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 (70874)	7/23/2003 12:45:24 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"My views on absolute morality don't depend on the existence of God or gods" I'm just curious, Tim. Why do you look beyond the obvious evidence for humans creating their own moral codes? Why should very strong belief about the rightness or wrongness of something (such as is held by many people relative to time, place, circumstance, and culture) suggest anything beyond humanity? I would understand if you were pushing some God dogma that you just happened to believe in--but that does not appear to be the case. So I wonder why you need (or feel justified) to complicate something that can be explained by known facts? Right and wrong are not objects; they are assessments, evaluations, or judgments. An act is simply an act. How one thinks or feels about the act is a judgment. Human beings assess and judge conduct. And relative to culture, allegiance, and so forth we often have agreement on moral questions. Some people believe that killing is justified in self defense; some feel it is justified in war; some feel it is not justified in war; some feel that even killing insects and viruses is "wrong". These are all legitimate opinions. In your case, I am curious as to what could logically lead someone to search beyond the facts which adequately account for things...to espouse something unknown and unnecessary to account for those things? Obviously, there is no general agreement that any one thing is wrong outside of context, circumstance, interest, motive, and so forth. So why would one (such as yourself) feel the need to presume an ultimate method of evaluating an action? If it does not depend on God, then whose interests would such an evaluation reflect?

To: TimF who wrote (70874)	7/23/2003 1:31:56 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

I refer you to Solon's response. Now I think it safe to assume that "Thou shalt not murder" makes it into your "absolute moral code". But what does that mean? Is self defense "murder"? Or not? War? Quakers hold that killing in war is as unacceptable as any other time; surely all would agree that at least most of them claim that from their "absolute moral code". But most others claim just the opposite: that, when necessary, it is acceptable to kill human beings to stop the likes of Hitler and Stalin. Is capital punishment acceptable? There is certainly a division among people who appear to be of good moral character on the question. Therre are those who say that having the state kill Richard Allen Davis is totatlly unacceptable; the state should not have blood on its hands. And others claim death is the only accepatble answer to a man who kidnapped a twelve year old girl from her home and bedroom, raped her, then killed her. And if you claim one side or the other on any of the above questions, how do you differentiate your personal prejudices from your sense of this "absolute moral code"? Why pick a magic solution which can be backed with no evidence when, as Solon claims, a reasonable solution is right before you?