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: Michael M who wrote (33134)	10/15/2001 9:59:02 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Okay, you've just introduced other people (the ancient civilization), undiscovered things (being possibly interesting to other people) and bombs. And if the people of the civilization are dead, and he will be the only one ever to live there, no it isn't an ethical problem for me. While I wouldn't kill fish for fun, the hills of Colorado are covered with hunters this time of year who are killing deer for fun. They don't need to do it. Some will only wound their prey, others will shoot animals they can't take legally. So while I wouldn't do kill fish out of boredom, maybe he needs to do it to save himself mentally. I think the answer is no in the desert island case (unless he is causing starvation or a loss of a species, which is involving others off the island). These examples seem very contrived. Do you have a less artificial example where his ethical nature is uncovered by his normal daily action alone (with no possible impact on others). I don't think so. Here are some: If the guy on the island stimulates himself sexually, is it an ethical issue? Some would say yes, but I don't think so. If a bible washes up on shore and he uses all the pages as toilet paper, is that an ethical issue. I think no. You may feel free to disagree, but you can't do it without invoking something speculative.