Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (43031)	7/2/1999 1:05:00 PM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

First, to deal with your Parthian shot. I would no doubt be a violent as necessary -- but the key thing in my decision would be my daughter's attitude. When my 13 year old sister "fell in love" with a 21-year old guy, my brother and I (without consulting my parents) checked the guy out. Our mutual friends said he was extra straight and a good person (although he was a Methodist). He seemed okay to us. They seemed really quite in love. Two years later, still unpregnant, they married and have been married for 48 years. As to the main point, I don't believe I said that it was unethical to love your family, but that it was not specifically ethical. Without bothering with the lesser trash, I deal with Kant on which I am sure of my specific ground. My personal prudential view is that people biologically related to me deserve most of my consideration (a la Dawkins), but this conflicts with the Kantian view where that is mere selfishness, since other gene-mates share important personal features, and the good will must be free of selfish advantage to be good and therefore ethical. In Christian ethics, of course, one must love others as one's self, i.e. as much. To love a stranger less than one's own child would violate the second great commandment. Just two more reasons why I think Kant and Jesus are not reliable guides to ethical behavior.