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 (7004)	3/1/2001 11:21:11 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Since one cannot characterize behavior as moral or immoral except against a standard, and that standard consists of obligations, according to standard usage in discussing such matters, you seem to have talked yourself into a dead end. Either you conform your behavior to the standard, which means meeting the obligation, or you don't. If you do, you behave morally. If you don't, you do not. Now, the obligation could arise as the result of a "social compact", and be in that sense voluntary. However, the situation envisaged by Hume and Locke never actually exists. Instead, we are brought up in society, and social norms are inculcated. We can question them, critique them, rebel against them, and so forth, but the situation is this: we have a stake in society, and the underlying rules are meant to govern our conduct in relation to one another. There are elements of morality which cover other matters, but much of it has to do with social relations. These rules, at least in their refined version, show us how we ought to behave in most circumstances. Because we ought to behave in accordance with the rules, they are obligations. Because they largely govern social relationships, they are obligations toward others, which vary according to the nature of the relationship and the circumstances particular to the case. For the most part, force has nothing to do with it, when the standards violated are so basic and egregious that society cannot tolerate relying upon conscience. Opinions may differ over when such a condition exists, but there is consensus on most issues, such as theft or assault. All of this is matter of common sense for anyone who recognizes that there is an objective, non- arbitrary basis for morality. If you are saying that morality is whatever you construct for yourself, well, all I can say is what I did at the beginning: if we follow our own individual natures in our "moralities", and my nature is to be a busybody, then interferring is part of my morality, and it is equally valid to yours, there being no standard to measure them against one another. If you are not saying that morality is basically arbitrary and personal, then you have gone down some eccentric road, since the idea of social obligation is essential to morality..........