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: Bill who wrote (78439)	4/19/2000 6:38:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I notice that you still have not told us why you think what you think. To make it easier for you, I will explain - again - why I think what I think. I begin with the following observations, all of which seem fairly self-evident: 1. Humans are social creatures, with a strong instinct to live in groups. 2. All human social groups occasionally face internal disruption by individual humans who find it personally expedient to act in ways that are opposed to the interests of the group. 3. All human societies possess basic rules governing social conduct, rules which we call "morals". 4. These rules almost always govern conduct which individuals may find expedient, but which are opposed to the interests of the group. 5. These rules vary from one society to another, and are generally suited to the particular environment faced by a given society. As X has pointed out, nomads generally live under different rules than settled people. 6. Human social groups tend to become larger and more complex over time, and the rules under which they live also become more complex over time. I believe that the rules we call "morality" were developed by humans to meet their need for a code of conduct to govern relations among members of social groups. I believe that these rules continuously evolve to meet the changing requirements of the group. I believe this because it is the only explanation I've considered that meets the two requirements that I find essential in any social theory: it is a simple and internally consistent explanation for what is observed, and it does not require that I assume anything which cannot be demonstrated. Your turn.