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 (71324)	8/3/2003 7:01:23 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

if we're discussing the REASONS for moral positions...it's fair to ask you how YOU would defend a moral principle YOU hold, so that we can see what you believe IS an acceptable basis for holding a moral position. I can articulate the moral principle behind any position I have and well as any analysis that went into developing (or rationalizing) the position. As for defending my underlying moral principles, they're just as arbitrary as anyone else's. I can explain them. You can find them valid or not based on your POV. They make sense to me or I wouldn't hold them. My basic moral principle is founded on the the basic wonder of life and the individual's free pursuit of happiness in that life. Pretty much laissez faire so long as you don't injure in the process another individual pursuing his happiness. To pursue your happiness at the cost of injury to another is immoral in my scheme. That would include such common no-no's as robbery and assault. There is also a broader immorality in my paradigm, sort of a crimes against humanity sort of thing, which would include the destruction of humanity's treasures such as the Mona Lisa, the statues at Bamiyan, the environment, the cure for cancer, that sort of thing. As for children, the need to protect children is not a moral principle but a supporting requirement. If you have a principle that it's moral for individuals to do whatever they please among themselves as long as they don't injure anyone, then you need the concept of consent, which requires the capacity to consent, which requires adulthood, at a minimum. Please note that I consider "immoral" only a subset of the larger group of things that I don't necessarily approve. There are plenty of things I consider nonconstructive or dumb or yucky or otherwise undesirable, but not necessarily immoral. Don't assume that I approve of everything that I don't consider immoral. What I like about my approach is simplicity. I value simplicity. Life is too short to bother with a lot of clutter. I'd rather have a couple of simple, general principles than an enumerated list of do's and dont's. One problem with lists is that the items on the list tend to take on a life of their own. They endure long past their utility but are really hard to get rid of. There are people who still don't eat meat on Friday, for heaven's sake, or who eat only with their left hand, or right hand, or whatever, or care what color shoes one wears before or after Labor Day. Good grief!