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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (45816)	3/7/2006 9:16:41 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

"I don't think moral standards are set by votes of citizens or representatives." It is enough for you to recognize that there are collective standards of correct behaviour and lawful interaction. You are aware that the law defends the moral standards of a community. "You begging the question. We are debating the issue of whether illegal acts are automatically immoral." You did not understand the response. I accept as axiomatic the community position that her laws are "correct standards of behaviour"...from the perspective of society. Obviously, that is the goal of the democratic process enacted within the community--to create rules and regulations reflective of correct standards of behavior. Just as obviously, there is no Absolute standard of morality. There are only standards relative to time, culture, and circumstance. So by "correct" I do not mean Absolutely so. Illegal acts obviously violate correct standards of behaviour as set by Federal, State, or Municipal law. Webster's explains that "MORAL" implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong <the basic moral values of a community>. I guess you can appreciate that IMmoral would be the violation of these codes and standards of conduct. It doesn't matter, btw, that families and individuals have myriad additional personalized codes and standards that are outside the community interest. We are not discussing how you brush your teeth or what you wear around the house. I think my previous response was clear enough: ________________________ "Yes the law says what the law says. That does not mean there is any moral obligation involved." If you are trying to invoke the morality of your private conscience, then you are invoking a straw man. I would never claim that you agree with the morality of the law. You have already made it pretty clear that do not feel obligated to it by your own moral compass. The obligation to it (from the perspective of society) is the collective moral compass--the collective defining of lawfulness and peaceful coexistence--the collective standards of correct behaviour and lawful interaction. There are myriad people whom feel no personal obligation to the standards of correct behaviour which create a lawful and humane environment in which the rest of us may enjoy our natural rights and freedoms as agreed to by the Fathers. These people are dealt with in accordance with the standards of correct behaviour and correct punishment formulated through democratic process. "The obligation merely consists of the fact that you can be punished for not living up to the legal requirement." For those whom accept the social obligation to follow the same rules as the rest of the citizenship team to the goal of moral equity and peaceful coexistence, there is, of course an obligation of conscience as well as an obligation of fact. The fact that you have no personal obligation of conscience is not disputed. Society may punish you when you fail to respect personal rights and freedoms and lawful rules and regulations, but it cannot control your personal conscience of right and wrong.