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: TimF who wrote (32292)	10/12/2001 9:16:02 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Get real, Tim. I said "evasive" because of this post from you which totally sullied our discussion of Absolutism/Relativism/Pluralism: "When I use the term "evil person" I would not use it to mean someone who has committed evil or someone who should be held responsible for evil acts but rather someone who's character is on the balance evil Your subjective and relativistic comments don't support your main points, and they don't permit rational debate. "It would not be surprising if you called other people evasive all of the time, then I would figure its just your debating style, but you don't." If you go back through 10,000 posts on SGBR I am sure you will see that I have no personal grudge with you--nor do I with others. I do confront people who make unsupported statements that appear ridiculous. You may call that a "debating style". But it is not that at all. "If I said that I thought murder was unconditionally and unqualifiedly wrong would you then respond that the definition of murder is one with conditions and qualifications? It is not necessary for you to speak for me. Such is an absolutist trait. "Murder" is a word which was invented and which assumes a value. It is, of course, relative. We call the 19 bastards murderers; others call them freedom fighters, heros, etc. Philosophers have tried for centuries to find absolutist morals which are universal. They ought to be predominant (if morality is God-derived), but they are non-existent. I believe that we have a commonality of needs, etc. which (when processed by reason) dictates the preference of certain ideas such as cooperation, mutual assistance, 69, etc. However, it is always a product of YOUR feelings, thoughts, and self interest. I suspect we have very similar values as we relate to others. But we will both pay the lawyer when we sell the house; because we know that self interest is the ultimate moral code, and self interest (even when it involves altruism or self sacrifice)...is still commanded by the self and by no other...

To: TimF who wrote (32292)	10/12/2001 10:49:52 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Killing other people can be justified but absent proper justification is is absolutely wrong in my opinion. Does the fact that I mention justification, for example allowing killing in self defense, make me a relativist in your opinion? As soon as you use the word "proper" to relate to the justification of killing, yes, you become a relativist. Who decides what level of perceived threat justifies killing in self defense? How can such a decision be discussed in any terms that are not relative? Why do you think the biblical scholars decided that "thou shalt not kill" was actually "thou shalt not murder"? "Kill" has a very specific definition, and that did not suit Christians who thought that they should have the right to decide who is or is not suited to live. So they changed it to "murder", which they can define as they choose. "Kill" is an absolute term, and thus not satisfactory. "Murder", a relative term, is preferred. Relativists, one and all.