»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Nobility
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Nobility |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
. Can a good thing be the wrong thing because the price is too high? . |
||
| © Copyright 2006 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
The answer here requires an assumption of agreement on the definition of value. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Let one's own life; the benefit or loss to it be the value. . |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
If that's the case, then pond ripples from a toss of the stone need to have a vote. (and hey...just 'cause I'm mildly disagreeing doesn't mean I don't see your point.  But? *shrug* Mercury and Saturn are retrograde...speaking of rings and repercussion.  ) |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Yes. Provided it is inherently understood that neither the good thing nor the bad thing are capable of determining the price. Not only do the ripples need to have a vote, but theirs are the ONLY votes that can count. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
No. The evidence of a good thing being good is in that good thing itself and how it helps life. If it is truley a good thing, it is so whether or not the price is. The evidence of the bad price being bad is in the price and how it mistreats someone or something involved. If it is truley a bad price, it is so whether or not the thing being sought is good. I think it is a mistake to confuse the two. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. What brought this in general was my approaching the end of “Paris In the Terror” by Stanley Loomis. For those who were around Ropespierre in 1794 and saw the wrong being done the question was not so abstract and the answer if it was to be among the first to speak out would have often fatal consequences not only on oneself, (this in a New France that renounced religion and it’s hopes as superstition), but one’s loved ones as well; all without confidence of any worthy outcome to the effort. You could just as easily imagine the question in the Soviet Union of Stalin. And on a less grand level the question applies to certain acts of “love”, “compassion”, or “charity”; are not such acts to be measured in the prospect of possibly irreparably damaging one’s own life and thereby chances of happiness to no avail? . |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
