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: Solon who wrote (60294)	9/30/2002 11:22:40 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

Your choice of "attack" conveyed the message to me that you considered my lack of speculation as regards "objective morality" to be a fault. Hence my use of the word "accusation". Perhaps a poor choice of words. A choice that might better convey what I meant is "arguement against", rather then "attack". I do assume that people consider life and happiness to be default and defining values rather than death and unhappiness. I would think that happiness is something people think of as something of value (something thought of as important or worthy of esteem, something useful or valuable) but not necessarily an ethical value or something that would justify actions that would otherwise be inconsistant with an individual's personal moral code. I'm not sure how much of our disagreement is a disagreement on definitions or semantics, how much is a difference in opinion or philosophy. Websters: "the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation" I have no problem with that definitions of ethics. Tim