Which is contained in this Roger Kimball column. It also contains this great quote from the late David Stove, a Australian philosopher who was always interesting.
[Either a feeling of universal benevolence or an uncompromising moralism] on its own is almost always comparatively harmless. A person who is convinced that he has a moral obligation to be benevolent, but who in fact ranks morality below fame (say), or ease; or again, a person who puts morality first, but is also convinced that the supreme moral obligation is, not to be benevolent, but to be holy (say), or wise, or creative: either of these people might turn out to be a scourge of his fellow humans, though in most cases he will not. But even at the worst, the misery which such a person causes will fall incomparably short of the misery caused by Lenin, or Stalin, or Mao, or Ho-Chi-Minh, or Kim-Il-Sung, or Pol Pot, or Castro: persons convinced both of the supremacy of benevolence among moral obligations, and of the supremacy of morality among all things. It is this combination which is infallibly and enormously destructive of human happiness.
What is Kimball writing about? Click through and find out.
For those who don’t want to take the time to look up enthymeme, I despair of your laziness, but man, I understand. Just click here.
Don’t ask impertinent questions like that jackass Adept Lu.