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: E who wrote (4726)	2/4/2001 1:47:52 AM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

How does one believe in an extrinsic view of morality without invoking "God"? What is this magical external reference point we are using? I don't use the word "God" because it seems too human bound - like God would really care that much about people and not the rest of the planet or universe, holding these systems in equal regard. What hubris. Our "Gods" seem more like us than Gods. I've heard 7th grade bullies with more compassion than I've heard in some of the mainstream dogma that is tossed around as "moral philosophy". An agnostic view is the only one that makes sense. We just don't (and can't) know the truth so why would anyone claim to? Doesn't make sense to me. But if we are to embrace something, why not make it good?

To: E who wrote (4726)	2/4/2001 10:19:31 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Or duck. E, I take your point about the duck. I agree that the notion of a soul is the most likely explanation for someone's adamance that a fetus is a person. But I don't think it's the only one, in theory at least. When I was closer in age to birth than to death, as is Tim, I had a lot of sentimentality about the wonder and possibilities of life. I've said a couple of times on this thread that even now I get a twinge of guilt when I cut back a house plant without rooting the clippings. Yet, as you know, I don't have an ounce of religiosity in me. That's why I don't rule out the possibility of other explanations for the notion that a fetus is a person. The reason that I popped into your conversation was that much of Tim's posting on this subject has been addressed to me so I've probably been paying closer attention to his details than someone who is just reading along. Tim has stated that he's not all that religious. It's certainly possible that he's lying or lacks self-knowledge, but I have no choice but to take him at his word. Karen

To: E who wrote (4726)	2/4/2001 11:47:42 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I would say that the only logical explanation of certain of his views is a stipulated-- i believe we are calling it "extrinsic"? -- evaluator, or judge, or designer, or moral authority. I do believe in God but my belief in extrinsic morality is both stronger and more fundimental. It is not based on my belief in God. If God is defined as either the creator or the most powerful thing in the universe that doesn't mean God can not be evil. I don't think he is, but (unlike most traditional theology) I don't think God is the source of the morality excpet perhaps in the sense of inspire people to see it. To cut to the point in response to your statement my view of extrinsic morality is really extrinsic. Even extrinsic to God. Tim