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: TimF who wrote (70863)	7/22/2003 9:02:40 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

OK. Back up. What does "absolute moral principle" mean? I thought you meant something like "the mind or intent of God". But if you cannot prove the existence of God, much less his intent, what does that mean? If someone disagrees with the laws of physics and he absolutely believes he is right does that mean that the laws of physics are just a matter of personal opinion? AH! So is an "absolute moral principle" simply one that works? Because that essentially is what the laws of physics are- -they are "laws" because they work with a high degree of reliability in the physical world. I could be a figment of your imagination as could the people you see in person all the time. Ah, yes, solipsism works too and is impossible to disprove! reality would still be there. Would it? How can you know? THAT is an assumption- -as is the existence of "absolute moral principles". When I say there is absolute morality I am simply saying some things are wrong, and they are still wrong no matter what anyone else thinks. Which is simply another way of saying it is simply your opinion. An alternate theory might be that morality is just whatever each person thinks it is, but if you truly believe that then there isn't much point in talking about morality, either as "the study of ethics", or to describe someone's actions as morally wrong or right. Ah, not so! You do need to make some assumptions; solipsism must go, for one thing. But given that, and some additional empirically based observations and some assumptions about what is and is not desirable for a society (which can be derived from those observations), you can then work out a set of rules, backed by reason, to get you there. And the position of Solon and I is that that is actually how existing moral codes came to be in the first place. Not by gods speaking out of thunderclouds on mountain tops.

To: TimF who wrote (70863)	7/23/2003 6:42:38 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

When I say there is absolute morality I am simply saying some things are wrong, and they are still wrong no matter what anyone else thinks. If you agree with that idea you still have a long way to go in terms of determining what is moral and immoral, and why and how. I woke up this morning thinking about that. Egad. The obvious response to that is "Karen, get a life." Still... I agree that some things are just plain wrong. I think murder is just plain wrong. And having sex with a child. And torture. I don't want to hear what NAMBLA thinks about it. It's just plain wrong. Other things, such as sex outside of marriage or stealing from the rich to give to the poor are debatable. And debated and debated. Debated here, even. Some would say that sex outside of marriage and stealing are absolutely wrong, as well as murder, etc. Is that just their opinion? Are the just-plain-wrongs just my opinion? Or your opinion? Or society's opinion? What is the determinant for what is what I'm calling just plain wrong or you're calling absolutely wrong? Is is some societal threshold? Or many individual opinions of what the societal threshold is? Or is there some standard external to society, which is what Jewel was arguing? I think that's what this discussion is about, not whether the morality of some stuff is beyond debate.