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: Neocon who wrote (7052)	3/1/2001 3:32:08 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Maybe you just don't like traditional language about morality, because it sounds authoritarian to you. No question about it. Authoritarian turns me off. Way off. 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 <b/>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. That works for me. I think that intermediate concept of stake is essential to your point. People, at least those who aren't receptive to authoritarian edicts or dreams of heaven, need first to recognize their best interest before they take on the responsibilities. Of course, there are always those who will see their best interest elsewhere. (And those for whom best interest is an unsatisfactory motive.) 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...... One of the big problems with "selling" morality is that many of its advocates make a joke of it by pushing rights and wrongs about which there is no consensus. It's important to focus on those things that make sense to people. If subsets of people want to add such things as masturbation to the list of immoral acts, they should do so individually or among themselves. Making a broad issue of those immoral acts that are outside the framework of human decency and on which a consensus is unlikely really undermines the vision of a moral society. Karen