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 : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (9613)	11/9/2010 5:23:59 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

>There is no opposition to moral law. Corruption of moral law is a result of competing interests compelled by personal desires in the midst of complexities of circumstance. Any law may be broken or disregarded according to human will, which does not make it any less of a law. Opposing or eroding a law would be an attempt to make it no longer a law, which is inapplicable in this case.< I cannot argue with or against this because no moral law has been stated or developed. It is very hard for me to assess the truth or truthfulness of something that is appreciably vague. The scientist/engineer in me is repelled. cheers js

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (9613)	11/9/2010 5:54:14 PM
From: one_less	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

"This thread is (nominally!) about evolution, a scientific concept. At the heart of any scientific concept is an idea founded upon some presumption and supported by a philosophical view. Then tested under conditions which allow observation and analysis. "I feel comfortable in expecting scientific or at least rational method to be used in discussing moral law, in the sense of a mathematical or physical law." Morality does not have physical characteristics, it is an experiencial dimension of existence however. It is verifiable by human observation of self aware experience and conscience. Human observation of morality is confirmed by the billions of observers. So as a corroborated observation which is without exception among normally intelligent humans it is statistical. Social scientists derive mathematical statistics from sociological studies of those facts. "The ancient sages were unconcerned with quantification and proof, but in the pursuit of this inquiry I am. " Morality, not being physical, is not subject to a study of physics, so you are left with a choice. Define the physical universe as the only reality, in which case you must deny major aspects of your experience; or, determine the limits of physics as a knowledge base, while considering a broader study of experience. "As for the ancient sages ... does it not strike you as odd that there aren't modern sages, who have so much more of the human story behind them, who are embraced as authorities? Not at all odd to my thinking. We generally reserve use of the term 'sage' to identify the representatives of thought and wisdom who have passed the test of time. There are modern thinkers who have benefitted from such ageless wisdom and who are expanding on those ideas, IMO. We just don't call them sages and they don't tend to get time on stage in the mainstream. Also we have raised the status of technical advancement to the point where an engineer who can add a new form of widget to our tool chest is embraced more as an authority by society than than are contributions of sagacity. In this sense and as I look at the mores of society, it seems human beings may be de-evolving as technical society is becoming more advanced.