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 (14698)	5/28/2001 12:34:44 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 82486

I write off some behaviors as totally unacceptable to the society I want to live in. I suspect that is what you mean by seeing things as "just plain wrong." Whether or not some things are absolutely wrong doesn't make a whit of difference in my aggressive approach to advocating against behavior I see as wrong, in my relative way. It is clear to me that certain behaviors don't add to the compassion and tolerance and humaneness of a society in a VERY big way.

To: Lane3 who wrote (14698)	5/28/2001 1:12:39 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I was thinking of X's disinclination to declare that anything is wrong beyond simply that it is wrong for her She may correct me, but I think she is just being a purist with the language, and with the principle. Everything we declare is ours, and she is owning that. What she sees as wrong is probably not significantly different than what you or I see. Of course, I see right and wrong, but the classification depends on circumstance and context, and is forever and always my opinion. I think this is close to what X is saying. I think she is attempting to emphasize the principle that there is no absolute truth and that reality is somewhat fluid and depends on the observer/participant. To re-state it: She apparently believes that people determine what is right and what is wrong, and that they make such determinations in the natural world of their experience and thought, and that they ultimately make it as individuals which (given the subjective nature of thought) means that it is ultimately an opinion. In practical terms, reasonable people in a particular cultural milieu will have very similar ideas of good and bad. We have similar physiology, parallel needs, emotional similarities, etc. Pain and happiness inform our interpretations of good and bad, and the gifts of empathy and compassion allow us to identify with others in the sense that what we do to others we do to ourselves. Again, it is a subjective interpretation. Some people think it is good to put a monkey in a cage, Some monkeys disagree. We can think of a million examples. Is eating bugs good for your health? For some people, yes. Is cutting someone open with a knife good? Sometimes, yes--but only when THEY agree that it is. Is there any difference in what you or I or X consider as good (or indeed most on this thread)? I would guess that the differences are extremely minor. Obviously, there would be different understandings of when or if we would steal, kill, etc. But those differences would be rather subtle, I suspect. Again, X will correct anything I have mis-attributed to her world view. For myself, yes--I believe in right and wrong. Everyone does. And no two people on the face of the earth see it in exactly the same way. WE don't meet our needs when we obstruct the needs of others. When we hurt others we do not receive love and cooperation. Other than self defense--what benefit is there in hurting others? Perhaps for a God--if God will agree not to torture me, and promise to love me instead...