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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (8818)	4/14/2002 8:24:42 AM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

My experience with indignation has primarily been along the lines of some society matron taking offense because she was expected to attend remedial driver's training along with the maids and the laborers who got speeding tickets and saying, in a huff, "well, I never..." This sounds like a bad 1950's era movie and not at all reflective of reality. I live here. It doesn't happen like this. I'm curious: you don't see moral or righteous indignation as connected to religion?

To: Lane3 who wrote (8818)	4/14/2002 9:46:05 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 21057

"I agree that looking down one's nose at others is a character flaw. See? We agree Actually, no. I used the word "may" intentionally in order to preserve my point that I considered righteousness, indignation, and the combination of them both, to be without moral weight in assessment of character...UNLESS appropriate context and relevant information is factored into the judgement. Additionally, even when a single such instance might be deemed to denote a flawed sample...it need not translate into a defining characteristic of ones character overall. "There are lots of common responses--natural, human responses that humans have"..."For those responses that are less than admirable, we try to rise above them. When we don't try or are unable to overcome them, I use the term "character flaw." Perhaps that's not the best choice of words". I hear you. My own opinion favors a withholding of judgement until a fuller understanding of each instance is available. Your point, that a failure of either desire or ability should inform our judgement, is well conceived. Certainly, however, it is normative to be less than noble, and even more so to be less than admirable. This is true for any attribute of character. I suppose if one is to term a particular trait as a "flaw", one would want to consider the degree to which such a trait is deviant from some normative scale. If one assumes merely a subjective perspective, then I think this would entitle your disapproval of those, and other traits. As to alternative language for describing people who have not tried to be admirable, or have tried and failed--I don't have much to recommend. In the case of those who have not tried to change, and are not only less than admirable but are truly flawed in such a way as to stand apart from the normative curve...I would call these: "people with character flaws." In the case of people with righteous indignation I would need to consider if their indignation or moral abhorrence was less than admirable--as well as whether or not such a shortfall was above or below normative statistics. Additionally, one would need to know if they had tried to change, or were incapable of change--both good points; thanks, Karen.