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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (70749)	7/16/2003 6:11:06 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"Is your argument that those priests and cannibals did not intend to kill their victims? I find that less than credible, to put it mildly." No it is not even in the ball park of what I am arguing. I am arguing that absolute moral principles exist, period. I have offered the following structure of how we may reference absolute morals. An ideal, ability to reference the ideal, circumstances in life, judgment about how a particular ideal is relevant to a particular circumstance, opinion about how best to apply a particular ideal in light of a particular circumstance, consequences of actions. What you have offered is examples of attitudes and actions that may be based on someones judgment, opinion, or application of an ideal. You are confusing that with the meaning of the ideal itself. "These people are quite sure of their moral absolutes also:" There are no absolute moral principles that can be held by some but not others. There are judgments, opinions, circumstances, attitudes, actions, and consequences that may be held up quite uniquely in the light of an absolute moral principle. If you and others keep holding up situations or particular people's applications as examples of absolute morals, it is evidence only that you have not understood my argument.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (70749)	7/17/2003 7:40:04 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Lets say I have a terminal disease and will die within the year. I am offered an opportunity to be a part of an experimental research program that is testing new medical treatments. The chance that I would be helped by the medical treatment is almost zero, and there is no hope that it will cure me. However, the researchers are convinced that scientific advances are practically guaranteed. The results of this research will pave the way for future cures to my type of illness. Even though my death will be speeded up by several months (I will probably be dead by the end of the protocol in three months), I agree to participate in the research. Why? Because I will be given the very best medical care during the death and dying process and my participation will likely save lives in the future. I have essentially agreed to let them kill me for the benefit of something I believe in; Mr. Science is good. Is it murder?