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 (70772)	7/17/2003 6:31:18 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 82486

"That means that every one of the six billion people on earth must agree before a principle can be considered an absolute moral principle." No it doesn't. It means that if even one of the six billion people on earth can provide evidence that the moral principle is not an ideal form, then it is not an absolute moral principle. Agreement or disagreement requires a common understanding of meaning with a venue for opinion. I could reproduce the whole argument for you here but since I have provided a link to it for you, I hold you responsible for reading it. "Also, when you wrote "nor have I argued that there should be absolute applications of absolute moral principles," you lost me. If something is an absolute moral principle, how can it ever be good not to apply it?" Again I would encourage you to review the information from the link I provided. However, as an attorney that should make perfect sense to you. You have a law and depending on the circumstance, it applies, does not apply, or applies to some extent. The law does not apply exactly the same in all situations and circumstances, does it? If I am committed to following an absolute moral principle such as: "be kind"; I may apply that principle in different ways, under different circumstances. I am a father of three girls. The oldest is 17, the youngest is 5. If, I decide out of kindness to provide the 17 year old with an automobile, would I then be obligated to provide my 5 year old with an automobile as well? No, the circumstances for the 5 year old are different and the application of the moral (be kind) is different. In addition other people are welcome to disagree on whether or not providing a 17 year old girl with an automobile is kindness. All kinds of subjective opinions could be offered about my actions. That doesn't change anything about the ideal "be kind." It is a moral reference that stays constant and from which we can interpret experience.