Sharks in the Septic Tank Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: St_Bill who wrote (29967)	9/27/2001 10:33:56 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (3) of 82486

<I'm leaving certain weird implications of quantum mechanics out of this> And how exactly will you do that when many current theories of consciousness say it might actually be a function of same? But that is another discussion. What is the moral implication of two rams butting heads? Or a hawk eating a ground squirrel? Or a man killing another man? Or people eating animals? It all depends upon the point of view of the observer. Clearly the Germans who supported Hitler found some basis. It is not the system I support. <This is all just to say that I'm not a full-blown ethical relativist. > I would say that pure substances (or metaphysical states) of any kind don't exist. There will always be some impurity. By definition, what I like is desirable and what I don't like is not desirable. The same is true for you. I argue that tolerance exists in the world because in a world that embraces tolerance, a minority opinion will be protected. Even if you hold a majority opinion, it is easy to justify tolerance because the tables could turn on you (and YOU might be a minority one day). A tradition that protects a minority opinion will tend to protect YOUR opinion when times change just from momentum, no matter what the future bears for you. Again, as utilitarian relativists we tolerate all opinions up to the point where there is provable physical harm (that is where we probably agree). I don't accept metaphysical harm as a basis of negating relativism because, by definition, it can't be proved, so NO ONE gets to invoke God or gods in their harm argument. QED: you don't need god to have morality. To define which side you are on, you merely have to answer the following question. Do you believe you will always have the might to impose and thereby protect your point of view? Yes, you choose black (no tolerance). No, you choose white (yes to tolerance). Even the names black and white are approximations of those things which reflect everything and those that reflect nothing - a situation which never exists in our world (in an equilibrium state).

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next