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 (70879)	7/23/2003 1:54:27 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

To "have good will" toward others is an absolute statement that amounts to "charity." Opinion? not unless you figure that sensible human beings unanimously hold the opinion that having good will is a good thing. For the sake of this discussion can we reserve the term "opinion" for individual perspectives? Now is it true that specific acts claimed to be charitable are absolutely good, or that when some one is having good will that all associated activities and outcomes are absolutely good? No. Obviously in each moment, in any event, and from every perspective there would be an individualized opinion about such an act. There would be no way to objectively validate one such opinion over any other. So once again I state that, there is absolute morality that exists in association with the human condition. That does not negate opinions about one's circumstance, which are individual and not absolute. Some how, you and solon are not able to see the distinction (it seems pretty basic)...but it is not for lack of information on the topic.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (70879)	7/23/2003 2:10:10 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I agree with your response. I do not understand why some people seem to believe that opinions and judgments are objects that just exist out there somewhere. But even harder to understand are those who not only claim that judgments are objects, but that they are not related to the weighing and assessment of specific data. Although there is no good evidence for it (in my opinion), I still accept as logical the possibility of Divine Intelligence. This would be the only reasonable hypothesis to justify a belief in Absolute Morality. But to remove assessments of right and wrong from the weighing of individual circumstance is irrational to begin with. And if judgment is irrational then how is it moral?? If Divine Intelligence did exist would it design matters such that self interest and feeling and passion and approval and disapproval were not involved in assessment of conduct, but instead that 3 steps forward was good and three back was bad regardless of who or what you stepped on?? If Divine Intelligence did exist, and it cared about humans (rather than cows or logic or something quite different), then I can see no logical reason why it would create Absolute answers for good and bad behaviour. The set of acts is infinite or nearly so. And an Absolute Evaluation of actions would be infinite (or nearly so)--and it would be ridiculous to boot. The assessment of what is right or wrong--good or bad--derives from axiomatic principles. It always involves the self interest and the axiomatic values of the actor. Cows just don't think it is good to be shot through the head and butchered. And contrary to popular belief...flies do not enjoy being crushed by heels or fingers...and who wants to be stuck to a sticky paper until you dry out and die? From the point of view of humans there are desired and undesired events--what we call "right" and "wrong". But when two soldiers obeying their CIC stand before one another with drawn guns...whom is immoral for shooting the other? What does Absolute Morality tell them to do? Does it say that the white guy is good, the other bad--or vice versa? Or does it say that they should have bacon and eggs and curried chicken, then sell their guns for excessive profit? A fly and a person could never agree on what any particular principle was "good" or "bad" universally. So why should people from different countries and with entirely different interests agree? In war, people kill one another just as they kill bacteria, flies, rabbits, and radishes.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (70879)	7/23/2003 2:43:09 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

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"? The side I claim is my opinion of the "absolute moral code", rather then my choice among various social constructs. This is mostly, perhaps completely an abstract philosophical point. The issue of "does morality exist independently of our opinion?", doesn't itself set moral principles or codes of conduct. Tim