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: one_less who wrote (69787)	5/4/2018 12:09:36 AM
From: Wharf Rat	1 Recommendation Recommended By one_less Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361940

"I can not imagine a person's conduct as anything but moral in the context of their being patient." If Rat had any idea what all that stuff means, he'd prolly say something like "Snipers are patient. Are they moral?" But he doesn't, so he's gonna keep his mouth shut.

To: one_less who wrote (69787)	5/5/2018 5:39:34 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361940

For patience or greed to exist in experience they have to be associated with some act(s) that is/are either moral or immoral. I would not think so. If one is impatient with a toaster, tapping one's foot, how is that immoral? Even if one strikes the toaster in anger from that impatience, how is that immoral? Stupid, sure, but immoral? The toaster doesn't care. Not all acts have a moral aspect. Actually, very few do. Would the act associated with the impatience, the display of impatience, not have to be hurtful to someone else to be immoral? Have we strayed from the original topic? This colloquy started with your assertion that morality is universal, which I questioned. Further, you asserted that this universal morality is something was outside the paradigm of morality and something we inherently know. You called it alpha. I think we're still on that topic. Most recently I questioned your lumping together personal character and acts, being vs doing. I called that a category error. I think that acts can have a moral aspect whereas having a patient or impatient temperament does not. I think that's where we are. Some related thoughts. WRT being vs doing, the category thing, I wonder how much of that conflation comes from religion, which may consider thoughts and deeds both sinful. I recall that from my Catholic upbringing. Jimmy Carter was famous for committing adultery in his heart. One utility of religion is the building of character so it may teach that the character, not just the deed, is sinful. Of course, sinful and immoral are closely related but different paradigms, which confuses the issue. There is also a difference between a deed being affirmatively moral as opposed to not immoral. And some things just don't have a moral quality. Taking a walk is not inherently either moral or immoral. Then there's inaction, which can be immoral in some moral situations but mostly is not. Have we backed our way into a discussion of deontological vs consequentialist moral systems? Utilitarians couldn't care less about whether one is patient. They don't necessarily even care whether one behaves hurtfully if more benefit. Which makes one wonder even more how morality can be universal...