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: TimF who wrote (4393)	2/2/2001 11:59:29 AM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The very act of interpretation of "law" (a code of conduct imposed upon us by society) is a de facto measure of "right" and "wrong" (I didn't say I agree with it - many things are illegal that I don't consider classifiable as "right" or "wrong"). I won't use these simplistic terms, because I, like X and many others on this thread feel that it is not appropriate when such measures are relative to where you come from (philosophically speaking). Are you saying that tribes living in isolation for thousands of years in a stable society are "wrong" in some absolute sense JUST BECAUSE they aren't in agreement or accord with your principles? The "proof" I offer is inductive proof. It demonstrates that a) there can be and are different moral standards world-wide, b) these can be stable, humane and compassionate but don't have to be c) for thousands of years people can act differently than you with no apparent ill effect on their society's success, d) most "morality" comes out of a religious tradition, e) religious traditions that predate Christianity and its antecedents provide different standards In logic I don't have to prove a negative (namely that there isn't a moral absolute) though I've demonstrated that there is some reason to believe that hypothesis. You, OTOH, are asserting that there are moral absolutes yet most of the data seems to suggest that there isn't. You have a very big logical problem here because YOU are asserting something for which there is no proof, only your basic belief. This belief is not transferable.