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: Lane3 who wrote (78190)	10/22/2003 4:52:23 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I see you're getting no more response than I did. It is, indeed, a serious question. It is a question which every society has faced -- how to allocate its resources -- but we have made the process considerably more complex by making options (such as keeping brain dead people "alive" on life support for decades at enormous cost) which didn't exist for earlier civilizations. I'm not surprised that Jewel wants to duck the question. It's a very hard question, and it is impossible to answer if your personal philosophy is dogmatic and not open to compromise or balancing of interests. But the question doesn't go away for being ignored. Either we face it and make a conscious decision about it, or we basically go with the "squeakiest wheel" response, which is what we seem to be doing in this case.

To: Lane3 who wrote (78190)	10/22/2003 5:04:26 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 82486

"Doesn't sound different to me. How would you apportion space in the metaphorical lifeboat if not by denying access to the thirteenth man? " Like I said originally, if it has to be explained, there is little likelyhood that the meaning will ever come accross. The metaphor was not about whether the 13th man should have been let in or not. The thirteenth man is in, and the boat did not capsize. The metaphor was about all people who would not survive or thrive without the consideration, caring, sharing, and sacrifice of others. We are all to some extent the thirteenth man. As the thirteenth man, we see the rationale for consideration, caring, sharing, and sacrifice when we are in need but may easily rationalize our dismissal of the crys of others, and usually based on materalistic utilitarianism. This is a fact. You are not arguing that this is false. You seem to be arguing that it is sensible. That was not a point of contention. If the life raft is made for twelve, then you can rationally and sensibly dismiss the thirteenth man and let him drown. And in that, there is no broader metaphor. Sorry, if it was not clear that I understood that.

To: Lane3 who wrote (78190)	10/22/2003 5:22:16 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"Or do we recognize that our society has limited resources and decide that those resources should not be used ... " No. That is the position of materialistic utilitarians but it is far from an established fact of our experience. We have been challenged through the centuries of our story or his-tory or whose ever story it is, to find ways to survive with what we have and to rearrange what we have, so that we don't have to start eliminating the expendable human beings who don't quite measure up, don't quite qualify as one-of-us or what ever. To the extent that we have chosen to sacrifice others in order to enable a particular quality of life for ourselves, we have defined the inhumanity within. It is based on the most insidious kind of self serving greed.