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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (4263)	2/1/2001 5:41:26 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The discussion was ACTUALLY about why is it wrong to kill. Not why I don't like killing, or why am I not comfortable with abortion- by why is it wrong to kill? Aside from it being merely prohibited by society under certain circumstances. So if the law and the majority of people in our society thought it was ok to kill people of a specific ethnic group, or with certain political ideas you would not have a problem with that? What if the law (or court decision or proposition boted directly by the people) was that it was ok to kill you. Would you not feel that that was wrong? (beyond just the thought that you don't want to die) If you do feel that way is your belief about this limited to killing, or do you believe anything is ok as long as the law and/or a majority of people in a country or other social unit think it is ok? Tim

To: epicure who wrote (4263)	2/1/2001 11:48:41 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

<<by why is it wrong to kill? ..... I argued there was only a religious underpinning to a notion that it is wrong in any absolute sense, to kill. And I've seen no arguments to the contrary. >> What religion says it's wrong "in an absolute sense" to kill? The Christian commandment on that subject says, in the Hebrew, "murder," though it was mistranslated as "kill", as I understand it. There's authorized killing in the Bible (like, killing disrespectful children is okay), so it makes sense. (Maybe the Jains say you can't kill under any circumstances?) The use of the word "absolute" in the question kind of makes it tautologically a religious proposition, anyway. It's not necessary for its wrongness to be "absolute" for it to be wrong, though. There are philosophical schools, complex and profound theses, that would in essence argue, on this point, that the greatest good for the greatest number is served by following the golden rule; and the golden rule would have us not killing others, as we would not have them kill us. The golden rule is a good human rule, a version, and understanding, of which has existed among all peoples. It seem to me that sociologically, it makes sense that those societies that get a grip on internecine killing are going to have survival and productivity advantages over those that don't.