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 (60111)	9/27/2002 5:35:13 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Yes, there are certain aspects of society that depend on trust. But there are many that don't. Where "trust, but verify" is the right motto. I don't need to trust my plumber to have right moral beliefs, I just have to trust him to fix my toilet so it works properly. If he violates social norms in other areas, so what? And now, of course, we're back to what is behaving badly, and who judges what badly is. As a lawyer representing clients, there have been numerous times when I have taken positions which appear to be behaving badly, because the world doesn't know all the facts, but the facts aren't mine to share. I'm thinking of one recent case where I took a position which subjected me in the community to social approbation. If I had explained, there would have been instant understanding and almost universal approval. But the secrets weren't mine to share. The opposing party lived in the community and had hidden the secret well, so what I was doing seemed outrageous. My client didn't want the secret exposed publicly, because it would have made his future relationship with the person, wiith whom he necessarily had to have a long relationship, much more difficult. So there I was, taking an action which I knew was morally right, even morally imperative, but being absolutely unable to explain, and getting seriously chastised for it. And just how far do you think I would have gotten saying "I have my reasons, and they're good reasons, but I can't tell you what they are"? Ha. But in this case, I couldn't even say that, because the simple statement made in public that there were good reasons, that there was some sort of secret about the opposing party, would have been damaging to my client's interests. So there I was. Just part of the job.