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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (1689)	12/10/2016 8:40:16 PM
From: bentway	2 Recommendations Recommended By abuelita Katelew Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 362032

Morals are relative. I'm sure cannibals that eat people in their society that need help consider themselves fine, upstanding moral cannibals, making the best use of a finite resource!

To: koan who wrote (1689)	12/10/2016 8:48:08 PM
From: Lane3	2 Recommendations Recommended By Katelew one_less Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362032

Taking care of people who need help is surely a feature of a successful society but hardly the definitive measure of it. It is to the degree we want a moral society-lol. Indeed, there ARE degrees of morality. And different flavors of morality. If you define success solely in terms of the care foundation of morality, then you are correct, sort of--but only due to circular logic. If maximizing care is a society's overriding measure of success, care would deteriorate over time due to lack of resources. It's self defeating. The ability of a society to provide care at the macro level depends on having the resources to provide. If you put all your energy and incentivess into giving care and not into building resource stores, that is, exercise poor stewardship, your society collapses. Letting your society collapse results in harm rather than care and is thus is immoral.