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 (7049)	3/1/2001 2:46:58 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Maybe it isn't such a huge gap. Maybe you just don't like traditional language about morality, because it sounds authoritarian to you. If that is all it is, then we really don't have a great problem. Assuming, though, a remaining theoretical dispute, I am happy enough to say that at this level of moral grounding, there is not an obligation to participate, rather, there is a stake, a strong motive. However, once conceding the stake, there are rules which one must generally follow both to uphold human dignity and to contribute and profit from society. It is those that I refer to as duties or obligations, although they admit of exceptions depending upon exigent circumstances. They are necessitated by the stakes we have already acknowledged. Yes, standing up your prom date is immoral, unless there is some very good reason, like you had to take your brother to the hospital (just an example of exigent circumstance). Rules about masturbation and meat eating do not, in fact, derive from the notion of common decency, and are not part of the consensus. Rules against masturbation come from a particular view of spiritual purity, and the need to restrain sensuality. Rules against meat eating have to do with making compassion for suffering a moral trump card, instead of making human dignity the center of one's moral concerns. Anyway, I am merely trying to indicate a minimum, not prejudge what the maximum requirements of "right living" might be. It is absolutely true, we have nothing but our reason to guide us beyond the elementary promptings of conscience......