From:                   Bob Griebel <[log in to unmask]>

> Possibly, what these children will reflect on is pride in the fact that
> they were among the few to question what is subscribed to by the 99.9%
> (exaggerated for effect) of the population who merely mimic what they see
> others doing.  Shouldn't it be a function of education to teach people to
> think out the basis for their values?  Are you suggesting that the
> exaggerated 99.9% should be proud that they went through the educational
> process without ever asking whether and why the "moral beliefs" they locked
> onto have any logical basis?  . . . or that the 99.9% should be proud that
> their value system works by mimicking the conclusions of others and then
> building a foundation of rationalizations to support them?  . . . or that
> they can't state a logical basis for their beliefs while imposing the
> "immoral" tag on those who disagree.

Intuition is one of those intangible things that I personally don't
think comes
(totally) by way of neither sensory experience nor reasoning, and as
such I
am one of those "pie-in-the-sky" spiritualists who believe that right
and
wrong are not necessarily a function of necessity, but are divine in
nature.
Each of us possesses the conduit to receive this wisdom, and often
times it
consists of nothing more than a "feeling", when you know that
something
just "is". Have you ever had something just not *feel* right? The fact
is, that it
doesn't make a whole lot of sense *not* to bash someone over the
head and
take their wallet, if you were to need the cash. I actually couldn't
give you a "logical" argument to not do so; my argument would
involve some "mythical" diety and beliefs that I couldn't explain
away. If there's a reason that "99.9" of people do the same thing in an
instance (and is thus considered the "right" thing), perhaps it's
because that though we all possess the conduit, that .1% chose not to
open the valve, at least for that particular issue. At some point,
we've all decided not to open it, for our own selfish reasons. I
believe this valve is on a separate circuit from the brain, as logic and
intellect often run counter to wisdom.

> Investment strategies should at least be permissible for finance
> majors.  Isn't it an investment strategy to sit your best goalie for a rest
> at the risk of the immediate game in the hope of optimizing the overall
> season record, the PWR and your tournament seeding?  How does that second
> string goalie magically appear in the final season game after you've just
> secured a first place finish if the current game is the most important
> moral consideration?  I see gray areas ...

True. However, having any rostered player give 100% effort,
regardless of his status on the team, would at worst just be
considered "good strategy", I would think. Now, if you were to call
up an entire minor league team to play the game and rested your
whole roster, well, that's wrong. You play with what you came with,
including the elements of hard work, desire, and sportsmanship.

Let's extrapolate this to its logical extreme; what if, by some freakish
occurrence, one's playoff position could only be secured by losing 10
games in a row; would it be acceptable then? Where do you draw
the line? Sure, okay, throw that one game...at what point does
winning take a back seat to the game itself?

Sorry, I know I've gone a bit off-track at some points; but it does
seem that there is a correlation here with something much bigger
than sport. It *is* a great question, though! :-)

Robert