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 (24125)	8/22/2001 10:15:07 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I think that it is hard to deny that there is fluidity in what values are adopted in a culture. And there is an infinite number of potential variations. However, I think that any value system that violates the basic concept of the golden rule is inherently flawed. And that is where my absolute comes into play. I believe that part of the absolute is based in the individual drive to survive. If a culture decides that it is ok to sacrifice Jorj X. McKie to their gods, I don't care how big the population of that culture is that is saying that this is accepted, not one of those people will be surprised when I fight like hell to stay alive. And if it was them, they would fight like hell to survive too. From this, you can derive that, since the members of this culture themselves wouldn't want to have their life ended, that they can extrapolate that out to everyone else. And again, no matter how many people you got to say that it is moral to ice Jorj X. McKie, it is an absolute in my book that it is decidedly WRONG! You can bring that over to stealing....If I work hard to bring home a few gold ducats, I will have invested a piece of my life into those bits of trading material. And having those ducats can contribute to my ability to survive. If someone takes those ducats from me without my permission, I am gonna be pissed and I am going to do everything I can to get them back. And the theif would do the same in my shoes. We currently live in a culture that condones this BTW. Our government forcefully takes our little gold ducats from us, it is an accepted part of our culture. And the fact is, since the government forcefully takes our ducats from us (through taxes), by the same logic as the theft above, it is morally wrong. Regardless of how many people claim that it is the government's right, it is still stealing. This too is an absolute in my book. So I don't know that I agree that what is "right" really has any human determination. I don't know that it necessarily has a supreme being determination either. But I do think that a value system based on the concepts in the golden rule is something that is inherent in us all and natural and when we stray from it, that it hinders our own health and survivability. I think that what I am talking about is more of an assertion of what is natural to us all. This was more rambling than I usually do....sorry. I also believe that brevity is one of those things next to goodliness.

To: Lane3 who wrote (24125)	8/22/2001 10:45:02 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

We've had lots and lots of discussions on this thread regarding absolute values. I have continued to argue that it shouldn't matter whether rights and values and truth and principles and all that good stuff are fixed over time and space or whether humans work together to decide what they consider right. That's a false dichotomy, IMO. Humans working together to decide what they consider right must by necessity work over time and space. There are few people, IMO, who seriously contend that any principles of human behavior (I exclude things like belief in the virgin birth, which is not a principle of human behavior, which is what we're discussing) which started out as a fully formed fixed and immutable principle and has remained exactly that ever since and will for rhe rest of time. All principles of behavior change over time and space on the basis of some group of humans (could be the lawgivers, could be the king and his advisors, could be the priests, could be the "popular will," etc.) making the decision that the principle should change in some way. The difference I saw between PMPs and OPs is whether the principles one is following are derived from some extended process of human determination (whether or not inspired or directed by a God or Gods, since Gods can only work through humans) making the determination, with a consensus that the principles do not change casually or lightly but are considered of serious weight and permance, or whether they are adopted by the individual based on what he or she things right at the moment, and which are highly flexible and relativist and can change multiple times in any brief period of time.