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: epicure who wrote (74742)	2/20/2000 5:44:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 108807

I thought you handled that discussion rather well. What I don't understand about the people you argue with is their assumption that morality must be either absolute and derived from some independently existing natural law or relative and arbitrary. This is close to being absolute nonsense, as far as I can see. Morality has nothing to do with natural law. It has evolved from human experience of what is expedient, of what makes a group work together most effectively. We don't ban adultery, theft, or murder because they are opposed to natural law, we ban them because we observe that they create chaos and havoc in society. Nothing could be less arbitrary. The history of moral evolution is a simple consequence of the gradual broadening of our definition of what is expedient. It is not much different than the experience of a child growing up, passing through the stage of "I want what I want and I want it now" and learning to plan, to forego gratification in pursuit of a greater good, to consider the needs and views of others. The dangerous thing about the "natural law" argument is that it raises the possibility that once the "law" is known, we need simply to obey it; to stop thinking. This won't work. Morality is not independently dictated; it evolved, and it has to continue to evolve. All morality, of course, is relative. We all know killing is wrong. We all know killing is permissible in self-defense. Now, what level of threat is required to make killing in self-defense permissible? There is no fixed rule. There can never be a fixed rule that covers all situations. We need to think and to use judgment, not to obey some hypothetical natural law. The Nazis and the Soviets did not do what they did because they were moral relativists, or because of the ideologies they followed. They simply did what people have always done. Europeans have been invading and conquering each other since they first formed nations. Dictators have blamed scapegoats and persecuted their opponents since history began. Hitler and Stalin were not driven by their respective ideologies, they were driven by the same instinctive imperative that drove Napoleon, Alexander, Genghis Khan, Chaka Zulu. They were following natural law: if you're stronger than your neighbor, stomp his ass and make him work for you. The people that are trying to create non-violent frameworks for the settlement of international disputes are defying natural law. I hope they succeed. With all due deference to Dostoevsky's skill as a novelist, his moral philosophy was skewed by superstition. "If there is no God, then all is permitted" is crap. Since there is no God, we must decide what is permitted. You may ask why I directed this rant to you. I'm not sure; maybe I wanted to send it to a thinking person.

To: epicure who wrote (74742)	2/21/2000 7:30:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

"Morally ambiguous contextual relativism"?? That is not what I was talking about, X. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The kind of relativism (or relationism) I had in mind is not in the least "morally ambiguous"; if anything, quite the contrary. But it recognizes that many -- perhaps most -- of the situations we find ourselves in, and must resolve by making choices, are morally ambiguous. Ethical (I prefer that term to"moral")principles do not exist in an abstract void; they can only be applied in a concrete context. And very often, the various ethical principles that could be applied in a particular context, a particular situation, conflict with one another. That is why we so often dither over what is "the right thing to do." We are forced to make hard choices about which ethical principles should have priority in that particular situation. (In that sense, no one of them can be considered an "absolute.") This is not a question of "self-justification" after the fact, but of choosing the "right" alternative before the fact. I once dipped into a little book on everyday ethics which gave a number of examples of the kind of real-life situations I have in mind. Pity I can't remember the name of the author or the title of the book, or I would cite an example from it.