I like this articulation. Would you object if I were to borrow it into the main text?
At the same time I’m not certain, if you just gave someone this definition, if they’d properly grasp the idea (if they didn’t kind of understand it already). There are lots of different possible interpretations. Some are obviously impossible and so not action-guiding (“have individual compassion and respect for each electron, leaving none out”). More realistically, I think someone might hear it as automatically satisfied by an EA-style impartiality (and I think there’s more to it than that, and also guess you think there’s more to it than that).
Sure, feel free to use it, or riff on it to create something better.
This is a fully general problem with using words: the categories they point to are always a bit off, especially if the reader doesn’t share a lot of our context. I find it best to state things as directly as I can, and let others sort out their own confusion.
I like this articulation. Would you object if I were to borrow it into the main text?
At the same time I’m not certain, if you just gave someone this definition, if they’d properly grasp the idea (if they didn’t kind of understand it already). There are lots of different possible interpretations. Some are obviously impossible and so not action-guiding (“have individual compassion and respect for each electron, leaving none out”). More realistically, I think someone might hear it as automatically satisfied by an EA-style impartiality (and I think there’s more to it than that, and also guess you think there’s more to it than that).
Sure, feel free to use it, or riff on it to create something better.
This is a fully general problem with using words: the categories they point to are always a bit off, especially if the reader doesn’t share a lot of our context. I find it best to state things as directly as I can, and let others sort out their own confusion.