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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (84969)	11/13/2004 9:01:35 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793761

I define a "moral action" as one that does not interfere with the property of another. I find the focus on property excessively limited: interference with another’s freedom to act as they choose is in my view every bit as bad as interfering with property. I suspect you are defining morality in religious terms. I was using it according to its common usage these days, which refers to a set of externally sourced absolute rules. It’s not a term that I would normally bring into discourse if others don’t bring it up first. The discussion of the definition of morality highlights a simple reality though. Morality can never serve as a basis for civil law because nobody can agree on what it is. Discussion of whether a given action is moral or immoral is inevitably circular and rarely reaches any satisfactory conclusion. Much simpler to try and determine whether or not a given course of action infringes upon the rights of others. People who try and bring “morality” or “values” into politics are usually creating a smoke screen to conceal attempts to impose their beliefs on others. Those of us who respect freedom must oppose such attempts, even if we share the beliefs in question. My values are fine for me but neither I nor anyone else has any right to impose them on others.