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: Dayuhan who wrote (7547)	3/6/2001 12:24:43 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

Of course the child is more important to you than the tiger. That's not because people are more important than tigers, in any abstract sense. It's because you happen to be a person. I disagree. The fact that I am a human is only a small part of it. If it was a sentient alien child about to be eaten by the tiger I would shoot the tiger as well. You could extend this to say "that's just because you happen to be a sentient being", but it goes beyond that. I believe their is a special significance about the child that the tiger does not possess, and I believe this is intrinsic to the child's nature not just a personal preference of mine for one over the other. "Importance" is a concept that can only exist as a matter of perception. This is somewhat connected with the earlier discussion on this thread about extrinsic or absolute moral ideas. A number of people here feel that all moral ideas exist as a matter of individual beliefs or perception only or as an agreement between people or a consensus view of society. I disagree with all of those ideas. Apparently we are starting with a different philosophical framework not just different conclusions. Perhaps importance isn't the best word. If I think of another I might use it instead. Tim