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: Neocon who wrote (74613)	2/19/2000 2:33:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

If it doesn't matter, then we may as well have slaves on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and free them on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, with wild card Sundays. I didn't say it didn't matter. I said it matters because we decided that it matters, not because natural law declares that it matters. Ascribing any issue of human morality to a force outside humans evades the issue. When we face a problem, do we ask ourselves "what is the natural law governing this subject" or "what, under these unique circumstances, should I do"? It is up to us to make our laws, and to change them when we see that they are wrong. Nature doesn't do it for us. Shall we think and decide, or shall we obey?

To: Neocon who wrote (74613)	2/19/2000 11:28:00 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Why isn't slavery just as valid as anything else? The Greeks and Romans had slaves. The Egyptians did. Many of the Europeans had them. Slavery can be found in "sucessful" civilizations of the past- they aren't very necessary in a technological society where hand labor is less important so it's east to do a "value shift" and say "OOOOH slavery, that's WRONG"- but wage slavery seems pretty similar to slavery slavery to me. I really don't see a "natural law" problem with slavery myself. I see that humans are wired a certain way- that limits the ways we will interact with each other. And societies function in certain ways- so there will be commonalities between societies. I would agree with that. But the variation is fairly striking- and what works in a technological society doesn't work in an agrarian society, and the values that are easy to have in affluence, don't always hold up in war zones. I have always thought that relativism bounded by the hard wiring of the human brain and the notion of topographical anthropology was a better way to look at this problem.