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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (6761)	11/19/2000 1:06:40 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

Well I agree with you about long term versus short term- but don't you think I only agree because it is in my interest to agree? After all I plan to live a long time, and I have kids- so the long term interest of the world is important to me. If a guy knows he is dying in 12 months and has no children- his interests could, justifiably, be short term interests. Why would his interests be less worthy than mine? Objectively they are not. Of course I am a utilitarian, as you know. I think long term interests benefit the greatest number of people. But since one never knows the future one can always be making a mistake in the risk benefit calculus. So to ME all interests are not equal- and you know I have my share of rather strongly held interests. But as a relativist- I do not believe there is any objective way of proving one interest "better" than another. Personally of course, there is morality. But objectively, imo, there is not. Now that I read this, it seems clear as mud, but perhaps you will understand what I am saying. I think we agree, but we were coming at the issue from different angles.