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: Neocon who wrote (60078)	9/27/2002 2:06:59 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Okay. Let me be clear. 1. We are agreed that basically every society has social norms. Correct? 2. We are agreed that members of the society have free will to the extent that they can choose to comply with or violate any given social norm. True? 3. We are agreed that a person why violates a social norm should only do so after justifying to themselves that they have sufficient reasons in their own mind for violating the social norm. True? That's as far as I think we have agreement. I stop there. You seem to go a further step and say that the person has the obligation to explain their reasoning if challenged. True?? Now, here's the issue. Is a person behaving badly (that's the phrase you introduced initially) if they violate a social norm, have adequate reasons for doing so, but refuse when challenged to try to justify their actions to other members of the society? IMO, no. In your opinion -- what?? And if your answer is yes, why?