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: spiral3 who wrote (71015)	6/6/2008 6:46:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542945

The common basis for addressing problems and decision making in America is 'laws' based on legally correct action. We struggle when the law is not sufficient to cover a situation, when we view a law as unjust, or when we see the justice system as corrupt. Corrupt conduct is more about allowing wrong conduct within one's sphere of responsibility than acting in response to some individualiized circumstance. Generally we elevate individualism as good value in our society and do not view private conduct as a corruption of laws designed to govern society as a whole. Laws don't float down to us out of the blue they are developed based on what we believe to be right action verses wrong action. In a society based on rule of law, our best avenue when reaching back is to address sound reason founded upon principles of common decency. Personal decision making is founded upon the same system of law and legitimacy even though moral/ethical law may not be codified, it is considered common and agreed upon by members of society. So this too can be viewed as a common basis for making decisions about action.

To: spiral3 who wrote (71015)	6/6/2008 6:58:11 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542945

in the next breath you don't follow how intention has anything to do with this I just don't see the added value of introducing it as a separate factor from ethics. You dropped it in out of nowhere and I don't know why. we have stuff in common. We don't like to hurt. We have different ideas on how to avoid hurting. For example, do you let your kid suffer short term (eat the jalapeno he picked up from the supermarket salad bar) to learn something that may save greater suffering down the line (consuming wood alcohol or heroin)? Do you tell him he can't sing or do you let him make a fool of himself on national TV? Do we spend X dollars to give everyone flu shots or on a few heart transplants? Or do we do both and add to the deficit? Or do both and not fix the air traffic control system? Or do neither and save Darfur? Life's a bitch and then you die. There aren't enough resources to avoid hurt. How is intention a key player in that? Are you suggesting it's not the amount of suffering that determines priority rank but the intention behind the suffering or the easing of suffering?