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: Lane3 who wrote (61484)	10/8/2002 10:48:46 AM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

Excellent post.

To: Lane3 who wrote (61484)	10/8/2002 11:01:21 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

If a standard is truly inappropriate or unrealistic, why would I, or anyone else, expect you to live up to it? It is nice to have you acknowledge that you feel guilt or embarrassment when you fail to live up to your standards. I will not even quibble that they are your standards, as long as you acknowledge that they are a revision over time of the standards that you assimilated, instead of being constructed out of whole cloth. There are some natural problems with the question of standards. For example, it is shameful to be an ignoramus, but it is not self- evident what stock of knowledge we ought to expect of adults in various walks of life, or given various levels of intelligence or income. Thus, the standard is movable. This is true of customary observances, as well, where some people are more formal, and some less, according to background or common practice in their "set". Understanding these things is essential to not being a prig. That is why I generally do not fix on the little things, but the big ones. I have focused on apologies, however, because considerateness generally is a big thing, and it is a good example of the quality. How shall I put it? Courtesy is far more important then etiquette. If we can agree on this much, the only thing left is whether morals are essentially a matter of enlightened self- interest. I would say that, in the end, although much of what we do is legitimately motivated by the pursuit of happiness, that a moral being cares more about upholding his values than about the fate of his empirical self. Thus, the moral person, if forced to choose between being the commandant of Auschwitz and being an inmate, would choose the latter. If that meets your definition of enlightened self-interest, than we are making progress..........