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 (7142)	3/2/2001 1:39:21 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

A child has a claim against it's parents by law. This is a de facto utilitarian case of legislated morality. It is a very modern notion, though, and can only be tolerated in societies where there is plentitude. In rural regions, the notion of duty to children would be scoffed at until quite recently. In third world countries, it still has not taken hold. Children had (have) the duty to their parents (and society) and not really the other way around. Have we all forgotten our Dickens? Children were expected to work hard for their living and what we dotingly know as "love" was probably absent in many cases. Woe be to them that had both parents die.

To: Lane3 who wrote (7142)	3/2/2001 2:53:15 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

A child has a claim against it's parents by law. That's different. So in a state of anarchy or in a place where there is no law addressing this situation the child has no claim to be supported by its parents (or atleast a claim that its parents have someone support the child)? Tim

To: Lane3 who wrote (7142)	3/2/2001 4:02:48 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"set of moral rules, you have no claim on him. A child has a claim against it's parents by law. That's different." By Law Tom Sawyer was a criminal for taking his friend Jim with him on the raft up the river to the North. By the accompanied "Moral Authority" of the time he was also committing a sin. He was stealing the Widder Jenkin's property. He was betraying the trust of ms Jenkin's, who'd tried to help him and Huckleberry. He figured that he would surely end up in Hell for all of this. And yet there was something speaking to him that went against, the law, the moral authority of the day, societal standards, and what he would state himself as decent. What was that? Maybe that it just seemed like the "right" thing to do. Morality is a system of right and wrong that one person or a group may choose to base their principles of living on. Did Jim have a claim on Tom? I would say that he did. Was it legal? Was it according to societal standards? Was it in compliance with the accepted Moral Authority of the time? No, to all of the above. Was it the morally right thing to do? Most definitely.

To: Lane3 who wrote (7142)	3/2/2001 5:10:23 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

If Solon doesn't buy into our view of what society should be like and make a commitment to the accompanying set of moral rules, you have no claim on him Are my views different then than yours and Neo's? Which ones? It is unfortunate that apple pie arguing techniques have confused what is perhaps the ultimate in simplicity. This was about individual claims on individuals. Society was never in my argument. How could it be? Society is a conceptual construct representing a consensus (or NOT) of individuals. I said from square one that I recognize the lawful agreements under which I have agreed to participate in society. I have no idea what the two of you mean by a view of what society "should be like". But I do know that there are millions of people in society, and that two people certainly don't set the benchmark. There are probably only trivial differences in how the three of us think society "should be like", but who knows? My argument was a philosophical rights issue--not a committee one. "...and make a commitment to the accompanying set of moral rules" My commitment to freedom is not in any way incompatible with committing to a set of moral rules. That is entirely unfair. I didn't say what moral rules I believe in. I said that I believed a person can choose their values for themself--BY RIGHT. I said that other individuals had no CLAIM on me to demand my values or my thoughts or my behaviour, or to impose their expectations. It just so happens that SOCIETY DOES recognize my right to be free of arrogant and insensitive CLAIMS that might be imposed on its members. Society supports my right to be free of the demands of others. Simple really... I believe there were some apple pie arguments that, because I believed in freedom--I could not believe in co-operation. But did I say this? Does my RIGHT to exercise my own independent judgement, as regards the thoughts and values of myself and others--mean that I am against values that I do AGREE with?? Because my thoughts and values are FREE--Does it mean they are always DIFFERENT?? And MUST it mean they are WRONG?? I cannot believe I was attacked on such a simple, clear, and accepted statement--a statement in full accord with society's values and laws: to wit--"We are separate persons; You have no claim upon me..."; I can't believe I needed to defend such an obvious fact for so many posts; And I am sorry to need to be defended on red herrings. You have (as always) been a trooper, Karen! (I've told you that before :))! I take full responsibility for being unable to communicate the simplest and most obvious of arguments to others. Logic has always been the frailest of persuasions, and for that I am culpable. I don't mean this post to be harsh, but it probably sounds that way. When I think I have been misunderstood by those I respect, I need to say so--and that is not a criticism. This is just one of my values...it is not a claim--LOL!! Internet service off and on all day. There is little I can imagine more aggravating than to be forced away from the middle of ones posts over and over again. Did I say aggravating? It is not entirely what I meant!