Seeing some of the responses in this thread, I think I might want to withdraw, or at least modify this comment. I am going to leave it as is because others hav

Seeing some of the responses in this thread, I think I might want to withdraw, or at least modify this comment. I am going to leave it as is because others have upvoted it, as is. People are trying to interpret the analogy outside of the theological context in which Chesterton wrote, and therefore either reduce it to the kind of relativistic conservatism that GP rightly decries, or else deny what Chesterton actually wrote. Chesterton’s point is that change can be good or destructive. Since evil is not a positively existing thing, but merely a lack of goodness, a lower goodness mistaken for a higher goodness, or vice versa, if I am to act upon something in order to bring it to its full goodness, I have to understand the goodness already in it, otherwise I act in a way that is destructive. In short, I can only be trusted to change a thing if I am able to love it.