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: Solon who wrote (6356)	2/23/2001 10:59:46 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Moral questions arise because the nature of thinking points out alternatives, or CHOICES--for ACTION. The choices (because they are alternatives) have an unequal VALUE to the thinker. When we make a moral judgment we are choosing an "ought" to take us from an "is" to an "will likely be". We only make a moral judgment because the alternatives that may derive from our actions MATTER to us. In other words, we have an INTEREST in the results of behaviour. Sometimes the morally right thing to do is against our own self interest. The person making the moral choice is of course choosing between alternatives but the choice that he or she makes can be unjust because it impacts on someone who does not have a choice in the situation. Your curt "I disagree" does not justify itself to me, and offers me no grounds to reconsider my own explanation. And your more complex argument was based on the assumption that all moral questions begin with interest and that someone who can not recognize their interest or make a moral choice at the moment is not morally significant and doesn't need to be considered. Since I disagreed with a crucial premise of the argument the rest of the argument was in now way convincing even though I found no fault with its logic. "As a newborn you also had no moral judgement." IRRELEVENT. I was the property of people who DID have moral judgment I don't consider people to be property. People who did have moral judgement had responsibility for you. If you consider the new born to be property and somehow protected by this status then why not the fetus esp. the fetus 7 minutes before birth? Your original argument was that someone who has no interest as you define it or no moral judgement would not have to be considered in the moral decisions of others. If this is true for the fetus then why is it not true for the fetus? Tim