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.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tunica Albuginea who wrote (845)	9/19/1999 9:19:00 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 69300

Russia and Germany acted in their own best interest? They may have thought it was in their interest,but the proof is in the results. There is a famous study "The Tragedy of the Commons" (I'm sorry I don't have a source right now). This study began with shephards who had a common grazing area, by following their self interest they always ended up overgrazing and ruining the pasture for all (The study was generalized to include areas such as common clean air and water). The shephards were not able to maximize their interest until they formed a central committee to regulate grazing. - The point here? True self interest is defined in natural selection by survival, and the path to survival can be different than the obvious. TP

To: Tunica Albuginea who wrote (845)	9/19/1999 10:12:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

If we agree upon the concept that absent a God everything is theoretically permitted (and to me this is identical to the position that all human morality is anthropogenic), and we further allow for the sake of argument that there is no compelling evidence of a present God - then the idea that Nazi Germany or Imperial Germany or Stalinist Russia or post-revolutionary USA were equally viable from a moral sense does not follow. Because even if all orality is anthropogenic, there still is good vs. bad behavior - for the individual, the family, the nation, the species. While we might argue about the niceties of moral behavior, the broad strokes cross all national, historic and religious boundaries. "Don't murder. Don't steal. Be a person of your word. Eat? Work! Honor your elders and protect your children. Love your neighbors and be ruthless to your enemies. If you feed your distressed neighbor today, he's more likely to feed you next year should you need it." Certainly there were excursions from this broad template. The most dazzling recent example is Rwanda. Did God step in in the smallest? I don't see it. Was this bad behavior? Five billion voices cry YES>. Should the senior nations have intervened? Well <chuckling> that is a question for the Liberal thread.

To: Tunica Albuginea who wrote (845)	9/21/1999 12:23:00 AM
From: Ralphd2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 69300

>>( and by God that I mean the charitable/loving Judeo-Christian God )<< what bible are you reading from? the charitable/loving god who commanded israel to destroy it's enemies root and branch? eye for an eye? charatible? >>All kinds of atrocities and wrongs have been committed by man on man in the name of some moral standard.<< i agree with you on this one. but people often disagree on the nature of evil. good/evil is relative in our universe. if i eat deer meat, it is good for me, but bad for the deer, correct? no one ever (unless they are agreeably insane) believes they are evil. morals, in my understanding, are usually something like "we don't eat pork, becouse it is unclean" ethics are a social construct instituted becouse people need top know what is or is not permitted of them within the society they are living. ethics are usually based off of human nature (ie. don't kill others or all the others will get together to kill you) and the like. there are allways people who want to break the rules, tho, no matter how stiff the penalty