a time-bomb. It is such a 'FPB' statement that I think the whole friend list have been sitting back thinking - Who is going to tackle this?
Well i've just finished a three hour review of risk and control documents and anything seems easy in comparison, so here goes.
I'm going to agree with almost all that you have said, one point of disagreement. Liberty is "the condition without which no virtue can meritoriously or properly be exercised"?
If obedience at the point of a gun is not a virtue, are there not times when disobedience at the point of a gun is?
The moment you rebel against armed threats, you assert your liberty and your virtue (unless, of course, it is the rebellion of someone in the wrong, like a thief resisting arrest).
Which in turn, asks the question: when a thief surrenders without a fight, is he giving up to superior power or superior moral position? If he takes the attitude "it's a fair cop, guv", probably the second.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Well i've just finished a three hour review of risk and control documents and anything seems easy in comparison, so here goes.
I'm going to agree with almost all that you have said, one point of disagreement. Liberty is "the condition without which no virtue can meritoriously or properly be exercised"?
If obedience at the point of a gun is not a virtue, are there not times when disobedience at the point of a gun is?
no subject
Which in turn, asks the question: when a thief surrenders without a fight, is he giving up to superior power or superior moral position? If he takes the attitude "it's a fair cop, guv", probably the second.