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 (6734)	2/27/2001 1:54:42 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Well that story sure as heck fits in with what I believe. No one knows what "good" is, imo. Some people use reason to try to figure it out, others listen to the whisper of their imaginary friend. But whatever "good" we arrive at, we are too limited to know the eventual consequences. Even the most noble seeming actions can have horrible consequences- and the think that seemed good at the time, turns out not to have been good at all. Morals on the other hand are the social fiction of what is good and proper in your time. Morals are societies pretense of what "good" is. Why do I say pretense? Because society has no more idea of what "good" is in an absolute sense than we do. So what do we do? Act with compassion and realize that even when we do that we may inadvertently do great harm. But that's the way our existence is framed- we can't know the future- so we are stuck with our puny little conceptions of how the future will play out.

To: Solon who wrote (6734)	2/27/2001 2:13:56 PM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 82486

Ah, the road to hell and its pavement... Hey, that was my first ellipsis today! I have a sad memory at Diamond Lake in Oregon where a little duckling had become separated from its mother. Poor thing. I was ten and thought I should put it back in the lake. Bad idea. Was it immoral? No, it was accidental and a lesson was learned. My problem with morality in general is that it is internally referenced. Even people who think they use an external reference like the bible are actually using an interpretation of vague words or selective readings that is highly internal. I don't want to be held accountable to their readings or a document I consider questionable. That's why over on that other thread (that dare not speak its name), I suggested that an a priori knowledge that the world works both directions is a better basis for a morality. What goes around, comes around. Since one's acts affect others, one should act is a way that minimizes harm to others (whatever those others may be: rocks, trees, animals, people). Do do otherwise is wasteful, produces no benefit and will no doubt produce wrath in such external objects. I'm enough of a realist to know that actions whose likely outcomes are negative should be avoided. We know that overpopulation of all species produces unhealthy conditions usually followed by a rapid decline. Yet, despite the preponderance of the evidence indicating that humanity is in this mode, we do nothing. People will argue that every life is sacred and some religions actively fight birth control. For all creatures, I'd prefer that I wasn't the proximal cause (or even a distal cause) of such a crash in their population. I certainly don't want my kids or the kids of others to be in such a condition.