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: one_less who wrote (79341)	12/1/2003 8:09:15 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

A right is what is right regarding the creature, whether human or otherwise; the opposite of a wrong. Who determines, and why, what is right and what is wrong. For example, is it wrong to cut down old growth forest? If so, then most of this country could not have been settled, because originally it was all covered with old growth forest. Or is it right to cut down some but not all old growth forest? If so, how do you know how much it's right to cut down and where it suddenly becomes wrong -- which is the last old growth tree allowed to be cut, and how do you decide? Is it okay to cut down young trees but not old trees? We don't say it's okay to kill children but not adults, nor wo we say it's right to kill fawns but not deer. Why should it be right to do that to a tree, killing the young but leaving the old? It's not the least bit clear to me how one decides what is right and wrong with regard to the river qua river. We don't pollute rivers not because we want to protect the river for its own sake, but because polluted rivers are bad for us. Isn'tthis so?

To: one_less who wrote (79341)	12/1/2003 8:15:12 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Your moral obligations as to right and wrong actions have nothing to do with the concept of rights and freedoms. "Rights" require an entity to possess them and to have the capacity for gain or loss. Don't confuse moral (right) action with the possession of intrinsic natural entitlement. A rock cannot act right or wrong, morally or immorally. Thus, it cannot represent a moral position. It cannot be treated either good or bad. As I said...pee and milk and heavy cream are all the same... It cannot gain; it cannot lose. It has no rights. People can act to help or to hurt. But they don't hurt rocks and they don't hurt rivers, and they don't hurt zinc. They help or hurt other sentient Beings whom have awareness and preference. It is strange to speak of rights where action makes no difference. My cell phone has a right to what? To a feather pillow? To ice cubes with ginger and spiders?