A question of morals. - DPChallenge Forums

12/02/2005 09:41:01 PM · #51

@dahkota
you are not irrelevent, for I find it worthy of my time to respond you your post :-P

...just a question for you, yes or no (not actually, but I would like an honest answer), do you consider the druggist a bad person for charging $2000?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/02/2005 09:45:22 PM · #52

Originally posted by dahkota:

Back to your question and my first reply"
"Do you condone his actions?"
It does not matter if I condone his actions. I am not the druggist. If I was the druggist, I probably wouldn't have charged him more than $200 for the drug. Different ethics.

As an outsider, I have no say in the matter. If the druggist presses charges, the police arrest him, the court finds him guilty. I am not involved in the process. My forgiveness does him no good. I am completely irrelevent.

hey, wait a minute...

Don't forget that stealing the medicine and punishing the husband could BOTH be just actions. You seem to think it must be one or the other. If I were the husband, I would steal the medicine, give it to my wife, and call the police.

EDIT to say at least I HOPE I would...

Message edited by author 2005-12-02 21:45:54.

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

12/02/2005 09:47:19 PM · #53

all depends on our pov huh? The husband sure feels justified. The druggist feels screwed. The law says it's theft. The only thing left is - how do you feel? Or - better - how do you think?

12/02/2005 09:47:59 PM · #54

@DrAchoo
would you leave the thousand dollars you have in the pharmacy?

(...or use it as bail :-P )

Message edited by author 2005-12-02 21:48:28.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/02/2005 09:49:50 PM · #55

Originally posted by mavrik:

all depends on our pov huh? The husband sure feels justified. The druggist feels screwed. The law says it's theft. The only thing left is - how do you feel? Or - better - how do you think?

Yes, and that is the point of this question. What do you think.

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

12/02/2005 09:50:56 PM · #56

I think what I thought in my initial reply - No. If you condone his actions now, you condone the next guy who steals cuz he can't afford food for his family - why get foodstamps? Why work? Get a gun. No.

Message edited by author 2005-12-02 21:51:23.

graphicfunk

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

12/02/2005 09:51:42 PM · #57

Originally posted by maxj:

well said graphicfunk, however, I am dissapointed you have failed to take a stance.

The money does serve a purpose. It shows that this drug costs $200 in resources alone. And possibly more in research and labor.

Originally posted by graphicfunk:
one bite away from life and the grocer has many apples

This point although valid, does not play a role in this debate for my reaosning above. This could very well the most rare drug ever created.

Now, if you were in the grocery store, starving on the floor, and happened upon an apple, would you give it to the starving farmer, or take it for yourself?

I imagine the vaguness of this question is what bothers you about it, the question, lacks any real facts. The real question here is what facts, with what quantity of data, would you be ready to condone stealing to save the life of a loved one? Would you ever be able to?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If the question were not loaded I would. This is merely a socialist gripe but consider: the socialist state could not produce the drug.

Yet, life trumps money and possesions. Notice that when a rescue is being made it is sometimes at great material cost. At the end it is justified because life trumps the rest. It is all well and good to live with high standards but this does not address the core of human suffering.

Laws are made so that we are able to coexist. You get to keep what you have attained or worked for but evrything, even taking another's life, although wrong is at times justified, such as when a goon attacks your child and rips off his arm in your presence. I would not hesitate to deal this monster a lethal blow. Very tacky this concept of morals, yet we must each adhere to playing the game fair.

12/02/2005 09:52:28 PM · #58

Originally posted by maxj:

@DrAchoo
would you leave the thousand dollars you have in the pharmacy?

(...or use it as bail :-P )

If I had $1000, I would leave it. If I had $0, I would still steal the medicine. So it doesn't make the act more justified by leaving it, but it seems a seperately moral act to do.

Of course if it were my last $1000, we got larger problems after the medicine kicks in...

12/02/2005 10:02:36 PM · #59

@graphicfunk
yes, very true, I think I was a bit put off by your view of this question as one of socialism v. capitalism, but I see now it has some traction.

And I agree with your fending off the goose argument, even if this goose was actually another human being, one must always defend themselves and their loved ones. One of my biggest problems with the man in question, is that he does this so blindly, he does not even know whose life he may be eventually be taken. And he does not know for certain that this drug will even save his wife's life, he may actually inadvertently harm her (i.e. overdoes).

@DrAchoo
I had not thought of a predicament where you would have $0, and then would be morally right. Very good point.

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Canon

12/02/2005 10:15:26 PM · #60

So were you a member of the majority or minority in your class?

Keith Maniac

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

12/02/2005 10:52:14 PM · #61

Originally posted by maxj:

Do you condone the man's actions?

Hell, yes.

12/02/2005 10:58:37 PM · #62

Originally posted by maxj:

Honestly, I do not care for an opportunist when his opportunities arrise from the misfortunes of others. This much like price gouging is extremely low on my admirable traits list. :)

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

12/02/2005 11:01:33 PM · #63

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I am not arguing the justness of actions here. How just an action is is irrelevent in this case. The question was if I condone it. Huge difference. My forgiveness of the act of stealing is irrelevent unless the stealing was done from me.

graphicfunk

Canon EOS-20D

12/02/2005 11:07:05 PM · #64

The subject of morals runs so deep and so wide but as complicated as it may appear it is really very simple. Ask yourselves the origin of morals and why they are needed. They are made as a code of ethics to govern our actions. In doing so, that is, by seeking the correct path, we are able to coexist and show respect for each other. It is a tool that seeks to illicit the best in you. We would say it is wrong to steal the property of another, to libel, to bring bodily harm, to murder etc, etc. Soon thereafter, many of the precepts are adapted as laws.

As human beings we exist in many different worlds. The government soon realizes that a particular segment refuses to live by the standards adopted by the many either by will or general ignorance. It all goes back to the havs and haves nots. It is a problem that pervades throughout history and no society has ever found the solution. The havs worry about their property and how easily it could be stolen. So they create social programs to help the less fortunate but even if all riches are gathered and distributed it will all soon be spent and a worse situation arises. Money makes money and those who just gave it up are now at a disadvantage because they have no funds to use in their intricate financial world. What is missed, is that industry is what makes money. Some people care not about industry.

So imagine a world with no morals and what you have is chaos. However, while morals address the major problems it does not address all. Hence, it is not perfect but the best we have. To understand morals you must do so with a pure heart. In the study of law, the student learns about the counter argument and he is prepared to take either side, so these people see a shade of gray everywhere. Yes, all arguments have opposite sentiments but the majority of them have a right and a wrong. In ethics you seek to find the right and many intellects get lost in worthless debate when the "right ot proper" is right before their very noses but the need to dig to make a wrong right is a perverted condition in many of us. By the same token to apply axioms and concepts to everything equally is also wrong. Variables do exist that render black white and white black. Again, those who examine these intricasies must be objective judges with no agenda but that of pure truth. It is a tedious path but a human of good will will succeed.

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

12/02/2005 11:17:13 PM · #65

I find the origin or basis for morality to be the fascinating and complicated part. Graphicfunk's post, for example, hides intricasies. One one hand he is very situational..."to apply axioms and concepts to everything equally is also wrong"...but on the other he is very absolute..."those who examine these intricasies must be objective judges with no agenda but that of pure truth"

I find it easy to claim an absolute basis for morality in God. I find it fascinating how difficult it is to ground morality otherwise. (And I'm not necessarily talking about the Judeo-Christian God, but rather a deity in general).

Do you believe in the "pure truth" you spoke of 'funk? Is it ultimately grounded in a deity? If not, what is it founded upon?

David Ey

Nikon D80

12/02/2005 11:24:31 PM · #66

Well, it appears most of you, whether or not you will admitt it, see morality issues as black and white.

Message edited by author 2005-12-02 23:25:58.

wavelength

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

12/02/2005 11:27:08 PM · #67

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Do you believe in the "pure truth" you spoke of 'funk? Is it ultimately grounded in a deity? If not, what is it founded upon?

Since quantum physics prove that only and outside observer to space-time can prove truth, pure truth can only come from that observer, or God. If there is no outside observer, all truth is coexistent, and is thus non-existent.

wavelength

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

12/02/2005 11:32:21 PM · #68

here's a question. if there is no God, there is no truth. if god did not exist and life ordered itself out of nothing, why do we understand the concept of truth? if full truth cannot exist within the confines of space-time how did we get the idea of it even?

jsas

Sony Mavica CD250

12/02/2005 11:39:21 PM · #69

This is a question of morals, but we need to hone it down more to character.I think we all know right from wrong. So what universal code do we use to set the moral standards?

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

12/02/2005 11:40:01 PM · #70

While I agree with much of what you say, I think, in certain respects, you over simplify.

Graphic:"To understand morals you must do so with a pure heart. In the study of law, the student learns about the counter argument and he is prepared to take either side, so these people see a shade of gray everywhere. Yes, all arguments have opposite sentiments but the majority of them have a right and a wrong."

Maybe I am nitpicking here but I disagree that there is usually a right or wrong. I find grey everywhere and it all depends on which side of the fence you are standing. As with the argument presented, ones feelings of it would depend on if one is the druggist or the husband. There is no absolute moral law that states one is more right than the other. They are degrees of rightness if you will. Outsiders watching will have differing thoughts and opinions but the thoughts are irrevelent unless used to decide outcomes - punishments, rewards, etc.

I REALLY dilike being a moral judge of people and try to avoid it at all times. Others quite willingly pass judgement at the drop of a hat. Sometimes those others use their religious beliefs to justify their judgements. But all truth, all right and wrong, is subjective. In morality, like photography, point of view makes a huge difference.

alfresco

Nikon D700

12/02/2005 11:50:38 PM · #71

Originally posted by dahkota:

... I am completely irrelevent.

hey, wait a minute...

lol
lol

12/02/2005 11:53:10 PM · #72

Originally posted by wavelength:

I haven't heard of this. Do you have any references? Honestly curious. :)

jsas

Sony Mavica CD250

12/02/2005 11:53:45 PM · #73

All truth and all right and wrong is subjective? Then what do you believe? That sounds like a merry-go-round to me. I prefer a slide, I go up, I come down. =)

Message edited by author 2005-12-02 23:57:57.