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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (34370)	4/11/1999 12:10:00 PM
From: MSB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

The basis for morality without God is empathy. Yes, but.... (never mind, its pointless) Trending toward the observer mode has its advantages. One of which is to sit, for the most part, quietly and see how it plays out.

To: epicure who wrote (34370)	4/11/1999 12:26:00 PM
From: nihil	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Morality is not self-enforcing. If one is rotten and self-believing enough, he can live to a ripe old age without regrets for the crimes he has committed. The maddening thing is that these guys often remember with advantage to themselves having rationalized and justified their crimes. The golden rule is not self-enforcing either. I wonder about the empathy, that's assuming something that is not in evidence. We must shield ourselves against feeling what the world's victims feel, or we are forced into sentimental actions. Scrooge answered the canvassers for the poor with "Are there no poorhouses?" a perfectly reasonable response today with the welfare state and all. But when we are exposed one-on-one with people who fall through the safety net, we always either come across with support or feel guilty about our selfishness. Thus Scrooge exposed to Christmas future was overwhelmed by the fate of Tiny Tim. This is exactly the principle upon which Walter and Sally beg for money for foreign kids. If we were truly empathetic we would rush to house the homeless, feed the hungry, invite refugees into our homes and otherwise behave like good Samaritans. We need a more reliable reason to abstain from killing than some mistranslation of ancient tribal lore ("Thou shalt do no murder" is not identical to "Thou shalt not kill."), or some vague feeling of sympathy (Adam Smith). One excellent reason always effective was that blood demands blood. I suspect that one of the earliest human institutions was the blood feud. The Hatfields and the Coys are not fiction. The various ethnic feuds persisting to this day reflect revenge for past injuries, remembered in detail by families. It probably takes at least three generations without new injury to pass before the blood feud dies out. Some feuds never are forgotten. Killing creates almost irreparable injury. The killer's family cannot expect the victim's family to abstain from revenge. Effective, peaceful societies require ritual to settle disputes over killings. Hawaii had cities of refuge where the killer could run and live until a settlement was made. Many societies have had such institutions for years -- sanctuary in Medieval Europe is an example. Samoans have ritual healing ceremonies in which the killer's family makes gifts and apologies and the victim's family accepts. Modern America lacks such ritual. I believe that requiring killers to compensate the victim's family (a la OJ) is just the start. The victim's family needs to know the killer has repented and apologizes. Unless we develop these processes, the central cities may sink into endless feuds a la Montagues and Capulets or York and Lancaster. Family reconciliation is essential if a city is to survive. Feuds turn into civil war (stasis). One of the parties is exterminated or exiled. It seems quite clear to me that it is social suicide for the State to use capital punishment, except on foreigners or social isolates. To execute a member of a powerful, widespread extended family (or tribe) will strengthen the forces of revolt.

To: epicure who wrote (34370)	4/11/1999 12:39:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

I think that on this question, why not kill other humans, there are two kinds of people, those who feel empathy, and those who don't. For those who feel empathy, we don't have any urge to kill others, so we don't need rules and laws and the threat of eternal damnation. For those who don't feel empathy, the threat of eternal damnation doesn't seem to do much good, they need the threat of jail and execution, and even that doesn't stop some of them. What is more interesting are more minor offenses, such as adultery, which is, IMHO, a victimless crime. What keeps you from straying (I assume you don't)? You can have a moral system which doesn't involve fear of God or the hereafter, the Stoics did, for one. Even if you never got caught, even if your spouse never knew what you did, you would know, and you might feel ashamed of yourself for violating your own code of honor.