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 (60503)	10/1/2002 4:09:44 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

There really is no alternative, unless there is a conflict of motives leading you to examine the question, in which case there may be cogent arguments to make for refusing to conform in such and such a case. Even a Prussian will know the difference between a bad order and a good one. For example, if a superior told him to assassinate the Kaiser, presumably he would not. But it is merely true that unless there is a conflict, you will conform to the standards you are accustomed to, and will do so with a clear conscience, not because the thing is objectively good, but because you knew no better. As far a whether there is an objective morality, yes, I think there is. However, I apply the idea of progress in other areas of human knowledge to morality, and assert social conditions limit one's ability to see certain things, but that as there is general social progress, there is moral progress as well, approaching whatever may be the final, objective, form. Even if we are not sure what the final form will be, we can be sure that we are in a superior form, generally, to more primitive societies. Not, be it noted, in every detail, but by and large........