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: Greg or e who wrote (16041)	6/7/2001 5:57:23 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 82486

"Of course you are entitled to your own morality" So why are you crying about all the injustice and evil that you perceive in the world. That statement is quite inaccurate; but if I was crying about that, that would be why "Our legal system has made it ever so clear that YOU are responsible for the choices you make--unless you are NUTS!!" Right unless you are nuts or unless you are smart enough to not get caught. No, unless you realy do not have a mind capable of making choices. Although "accountable" and "responsible" overlap to a large degree, I wish to emphasize the distinction here that not everyone needs to give a social or legal account of their behaviour (as you say, they may not get caught). But there is always the responsibility. Would it still be wrong to abuse a child if you knew for certain that you would not get caught? I think you answer these questions every day as you make your choices. If you have not abused a child in the past 200 years then I may assume that as a priori evidence that you do not believe that harming others is an act of goodness. All people must decide what is "right" and "wrong" behaviour. They don't say: "Oh, I'll wait to I become Budhist, or a Christian, or a Jew, or a mullah--or till I stop being an agnostic...")--no, they decide on the basis of their reasoning, and their feeling for the condition of others. "Getting caught" ,as a consideration, would not normally be an indication that we are dealing with a rational and feeling person. After all, "getting caught" implies a violation of community law which is generally (at least in democratic socoiety) loosely based on a consensus of what is considered abusive to the rights of others. As I said, everyone determines what is right and wrong in their own mind. There is no other place where people can make choices--this by definition. History and logic both combine to confirm for us that, to the degeree that the combination of rationality and compassion serve to inform the decision making process--to that degree will those decisions serve the values of respecting the autonomy of others, and eschewing all force or harm--except in self defense. Wouldn't it also be logical to do that if that's what you wanted? It is not always logical to do what you want. What people want, and the reasons with which they justify behaviour related to that want, is what distinguishes rational, empathic, moral people...from mindless social insects both in the collective and in the solitary. Most societies have relented on torture and so forth, as reason has replaced superstition in the process of justifying action. When the church ruled society, people were not allowed to believe in reason. The penalty for putting reason ahead of superstition was death by torture. This still exists today in countries where the State is merely an arm of the church. This is why reasonable people are afraid of the church--because it is not history--it is now. It is in the paper everyday. For instance, in Afghanistan, etc., etc., etc.