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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (71005)	6/6/2008 5:35:40 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542927

Lane - if people had ethics they would be forced to deal with facts. Once they were dealing with facts the methodology would come into play. When one uses rhetoric and talking points for policy - I would say they are ethically challenged. I think you guys are both right. It is the sequence.

To: Lane3 who wrote (71005)	6/6/2008 5:45:04 PM
From: spiral3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542927

This started with my comment "I think we no longer have a common basis for addressing problems and making decisions." Yes, I said that's a Myth, that we struggle to find it, ergo ethics was the necessary foundation. I offered that objective methodology was THE salient missing link. You countered that it it was ethics. I made no claim to missing links, my claim was to ontological foundation. Neither of us has argued that the other's choice has no role, I can live with that. only that it's not the key role. If beneficial action is the objective, ethics are the necessary foundation. Since then I've been trying to communicate why it's methodology and you've been resisting. I made no resistance to objective methodology, I have just given an example of one. You justify how ethics is THE salent element. Hitler had terrifically efficient methods, best in the biz. Look at the harm caused in the absence of an ethical foundation. I want to see how that scenario looks. Given that I can't imagine it, you'll have to lay it out for me. It seems nebulous to me, not something you could put to work to make something happen. So, how would something happen if it were ethics-centric? I am not making any argument for ethic-centricity, in fact just the opposite. I said we have to reach back further to find the common basis. Take the meeting in that article. The very idea of having such a meeting in the first place, is an ethical motivation, one made on the basis of common concern. This is a good example of what I'm talking about. My wife is much better, thank you very much. :)