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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (48977)	5/21/1999 4:33:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Along about sophomore year, it is not unusual for bright students to realize that since there is no unmotivated action, there is a sense in which we always act for our own interests, and therefore to decide that all actions are "really" egoistic. The simple rejoinder is that the difference between self-interested action and actions on the behalf of others is the object. The fact that one may feel satisfaction in both cases doesn't undermine the point that one feels satisfaction for different reasons. However, one will often find that they consider "essential egoism" to be self- evident truth, and can't understand your problem. This Might business is similar...The problem is, of course, that we have a conception of tyranny, and a conception of Just Kingship, and denying that there is a difference between the two, because He who is Mightiest calls the shots, is offensive. The tyrant cares only to exert his will; the Just King cares for the welfare of His subjects. Which is God?, tyrant or Just King...Satan or Father?...God is Almighty, but His will also reflects His nature, which is good...

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (48977)	5/21/1999 5:29:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<There exists no overarching moral Rightness in nature with authority sufficient to normalize all human behaviour.>>So what. It is not the role of "Rightness" to normalize human behavior only to measure it. <<…then there exists no thing to declare some behaviours right and wrong…>> you just nullified your definition of "right." And in doing so have made your entire point mute. By your own stance you repeatedly declared the ability of greater Might to declare behaviors right. <<If this is true, then by what criteria can we make any sort of judgement?>> Rightness does not need judgement it just is. <<Well, we may pluck a morality out of our own heads based upon our perceptions of nature. But none of this will be objectively apparent to all. >> And by so doing you may imagine, discover, or determine through your intellect something that is right. You may also declare something to be right through what ever might or authority you have which in fact later is found to be wrong. Ex: Aristotle and spontaneous generation of frogs. What is correct simply "is" right. The fact that we may discover it or know it in some other way doesn't change its essence. We can declare what ever we want. It means nothing in and of itself. Go ahead and declare a chair to be a potted plant. <<..whatever I do I may declare it "Good", and there will exist no one who might claim otherwise. My Might, therefore, makes me Right. The thing is just that simple.>> You seem to be concerned here with human judgement, which is a different argument. Human judgement is known by us all to be fallible. Declare what you like. That in no way makes you right. <<Whatever the circumstances, whether Might rests with me or elsewhere, the entity with greater Might renders all challenges to its declarations and/or existence meaningless.>> And so, if a mountain is before you, refusing to obey your will that it move, it is mightier than your will to remove it. So you can blow on it, shoot it with your gun, have an election in which voters agree with you that it should move, take a poll of your friends, what ever, and it still stubbornly remains. It proves you wrong, and you declare it mighty and right. Along comes time, which removes it completely. Your declaration once again, is meaningless. And once again I prove my point that there is an essential rightness whether we always perceive it or not that confirms might without dependence or judgement. << Whatever the circumstances, sufficient Might renders challenges meaningless to the uttermost.>> If it is absolute might then it is essentially right without a cause and effect relationship. <<…the mere fact that its will is implemented gives it more meaning than anything else. >> yep. Have Peace