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 (78989)	11/12/2003 11:14:11 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

There are two questions to be answered in dealing with this issue. One is the morality the other is the legality. That's a false dichotomy. Our laws reflect our morality. Laws against murder, for example, reflect a moral position -- we could equally well take the moral view of nature and let the strong survive and the weak be killed. But we don't. Our law against theft reflects, again, the moral assumption that a person is entitled to keep what he or she has obtained (except for taxation). Again, that is contrary to the law we see in nature; the strongest lion in a pride will drive the weakest away from a kill until the strongest has eaten his fill. Our laws reflect our choice to supplant natural law with man-made morals-based law. There is no dichotomy between morals and legality.

To: Lane3 who wrote (78989)	11/14/2003 6:37:46 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"The complicating factor here is the notion that there are two (or perhaps more) individuals involved." imp, you assert that as though it were a fact. I hope you realize that's what you're doing. I do think of it as fact and in other contexts I may have so asserted it, but not in that post. "The complicating factor is the notion that...", is hardly asserting the notion as fact. Vegetarianism would be so heated if a sizable minority or a small majority thought that it should be the rule for everyone. Of course I don't think of it as immoral to eat a cow, or to kill one so it can be eaten, but moral or not it is not a human rights issue, just one of morality. Yes there are people who assert that a cow has rights similar to that of a human. But they are few and far between. Even most vegetarians don't agree with that idea. If they where a strong majority they might be able to impose their ideas. Being in a majority would not make their ideas correct but correct or not they might become law. Fortunately we really don't have to worry about that too much. Tim