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: GPS Info who wrote (42620)	10/19/2013 2:48:09 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

What a pretentious old cow... "Across various works, Onara O'Neill has defended and applied a constructivist interpretation of Kantian ethics heavily influenced by John Rawls, emphasizing the importance of trust, consent and respect for autonomy in a just society. She has written extensively about trust, noting "that people often choose to rely on the very people whom they claimed not to trust" and suggesting that we "need to free professionals and the public service to serve the public...to work towards more intelligent forms of accountability...[and] to rethink a media culture in which spreading suspicion has become a routine activity". en.wikipedia.org "The new “theory of justice” [of John Rawls] demands that men counteract the “injustice” of nature by instituting the most obscenely unthinkable injustice among men: deprive “those favored by nature” (i.e., the talented, the intelligent, the creative) of the right to the rewards they produce (i.e., the right to life)—and grant to the incompetent, the stupid, the slothful a right to the effortless enjoyment of the rewards they could not produce, could not imagine, and would not know what to do with." aynrandlexicon.com

To: GPS Info who wrote (42620)	10/20/2013 5:21:10 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

I presented you with a scenario where the safety (and other moral concerns) of minors required you to make a value judgement. "I would choose Bill" And unless you make "choices" in the complete absence of all thought, it would seem obvious that you are admitting to making a (value) judgement. If I recall correctly, you made the claim in an earlier post that you would never judge anyone unless you had a gun held to your head. In order to choose Bill over Bob, you clearly had to evaluate both of them as to their respective worthiness to hold a position of trust in the care of vulnerable minors. I think it is obvious that your use of reason to evaluate and form value judgements demonstrates at least a partial respect for reason as a vehicle of judgement. "Who do we trust to do what?" When you need to answer that question for yourself (as in the scenario you have responded to), what strategy do you employ? What questions do you ask? What character traits do you look for? What judgements do you make? How much do you "trust" your judgements? And what is it that strengthens or weakens the trust you place in your judgements?