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 (5830)	2/14/2001 4:17:50 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

In all this discussion about absolute truth and absolute rights and absolute moral codes, this is the first time I picked up on a distinction between human rights abuse and other moral violations. Has this been part of what folks have been discussing all along or is this something new. Its been part of the general theme but perhaps the distinction has not be clearly stated. There's a big difference between simple right and wrong and human rights abuses. If all we're talking about when we say absolute, I think that changes the discussion. Are we changing the discussion or did I miss something important? Let me break down in to four categories. Where 1 = extrinsic or absolute morality. 2 = Equals relative morality or morality based on consensus opinion or societial norms. A = Human rights issues or issues of great injustice, and B = Personal morality or everyday right and wrong that doesn't rise to the level of a human rights abuse. Thus the four categories would be 1A (extrinsic human rights issues) 1B (extrinsic or absolute personal moral issues), 2 A (an example might be X's opinion of some of the actions of the Chinese government, or issues where someone violates someone else's relative opinion of human rights) and 2B (issues of relative or societal based personal morality). We were discussing the difference between 1 and 2, and not focusing on the difference between A and B. I tend to be most conserned about 1A. I'm not sure I could find and example of what I would consider 1B or 2A. If there's no more human race, what's the point of an absolute moral code? Wouldn't it be moot? If you believe in an extrinsic morality then it exists apart from human opinion, or even human existance. Also just because there are no humans left that does not nessiarily mean that there are no sentient beings. There could be aliens with moral opinions or if God exists he would presumably still be around. Last (and probably most important in response to your specific question), the moral decision (to rape and enslave or not) is made when there are still people around to make it. Tim