That much is clear - All strategies and schemes will come to evil, and most are evil by motivation (being worldly, hedonic = leftist)... Here and now, at any rate.
Bottom-up, interpersonal, creative-loving,means not ends... These are not necessarily, nor even usually, good - but at least allows for that possibility.
Top-down strategies can be good. For those, who initiate them.
Top-down schemes don't let others participate or contribute. The opposite of a proper family or team. It's a denial of the worth of others.
Reminds me of how the antagonists in the Discworld novels are usually the people trying to impose their specific vision for the world on everyone else, and are opposed by the likes of Vimes, Vetinari, Granny Weatherwax, who are on the side of letting people muddle through as they always have.
Possibly the last major English author to understand the system of bottom up muddling through that characterised England (though we had major infrastructure projects, they were either municipal or corporate led by a bewildering array of companies set up for that purpose, not centrally planned) until the wars allowed centralised government to take over. Perhaps it's no accident that he was born just before the greatest symbol of British centralisation, the NHS...
@C Yes, I'd agree that Pratchett understood what we shouldn't do, and sided with 'negative good', but was blocked by atheist leftism from understanding why. Consequently he lacked a coherent positive morality IMO.
Post a Comment