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 (5650)	2/13/2001 6:09:24 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Morality, according to most dictionaries, has to do with the difference between right behavior and wrong behavior What the dictionary doesn't say, but is implicit is that perception of "right" and "wrong" are highly subjective. While most cultures have some common areas there are many areas that are simply subjective.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (5650)	2/13/2001 6:35:40 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Chris, you said I am clearly and unequivocally of the belief that just because a society thinks things are moral, that doesn't make them moral... are there standards of right and wrong which are immutable, or is all right and wrong merely a matter of custom? I'm not a philosopher, nor a specialist on ethics. But I do have to ask, how would you define 'moral' if not as 'accepted by society'? A few examples... In ancient Athens, among the best-educated and most ethical philosophers of the day - men whose wisdom and insight is still famous now - male paedophilia (i.e., sex with pre-pubertal boys) was not just accepted but exalted. Moral? In another ancient culture, slavery was quite legal, but you could not kill your slave - only punish him, so long as he survived at least two days after. They also held that anyone who was blind, or even only partially sighted, was taboo, and restricted in freedom. Moral? In the UK, until 1912 (I think) women could not vote. Until about 1800-1850, that was accepted by society. Was it morally OK? In the UK now, prisoners cannot vote. There is a test case at the moment claiming that they are still citizens, subject to the rule of law (strictly, in the UK we're Crown subjects, not constitutional citizens - but that's not germane here): and so their constitutional rights to a voice in law are being infringed. Moral? Again today, the UK is debating the outlawing of fox hunting (from horseback, with dog packs). Hunters are claiming a right to their traditional way of life, and a wonderful and exciting sport harming no one - which is, alternatively, a cruel blood sport involving the chase, torture and slaughter of wild animals. Moral? No, I don't believe the holocaust was 'moral', either [I probably have more reason than most]... but I equally don't believe that there are fixed 'rights and wrongs'. There are things that are done and things that are not done. And genocide, slavery, absolute totalitarian rule, blind following of inherited dogma, all have been seen as right and appropriate by different societies at different times. And there's no authority that has at all times and in all places said otherwise... nor could it be so, except by force - and then, what rights would people have?