This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Morality
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
iiidioteque
1F...1E was a close second though,
I don't think I need to elaborate...it should be pretty self explanatory. ^_^
IMO though, the one who was truly in the wrong was the chemist, very greedy.
Post by
Adamsm
And even if the invading force thinks they're the good guys, doesn't mean they are. They can be wrong. And if this force has a reputation so bad that a mother would murder her own children just to save them from a much worse death, being brutally raped to death, than they must be really bad, to earn such a reputation.
Wrong: The mother was told by her own government that's what the invaders were going to do, so to her, they were the evil and her government was the good to defend the people. Subjective, just like all of life is; there is never a simple answer to anything.
In other words Sold, just like in the other morality thread you made, you can't just point at something and declare it the moral choice or not.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Doing something bad because you have to doesn't mean it's no longer bad, you can murder someone because you need their money, but no matter what you needed that money for, it's still doing something bad.So then....how is stealing from the doctor in this example good then, since the most he's done is been greedy?
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Doing something bad because you have to doesn't mean it's no longer bad, you can murder someone because you need their money, but no matter what you needed that money for, it's still doing something bad.So then....how is stealing from the doctor in this example good then, since the most he's done is been greedy?
Because the doctor is an unsympathetic greedy SOB. It's not "bad" if the person deserves it, killing someone innocent because you have to is bad, but killing someone you have to who is a despicable scumbag who has either personally murdered people or has been intentionally responsible for the deaths of people, is not. In this case, it's stealing, which is much less bad.
Oh it's just as bad. If the fact someone was greedy/selfish/self-centered/stuck up meant you could steal from them cause they are 'bad' people , then what the hell is the point of laws? It's also not a moral victory, since you are being just as bad as he is by stealing from him in the first place.
So if I come out with some amazing piece of tech, and people want me to drop the price for it, and I don't, does that mean they can break into my house and steal the plans for it? Seriously, let's all be completely realistic here: Just because a person is greedy, doesn't give anyone else the right to steal from them.
Edit: To use an example: I'm starving and gonna die if I don't eat. You just bought a car load of food for some fancy banquet designed to help you move up in the world. Because you are doing something for a selfish reason, I can steal your car and all that food and not get in trouble...cause you know, you are being the 'bad' guy in the scenario.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Because the doctor is an unsympathetic greedy SOB. It's not "bad" if the person deserves it, killing someone innocent because you have to is bad, but killing someone you have to who is a despicable scumbag who has either personally murdered people or has been intentionally responsible for the deaths of people, is not. In this case, it's stealing, which is much less bad.
So killing is right sometimes and wrong sometimes? That sounds very relativistic.
I don't think there's a single moral absolutist who believes that every single action is always right or wrong no matter who they're done to. And again, you're stealing, not killing, from a greedy snob who's willing to let someone die that only he can save to make lots of money, that, based on the OP's description, he doesn't need, as the OP didn't say he needed the money, and making wild assumptions on what he needed the money for is pointless.
Really now, stealing from some unsympathetic monster of a human being, who doesn't even need the item you're stealing, when you actually need it to save the life of someone you love, is not even remotely comparable to murdering some random person for the drug. Not even close.
Yes it is: The doctor, like 90% of the population, is motivated by greed. Again, he is willing to sell the medicine, just at a mark up; he's not withholding it from humanity, he is helping people....stop painting him like he's some bad cartoon villain twirling a mustache; he's doing what any one who believes in commercialism does.
What people need to stop doing though, is acting like it's okay to break laws to do this, just because the doctor is a pain in the ass. If you start down that road, then you can justify beating the &*!@ out of anyone you disagree with since you have the 'moral' high ground....really, go ahead and try to justify that to a court of law; they'd laugh at you as you went to jail.
And that's still leaving aside the fact that stealing the medicine is completely idiotic: If you get caught before you can the medicine to your wife, you've just had yourself sent to jail while she dies without you.
I don't think stealing something that you need for survival from someone who doesn't even need what you're stealing is bad. There's stealing, and then there's murder. There's a difference, if you cannot understand the difference, then there's no point of discussing this further.No, you need to understand there is not a difference in the eyes of the laws; both are breaking the law, and both come with jail time. If you aren't willing to accept that, then no one should be choosing 1E or 1F....since those are children responses.
Edit: Also, so that means: Edit: To use an example: I'm starving and gonna die if I don't eat. You just bought a car load of food for some fancy banquet designed to help you move up in the world. Because you are doing something for a selfish reason, I can steal your car and all that food and not get in trouble...cause you know, you are being the 'bad' guy in the scenario.Is fine, I can take all of your stuff then, cause you don't 'need' it.
Edit 2: Hell, in that type of world, anyone can steal as they want from anyone just by declaring 'I need what they have to live!'; they can take anyone's house, anyone's job, anyone's car, anyone's money and anyone's life....since you know, the person you take from is obviously evil cause they have stuff they don't need.
Post by
OverZealous
So wait, I have to ask - we're moral relativists because we believe there isn't always a set-in-stone moral code that must be followed to the letter, but you're still a moral absolutist despite recognizing that every single thing might not be completely black and white and that some actions may be considered morally right in some situations but not others?
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
You do...
as shown here
, since you don't believe there is a gray.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Lombax
2 E and F.
Post by
Interest
Tough choice, but I'd have to go with 1E (although the logic of my response could really be between 1D, 1E or 1F). I just feel that human life is of great importance. What is a few laws against theft when a person's life is at stake? I should also include the fact that stealing in favor of being unable to pay the price the scientist demands (which is clearly definitive greed) to save a life is what I'd consider the right thing to do. Finally, I would also like to include not every situation should work like this, but given the described example, I would probably pardon (or greatly reduce) any punishment Heinz has to suffer as repercussion assuming it is all true.
(To be honest, I swear this sort of answer can be related to the argument that a man stealing bread to feed his starving family is completely moral.)
Post by
MyTie
I would steal to feed my family.
Post by
Adamsm
I would steal to feed my family.
And would you accept responsibility for that?
Post by
Lombax
I would steal to feed my family.
I wouldn't. I don't think I would ever steal something, I just have some kind of built in mentality that I think makes me unable to steal things.
Post by
Azazel
I would if they were starving to death without hesitating for a second (I've always been good at hiding stuff in my clothes.. don't ask me why). But just for a random cake? Nah.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
