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: The Philosopher who wrote (5634)	2/13/2001 5:45:46 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You ask something that I started getting a fuzzy in my brain about when I was writing to you and bp and so I;m glad you mentioned it again. You asked if in the South of the 60s, segregation was morally acceptable did that make it morally right? I dunno- but if one takes the position that society defines morality, then I guess it does and that what happened was merely a change in the moral code, brought about by a shift in the numbers of people believing segregation was more immoral than moral. So we have what appears to be a shifting definition of morality, vs an absolute. As I tried to explain, probably badly, I believe there is an absolute though I tend to think it has to do with survival and evolution, rather than being something spiritual. Not sure that I am being very clear, mostly because this is just something I am toying with. ANd that even what seems to be a shifting morality can probably be explained as different reactions to variable circumstances in different time periods, but that still arise from the same basic behavioral rules that seem to govern all cultures regardless.