|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: yes, but how much have you lost playing poker during your lifetime? | |||
| Less than 50k |
   
|
16 | 32.65% |
| 50 - 100k |
  
|
1 | 2.04% |
| 100 - 200k |
  
|
2 | 4.08% |
| 200 - 300k |
  
|
0 | 0% |
| 300 -500k |
  
|
0 | 0% |
| 500k - 1mm |
  
|
3 | 6.12% |
| 1mm-2mm |
|
0 | 0% |
| 2mm-3mm |
|
0 | 0% |
| 3mm-4mm |
|
0 | 0% |
| 4mm+ |
|
27 | 55.10% |
| Voters: 49. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
08-21-2007, 11:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: For moral relativists
I knew this would happen as soon as I saw that iron moved this thread. The OP uses particular phrases that are often used in the Politics forum; it's basically shorthand that's emerged in that particular context. Since many SMP readers don't read politics, they're going "WTF? this is vague." Plz to be moving back to politics?
|
|
#4
08-23-2007, 12:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Treat others as you wish to be treated. All the rest is commentary. [/ QUOTE ] Let's hope there's a lot of it ( commentary) because the advise is terrible. luckyme [/ QUOTE ] It was not advise - it wasn't even advice - it was a moral system. However, I'm all a-twitter with anticipation waiting for you to explain the terrible part. Please....grace us with your insights.
|
|
#5
08-22-2007, 12:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
PVN,
Hypothetically, if one had a moral system which justifies seizing property of those with an excess of 10x the average and giving to those well below the average, is this considered treating people equally (morally) by your definition? If the answer is no, then I think we have a definition problem. Because I'd argue this moral system can be equally applied to all people (thus they are treated equal). The reason I ask, of course, is because I have a suspicion that your clause is intended to rule out such moral systems.
|
|
#6
08-22-2007, 09:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
PVN, Hypothetically, if one had a moral system which justifies seizing property of those with an excess of 10x the average and giving to those well below the average, is this considered treating people equally (morally) by your definition? [/ QUOTE ] Insufficient information. Who gets to seize it? Who gets to determine how far below average you need to be to get the loot?
|
|
#7
08-22-2007, 10:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] PVN, Hypothetically, if one had a moral system which justifies seizing property of those with an excess of 10x the average and giving to those well below the average, is this considered treating people equally (morally) by your definition? [/ QUOTE ] Insufficient information. Who gets to seize it? Who gets to determine how far below average you need to be to get the loot? [/ QUOTE ] Say it's in the "town charter" which was approved by referendum. It is seized by the "town deputies" as stipulated by the charter.
|
|
#8
08-23-2007, 01:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] PVN, Hypothetically, if one had a moral system which justifies seizing property of those with an excess of 10x the average and giving to those well below the average, is this considered treating people equally (morally) by your definition? [/ QUOTE ] Insufficient information. Who gets to seize it? Who gets to determine how far below average you need to be to get the loot? [/ QUOTE ] Say it's in the "town charter" which was approved by referendum. It is seized by the "town deputies" as stipulated by the charter. [/ QUOTE ] It's inconsistent, then. It's now OK for certain "blessed" people to seize assets, but not OK for anyone else to do so.
|
|
#9
08-23-2007, 10:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] PVN, Hypothetically, if one had a moral system which justifies seizing property of those with an excess of 10x the average and giving to those well below the average, is this considered treating people equally (morally) by your definition? [/ QUOTE ] Insufficient information. Who gets to seize it? Who gets to determine how far below average you need to be to get the loot? [/ QUOTE ] Say it's in the "town charter" which was approved by referendum. It is seized by the "town deputies" as stipulated by the charter. [/ QUOTE ] It's inconsistent, then. It's now OK for certain "blessed" people to seize assets, but not OK for anyone else to do so. [/ QUOTE ] To be more specific... Town hall meeting topic: Jerry has 11x the assets of the average. According to our town charter, this is a violation. Let's vote and decide if we will act. Okay, votes are tallied, and there is a majority for action. Since we have no police forces in our town, who will step forward to participate? Okay, Larry, Dan, Bea, and Juan, anyone else? So be it. What's a good time? 8 o'clock on Saturday? So be it, we will notify Jerry that he must comply by then or the townspeople will enforce the town charter.
|
|
#10
08-22-2007, 07:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
"My personal preferences are for moral systems which are consistent over those which are inconsistent, and for systems which treat all people as equal (morally) over systems that have different classes of people."
How could a moral relativist have any preference? By definition, if you have a preference then you aren't a moral relativist.
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
