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 (34023)	10/18/2001 1:33:47 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I don't accept either position as the default position. A very long time ago I concluded that all these disputes boil down to a question of which position is the default. Karen

To: TimF who wrote (34023)	10/18/2001 1:48:14 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

There is no solid evidence for or against the idea that moral absolutes exists. Therefore the default position, if there is one, would be one of agnosticism on the issue. Agnosticism could be considered a reasonable default on the question of moral absolutes. The question of relativism, however, has already been answered. It springs from the fact of human individualism, and from the nature of the self. The secular world is relativistic. It is the world you live in; it is the world I live in. As you have said: there is no (solid) evidence for the existence of moral absolutes (although, I would say there is no evidence of any kind). In deference, however, to you default position, I will agree that there may be a supreme and perfect authority--one who has absolute rules. Of course, you understand, that such would transcend self interest, and do away with individualism. These absolute rules would be for the benefit and the use of the absolute entity. Individuals may only pursue self interest through relativistic interpretations of an infinite variety of considerations. They may not remain as individuals, or act in their own self interest, if interpretation and choice are effectively denied them by fiat.

To: TimF who wrote (34023)	10/18/2001 1:52:14 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

First, we experience our own moral judgments as being "right", and there are a myriad of individuals in society who agree with us most of the time. We generally view those people as "moral", and the other as immoral, or, at least, immature in judgment. The default position, then, for how it looks to the average human being, is absolutist.......

To: TimF who wrote (34023)	10/18/2001 1:58:11 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Second, even if relativism were the default position, that would be like saying it was obvious that the sun revolves around the earth. Wow, what a default! only it is wrong.....

To: TimF who wrote (34023)	10/18/2001 2:14:18 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Third, the opposition of relativism and absolutism is bogus. We are limited and fallible. At the same time, we have something that can conditionally be called knowledge, and the ability to reason about the underlying basis for the smooth operation and improvement of society, and the traits and precepts that are generally conducive to it. Thus, we are able to grow in understanding about moral matters as we do about the natural world......