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 (70715)	7/11/2003 11:39:34 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

It is well known and need not be argued that the apprehension of criminals and their punishment (whether incarceration or execution) is to protect the well being of the social group as they strive for peaceful coexistence in a framework of law and order. It is not primarily to realize a concern that the perpetrator have "well-being"--"the state of being happy, healthy, or prosperous". As you have probably seen “well being,” “self interest,” and “personal need, want, desires, etc.” are easily used, depending on the context, synonymously. In the context of this argument, I am using the terms in a more wholistic reference. In order to reference an absolute moral principle, we have to consider the absolute (essential or whole person). How do we do this? Is there even such a thing? From my perspective, it is a given that there is. These same terms may be applied on a very relative basis. How are you “today” sir? Very “well” thank you (very immediate). How is your cousin? Oh, she is in prison again. That’s because she is such a miserable person and a trouble maker (more of a general statement about someone’s personality and how it effects her immediate circumstances, yet not beyond redemption. So, the description of her well being is left open for improvement/worsening in the long run). This description of the relative nature of well being provides evidence for both of our arguments. Well being is not just about one thing (being happy with your lot at the moment). Nor is it limited, even when we view it in a more general context. There is always the possibility that in the wholeness of time, the accounting may be different than in the immediate sense or even in the long term or general sense. So it suits my side of the argument to suggest that there is a whole person that transcends time, space, and specific experiences (at least theoretically) and that the term “well being” can be applied with regards to the whole person. This is how I have been using the term. Likewise, “self-interest” may be used to describe something that is beneficial to one in the moment vs over the wholeness of time. ”Additionally, self interest refers to the interest of a limited person from the perspective of an entity which is separate and identifiable as a unique individual. To speak of an "ultimate self interest" beyond the subjective is to contradict the very definition of self interest as "a concern for one's own advantage and well-being" (there we have that word, "well being" again, as well). A concern for ones own advantage or well being demonstrates a clear bias and is obviously subjective. Asserting that it is not will not further your argument.” Actually it is in keeping with the original premise, so I must continue such assertions. We are talking about an absolute moral principle in which the individual “self” and “others in part or as a whole” are implicated. <<<… have a positive regard for one’s well-being and the well being of others as an absolute moral that we can use to determine the goodness/badness or neutrality of conduct>>> You cannot act in a biased (helpful to self, harmful to other) manner if you hold the premise in tact as you conduct yourself. Take a game of chess, for example. If we play chess, it is your goal to achieve a win by defeating me in competition. If you approach the game in a healthy manner with regard for your own well being and the well being of your opponent (me), then your outlook would be to expose the weaknesses in my strategy, thus helping me to develop a better strategy and become a stronger player. You do this while accepting challenges to your own strategy to test it out and improve it where possible. I can of course interpret the results as harmful to me and beneficial to you (I wanted the trophy but you got it, so I am now disheartened). I trust you can see the more wholistic application? <<<"The position I hold is absolute moral principle is there to be detected and internalized" >>> ”But if it is not a human invention then it exists whether humans exist or not. In the ideas of what creature could these principles dwell? Is the universe full of ideas apart from thinking creatures? I don’t consider it an either/or proposition. Humans exist: individual humans exist, groups of humans exist, the wholeness of humanity exists, absolute morality exists in the contexts of human existence, and absolute morality can be viewed by humans as ideas. ”Principles are codified ideas. Ideas are expressions of mental activity or thought. Ideas may be communicated orally, or through the written word, and in a more subtle sense through art, music, and such. Since no mortal human could possibly form an Absolute idea...what sort of creature do you envision as incubating these Absolute ideas.” None that I could apply descriptors to other than in absolute terminology like Omnipresent and Omnipotent. ”Let me use an analogy: Do you believe that all the thousands of different languages used and invented by humans were already existent but merely discovered by humans? Language is merely one form of expression of thoughts and ideas including ideas about decency and propriety. Do you know of any other method to communicate a moral principle than through language? I consider the proposition that language was not invented by humans to be incredible, but I find it no different in likelihood than I do the proposition that some opinions exist in the universe regardless of whether any thinking creatures exist.” Language is used to describe or communicate an idea. That does not mean that the idea can’t exist without language. Obviously we can use different languages and terms within the same language to communicate an idea. If as a youngster, I had been told by my mother that I would see a giraffe at the zoo, someone described a giraffe for me and when I walked into the zoo, I said “Hey, there is a giraffe” as I pointed my finger directly at a giraffe, what do we conclude. The giraffe existed in the universe outside of my experience. Theoretically it could exist without any human recognition or discovery of it. I was able to know about it via language. Through exploration and discovery we label people, places, things, and ideas that exist in the universe and we are able to come to know of them, to communicate about them and to have know-ledge of their existence as a consequence.