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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (156788)	1/22/2005 5:07:12 AM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So how many testaments are we going back here? ... Are you working up to saying that absolute morality 'may' exist? ... 'May', aw c'mon, does it or doesn't it? ... If yes, what do you think are the chances of my next question being, Who among you will throw the first stone? ... no wait, Who among us do we absolutely trust to be moral enough to judge this stuff? ... to take one aspect, Who will write the Code of Absolutely Moral Land Tenure? ... If 'dominance of the few over the many' is deemed less than absolutely moral, who is going to do what about it, given that it puts your PNACers out on their ears along with most other governments on the planet? You can see how this is going - moral absolutes are like context, everybody's got his own .... take 'thou shalt not kill', well it's a good rule imho yet i will kill in defense of my family or country ... some would have the state kill certain of its unarmed prisoners for various reasons, i think that barbaric ... in either case the judgment of whether to apply the rule or not is made on the basis of weighing relative factors, the 'context', in which all is relative It's odd that you bring up morality at all, Nadine, given your views opposing rights of the indigenous, you must realise that this attitude is now widely seen as immoral, and has been for some time ... i don't think it matters how much you debate the shades of absolutivity or the rigidity of the relativism, that's all claptrap, it's just plain outright immoral to run people off and loot their stuff like that ... more importantly to the occupiers, it is worse than immoral, it is a mistake

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (156788)	1/22/2005 12:57:19 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

There are most likely as many systems of Absolute Morality as there are systems of Absolute Truth (ie religions or schools of philosophy). They will not exactly agree on all the minor (or even some major) points, but some group still views them as Absolute. The big obstacle is rather obvious. Absolute Morality, like Absolute Truth resists scientific incursions into their realm. Most religious folks take it for granted that science cannot offer meaningful guidance on moral issues, and astonishingly enough, most scientists roll over and play dead on the issue. Once we correct this misguided notion, and allow science to take the lead away from religion, philosophy, and law, we can get on with developing a general theory of morality compatible with science. The relationship between the general theory of morality and Absolute Morality will be quite similar to the relationship between any scientific "truth" and religious Absolute Truth. This will be a further divide between liberals and conservatives in the decades ahead. <vbg>