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: Lane3 who wrote (5623)	2/13/2001 4:29:43 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I don't think that this is accurate. Just because a philosophy or moral system or whatever is not anchored by a deity but by some human construct doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't anchored and that there's no value or moral judgment to be made. But the premise that has been going around, that I think he was referring to, is that there is no absolute morality, only what any given society at any given time says is moral. By definition, almost, there is no anchor for such a "moral" system -- it floats in the breeze. The issue, IMO, is not whether the anchor is based on deity or based on what the founders called "inalienable rights." The issue is whether there are any such inalienable rights at all, whether based on the sacred or the secular. Personally, I believe that there are such rights. But the argument that has been floated around here recently is that there are not -- that any system is moral if the society believes in it. (Under this construct, for example, the female genital mutilation practiced by some societies is perfectly moral if those societies believe it is.) Personally, I don't buy it. And what's interesting to me is that generally most of the people who espouse it as a theory don't believe it either. They want our U.S. society to dictate morality to, say, Iraq, or Libya, or China. They support laws that prohibit child labor in developing countries, even when those societies support child labor. There is such a fundamental disconnect between principle and belief that IMO it simply proves the invalidity of the principle.

To: Lane3 who wrote (5623)	2/13/2001 4:33:34 PM
From: Mac Con Ulaidh	Respond to of 82486

I had a bunch of words written on the origin of the word "moral", from a latin word for Custom, and got booted and lost it all. Maybe later. <g> The meaning of and history of "moral" I find interesting in the context of the discussion. It is more related to "customs", as some of us have been talking about. And nowhere is a higher authority noted for their existence. Customs change, and along with them, what is called "moral". Better to me to have a defined belief system of one's own that withstands the sway of custom.

To: Lane3 who wrote (5623)	2/13/2001 6:27:48 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Hypocrisy is bad enough. The self-righteous notion that only the other guys exhibit it is dishonest. We should not blame all members of a group for the shortcomings or excesses of a minority of the group, although I think it's appropriate that the group at large to try to either get its outliers into the fold or cut them out of the herd. A group like conservatives or liberals is not a herd with any enforcement powers. Anyone is free to call themselves or anyone else a member of one of these groups. A group like Democrats, or Republicans would find it hard to achieve its aims if it kicked out any member who was ever hypocritical and/or excessive. I agree with the idea of condemning unjust actions or unwarranted excesses but I'm not sure it is easy or in some cases even desirable to be kicking everyone "out of the herd". Tim

To: Lane3 who wrote (5623)	2/14/2001 11:57:24 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Wow ! Does it get any easier than this? When I read X's impassioned plea for Human rights I nearly spit my coffee all over my computer. From 5622 from Greg, to Karen "those who take the position that there is no ultimate morality because there is no God, are stuck in the unenviable position of being unable to denounce anything, no matter how heinous, because to do so, would repudiate their own philosophical position. Of course they only do that when backed into a corner, as you saw with X. Five minutes latter they are back to denouncing this that and the other thing, as "Wrong". When pressed, they will start to argue about what the meaning of is is." Greg From X, 5559 ROFL I don't have a problem with slavery in a society that wants to have it. I don't like it personally- but societies certainly have the ability to have slavery if it works. My response only seems circular to you because you do not understand it. There is no right and wrong. There is no absolute morality. Morality is whatever society says it is. Murder is whatever society says it is. I happen to personally like the logic of birth as a cutoff. But society COULD define all abortions as murder. And that would then be murder. I would think it was impractical and silly- but my opinion wouldn't matter if the majority decided to change enough laws in this country to make it happen. The unborn are human tissue. I don't know whether they are human beings- since that totally depends on how you define "being". I would argue that because society is a contract a society can do whatever it wants- and other countries should not intervene in a military fashion. So to have an internal holocaust (or civil war) is the sovereign right of a country. You may not like that I think that- but it is completely rational, totally non-circular, and completely consistent. Three things your tissue of beliefs and superstitions are not. Meanwhile, back at the ranch. From X, 5759, "I hope you work for and contribute to amnesty international. Our family has been involved with amnesty international since I was a child. I wrote letters for them when I was in elementary school. China is pursuing many policies that I consider morally repugnant. I do everything I can to express my personal outrage with these policies." Everybody knows that the Chinese people are just "Human tissue" "So to have an internal holocaust (or civil war) is the sovereign right of a country." Why can't the Chinese government just redefine the meaning of Human, to exclude anyone they decide to kill. After all, that is precisely what we have done to the unborn. My reference to the Clintonian weasel words,(what the meaning of is ,is.)had nothing to do with Clinton, rather it was to demonstrate a tactic that is often used by people who know what they are doing is wrong,(abortion)if it were done to another human being. Weasel words like "choice" and "tissue" and "clumps of cells" are incorporated in order to deflect attention away from what is really happening. Abortion on demand is the unwarranted and painful killing of another human being. It's wrong in China and it's wrong in the good old USA. How we can be so sanctimonious and smug is beyond my comprehension. Greg