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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (1808)	10/18/2000 1:48:38 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

there is just no way to stand up and say that anything is absolutely wrong, when you and I both know that some things are. Nope, if we see it is wrong, we should stand up and say so. My philosophy can't allow harm because of the Golden Rule (compassion and empathy). The philosophical limitation only limits the universality of proofs. I can demonstrate that societies full of compassion are a lot better to live in than societies that don't have compassion. The lower down the food chain you express compassion, the better it is for people. That's empirical data, not proof. I don't need proof to believe it because the preponderance of data simply makes it more likely. You are mistaken. As long as you can demonstrate good acts and the rejection of harmful ones, that is good enough for me. Just because I can't prove that I'm right, doesn't mean that we can't agree to prohibit inconvenient or immoral things. That is the social contract. We have to realize that what is immoral today may change. As long as we agree no problem. I don't think there are a lot of countries where proven harm to others is tolerated as a rule. Gray cases always have to be negotiated.

To: Greg or e who wrote (1808)	10/18/2000 1:49:16 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 28931

You don't need to know something is ABSOLUTELY wrong. It's good enough to say I THINK this is wrong (relatively speaking) and THIS is not the way I want MY society to be. We are a multicultural society Greg- we have many different views about morality in this country and MOST of us can stand up and say "Hey- let's agree on this limited set of morals here- and lets' say they are the rules we want to live by." There really isn't another way to do it- unless you want to see sectarian violence erupt over who gets to set up the Absolute Moral Code. I certainly wouldn't want to live by your code. and I don't think you could live by mine. So we agree- as diverse societies ALWAYS do- to accept the lowest reasonable standard and allow people to live by their own moral lights. Only very homogeneous or extremely repressive societies, can do other wise- and we aren't homogeneous- do you wish us to become highly repressive?