Ongoing crises in the news make my immersions in value theory seem foolish: as if care for principle, better distinctions, and compassionate reasoning can have effective merit. Nevertheless, I trek onward.
Here’s a comment I posted tonight at the NY Times article by
UN General Secretary Guterres (quoting some key phrases he uses):
If global society will make and keep real that there must be an “international community” (not just global society alluding to the notion)—if We will hold sacred “each other’s humanity”—then we can make “UN resolutions” and “international law” effective, by demanding that our national leaders make the UN an effective institution during crises.
I want to share the letter I wrote to the Editor of The Atlantic magazine where I praised his article on General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose explicit “constitutional patriotism” expresses that strict fidelity to democratic constitutionality protects against autocratic exploitation of military power.
There is “supreme leader”ship located in (distributed through) the three estates of (1) jurisprudential “divining” of implicit lawfulness, which yields to (2) Congressional action, which yields to (3) valid electoral legitimation.
I’m unremarkably lucky among persons not living with intense heat or war. As a news junkie, I regularly feel gratitude and depressing sadness —and anger: How many Ukrainian civilians must die before a conspiracy of confidantes arrests Putin and sends him to The Hague?
It’s not that my sense is “the” better sense because it’s basically mine. Rather, prospecting all manner of issues for decades results in—has derived—a “simple” sense of Our humanity which seems better than any other sense I’ve found—which I assert here in hope that—inasmuch as I’m misguided—senses better than mine will come my way!
To be brief, I’ll divide my supposedly better sense into three modes: global, discursive, and life cyclic; and simply allude to how they differ.
