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: Dayuhan who wrote (4992)	2/5/2001 5:55:04 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Utility is nothing more than what we want for ourselves. Nothing intangible about it, for most of us. If it is literally just what you want for yourself then it can conflict with what others want for themselves. The intagible part I was talking about includes decideing which useful or practical goal is more important or how efforts should be decided between them. Lets say you want to decidede if a country should have a large welfare program. Does the tangible goal of giving resoruces to poor people economic efficancy and growth created from lower taxes? (I know this simplifies things a lot but I'm not looking to write a book here). How do you weigh both goals against the tangible goal of helping even poorer people in third world countries. To a large extent the value that you place on these tangible goals relies on intangible ideas. You do realize that your anti-abortion argument seems to boil down to the contention that in Tim's personal system of abstract moralities, which is so self-evident to him that he does not feel compelled to cite fact or reason in its defense, . Not exactly. I have made a rational arguement, but it rests on premises that depend on my moral and philisophical beliefs. Some one who does not share these beliefs would not find the arguement compeling, but then someone with different beliefs then yours would be unlikely to find your political, philisophical or moral arguments compeling either. the right of a fetus to develop into an infant outweighs the right of a woman to decide what goes on in her own body And your arguements depend on the intangible moral idea that the right for the woman to have an abortion outweighs the right of the fetus to live. I am attacked for assumeing that can not be proven and using them as the basis of my arguments, but everyone does this. If you do not assume somthing you can not prove anything. Our assumptions are different so my arguments are not logically compeling to you. Simularly you have made no arguments that are logically compelling to me. Tim