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: average joe who wrote (86585)	8/27/2000 12:44:14 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Whom, or what, are you quoting, AJ? I would take issue with some of the points made in the text you have placed in quotation marks, but first I would like to know who/what wrote it, and why you consider him/her/it/them an authority on this question.

To: average joe who wrote (86585)	8/27/2000 7:39:04 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 108807

Actually, the "we" is each person with an interest in formulating a universal rule, which is presumed to be co- extensive with human beings. The rule is presumed to be generated by a reflection on human circumstances, motivated by the need to fulfill oneself in society. It is, in fact, a common thread to various articulated moral codes, including Jewish and Greek, both as a demand for justice (giving to each his due), and as a call for kindness, notably towards the stranger in one's midst. It is formulated by Rabbi Hillel as "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you", and by Christ as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". There is a similar formulation in Confucius. Kant draws it out as the categorical imperative:"never treat another rational being merely as a means, but also as an end". It is commonly presumed that different situations will present different challenges, and that one is allowed to prefer certain people, up to a point. What the quote called "species solidarity" is nothing more than what I call mutual respect, and if one has it, even strangers enter into one's calculation to some extent. The last paragraph is not in contradiction with my observations that you count too, that the moral worth of one's actions are not confined to "other directed" behavior, and that there are reasonable limits to aid. The only disagreement I would have is the assumption that there is never a situation where it would be morally reprehensible to refuse to pitch in..........