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 (5813)	2/14/2001 2:12:32 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

But I think you do. I think that reaching a definitive conclusion on the matter of intervention would depend upon whether or not there's an absolute morality. But I think the subject could still be usefully discussed. If all morality is relative, there is no basis for imposing your beliefs on others. I think this is way too simple. Relevant, but way too simple. First of all, all interventions don't involve imposing anything. There are degrees of interventions. Do we jawbone or shun or start a nuclear war? Big difference. And would it logically follow that, if there's an absolute morality, that there is not just a right but a requirement for imposing that morality. Are we required to start a war against China to wipe out human rights abuses because of the absolute morality? Are we required to physically restrain our neighbor's wife from going out to meet her lover? Or should we mind our own business? Or counsel her? Or what? And even if there's not an absolute morality, should we intervene to try to keep our neighbor's daughter from doing something stupid with her life? What about our own daughter? I think there's plenty to discuss about interventions independent of whether or not there's an absolute morality. And maybe a discussion of the practical implications of an absolute morality might help people to clarify their thinking about whether there is one or not. Furthermore, whether there's an absolute morality or not, those of us here discussing seem to me to be pretty much in agreement about what the key absolutes would be if there were any. There's no disagreement here about slavery and rape and genocide and genital mutilation being wrong. The discussion is more about how we know that it's wrong. (We'd need to stay away from abortion because there are good arguments on both sides of that and the issue probably won't reach any consensus in our lifetimes.) As for absolute morality, have you thought any more about the morality of rape and slavery when the survival of the species is at stake? How can it be moral to let the human race die out when there are means to stop it? On the other hand, how can it be moral to rape and enslave? Karen