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 (12317)	1/6/2011 9:21:50 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Because people introduce subjectivity into moral matters doesn't mean objective good and evil don't exist. Consider something like the holocaust or Stalins destruction of the kulaks. I find it strange someone couldn't say those were objectively evil.

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (12317)	1/6/2011 9:58:05 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 69300

"I consider them human inventions" Of course. But evaluating and interpreting do not necessarily begin at the level of pure reasoning. That is to say, from our reasoning perspective we can understand helpful and hurtful choices being made by pre-humans. Even when just a smidgen of "choice" thinking creeps in past instinct we have moral behavior. A deer, for instance, always acts morally (for the good) because it runs or stands still immediately without any weighing of the evidence , as it were. However, what about a dolphin or a chimp? When brain capacity produces true choices, then those choices can be termed moral (helpful) or immoral (hurtful). Because it is logically impossible (for me) to posit a complete schism between thought and non-thought without considering probably centuries and centuries of interim transition..I must consider it the invention of thinking creatures--human or otherwise...