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: The Philosopher who wrote (60037)	9/26/2002 7:02:28 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

"I think you can know in your heart of hearts that something is right or wrong without being able to articulate why. I agree with you here. The important thing is that you "know in your heart of hearts." This is a conscious knowing. You may not have the language to communicate this but you should have formed this knowing and be prepared to defend the position you took. I think it would be a far reach to say you couldn't comunicate in some way where you stand and why (having made a conscious decision to do so). However, in some manner you should know why and where you stand in such circumstances. You may have to withhold your tongue for many reasons. "Nope. To account for a violation means you accept the right of others to judge your behavior. And again, you have to be able to articulate it." I don't understand. Of course others have the right to judge your behavior. It might be necessary to articulate your defense if you expect to win a case over it but that is not always practical as previously stated. "You used the example with X of non-scientists talking about science. What if I'm the only person capable of understanding the moral imperatives behind my actions, and trying to explain them to you would be like you trying to explain a scientific principle to someone without the background. The argument wouldn't make sense." Well X used that example not me. But the issue was that you should be prepared to defend your actions. This is in regards to having made a conscious moral decision and how that can be justified in your own conscious. Convincing others is another issue....way different. "I agree you need to have reasons. i don't agree that you need to be able to articulate them in terms others can understand. And I don't agree that you need to be able to justify them according to principles others would agree with. I agree with your concluding remarks.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (60037)	9/26/2002 7:09:07 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You can feel something is right or wrong, but you'd be seriously myopic if you didn't realize there were probably a lot of people feeling the opposite of what you were feeling. Feeling is hopeless for any universally true or objective sort of morality, imo. There really isn't much hope for any logical morality, if you hope to track down something you can prove to be "right". At some level, at some point, you jump into faith in something. And when you jump one way into faith, you can be sure someone else is jumping the other way.