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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (257051)	6/27/2010 9:19:58 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

A reference frame would be the POV from which you construct your morals or ethics. For example, the founding fathers of the USA said some things about fundamental rights of all men, and how they held those opinions to be obvious and clear, yet they also clearly didn't think these great truths applied to black men, or even white women. How could they be so blind? Thats what a reference frame will do to you. However, if you think outside the box and little, and place yourself in the shoes of others (like a black man or a women) then you can ask yourself what you think of the morals or ethics created in the other view. Do they still look OK? are you saying that the gypsies in eastern europe are treated badly? the cnn home page this last week had pictures of a little gypsie girl badly burned in an attack somewhere in eastern europe. The article indicated increasing friction in various eastern european countries. I don't know much more about it than that. IIRC, Hilter didn't like them either, much to their detriment. what reference frame would we change to? Its a matter of transforming from one frame to another, and seeing if the results are still "good". Physics is equally "good" in all frames, thats the point. Can we say the same about out ethics? I don't think so. I saw an article this last week on an interview with Stephen Hawking, in which he was of the opinion that he didn't like the idea of SETI possibly getting us in contact with any aliens. His view is, simply look at us, and ask yourself if its wise to contact other intelligent agents in the universe. He has a point. If human behavior BP's the ecology of our planet, than what might some aliens (perhaps as much smarter than us as we are to dolphins for example) do to us if they needed some resources from out planet to help themselves out. Thats the sort of thing one could look at. Its fine to say the most intelligent species around should be considered the most important, until you are not the most intelligent species around, at which point the need for a firmer foundation for ethics becomes clearer. History has been a long transition from the ethics of Me, My Family, My Tribe, My Religion, My Race, to now pretty much My Species. Its interesting to look at some of the older moral codes and consider that adhereing to them today could land your neck in a noose, despite the fact that at the time, they were giant leaps forward themselves. For example the Mosaic code and murder depending on if you were a Jew or not. Not saying I have any answers, just that what I see about the history of privilaged view points in science suggests possibilities in other fields.