A question of morals. - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II for Canon

12/04/2005 12:28:19 PM · #154

The "degredation of social values? Odd... I would think that valuing a $2000 sale over the life of a sick person would already prove that society's values are degraded. Maybe the question here should be asked not from the point of view of the druggist but from the point of view of the husband.

Like fish who don't see water I think we do not even notice that our entire minds are steeped to saturation in the value of things and how they are more imporant that that value of the living.

And to

Originally posted by mavrik:

The price isn't just the punishment of jail. The price is the degradation of societal values. This is a crucial piece of information in making a decision that we far too often overlook.

So it's "ok" for you to "pay" for your crime.
Is it then "ok" for the murderer to kill his co-workers at the post office if he's willing to go to jail?

How is that "ok?"

mikasi

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II for Canon

12/04/2005 12:32:52 PM · #155

If someone grabbed your child off the street and took off in a car would it be ok for you to hop in the nearest idling car to give chase? Or do you call a cop nad wiat for them to respond? That scenario would likely be more comprable to the original question.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by bear_music:
...would this make a difference?

No. Try leaving a few thousand on the counter and taking a car from a dealership. It's still theft. The question here IMO is whether it's OK to steal from a thief if it's for a noble cause. The answer for me is still no.

Travis99

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/04/2005 01:02:35 PM · #156

I say screw the god damn drug store owner.

graphicfunk

12/04/2005 01:15:28 PM · #157

It appears that there is great confusion about the applications of morals or ethical behaviour. To simplify it let us agree that it is wrong to steal and wrong to kill. We can go on with this list but for simplicity let us just stay with the above two. Now, why do you suppose that it is wrong to steal and kill? Once you figure this out, you will agree that these are precepts to live by so that you can keep your property and your life. There is a vested interest in morality and it all boils down to living like civilized creatures which starts first with your own protection. So much so, that the above have passed from morality or ethical behaviour right into LAW.

You must understand that all laws are dependent on the spirit of goodwill. That is, those that refuse to play by these laws can easily break them and steal from you and even kill you. If they get caught they pay a price and then there follows the gradation of the crime to be litigated. Killing someone in rage is treated different then premeditaded murder. The same applies to stealing, it exists in many flavors.

Then come the exceptions. Exceptions are evrywhere and if your reason is set in stone than you are an exception. Reasonable human beings realize this. So while it is wrong to kill, you have societie's sentiment on your side if someone enters your home and begins to harm your children or rape your wife. Surely, once the culprit graps your wife by the neck or pulls your child and you wack him with a bat or even shoot him, the killing, if you kill him, is justified. It is simple, life trumps in this case because he could have killed either wife or children.

So while stealing is wrong it is also finds conditions where it may save a life or avert a disaster. Three men are going to blow up a city. They must all drive to one spot to effectuate the crime, you learn of this and while one steps out of the car, you steal the car and drive it far. Now they are one short and the disater is avoided. Many other instances have been presented and note that life trumps.

To repeat like a parrot that wrong is wrong does not advance understanding. While the axiom is true it is not applicable under all circumstances. What you are saying is that you will let your wife and children die because you are affraid to take action which may end up killing the perpetrator. This is not rocket science.

Message edited by author 2005-12-04 13:18:02.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/05/2005 06:43:42 AM · #158

Originally posted by maxj:

Originally posted by bear_music:

"Segway" is an alternative means of personal locomotion. "Segue" is the word you're looking for.

R.

haha, thank you very much.

I believe that the verb "to segway" (with that spelling) is currently used by way of management slang. It is ironic that the two words are pronouced similarly and have essentially the same meaning, but people understand the brand name slang better than the English word.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

12/05/2005 06:48:25 AM · #159

Originally posted by Travis99:

I say screw the god damn drug store owner.

That would be sexual assault and that would be wrong. ;-P

12/05/2005 07:38:05 AM · #160

I am interested by the discussion on the source of morality. The issue being debated appears to be whether morality stems from God, whether it exists absolutely, and if it exists absolutely whether it exists alongside God, or as his creation. If it does not exist absolutely, then is it something that is personal (and fundamentally not absolute)? If it is personal, is it the creation of man? If so, where does it get its authority?

This causes me some problems. It would be odd for there to be a relationship between a god and an absolute or an accurate morality, given the number of religions with competing moral codes, and even the number of interpretations of moral issues within each religion. Given the inability of anyone, and in particular various religions (which tend to hold themselves out as an authority) to identify common moral issues, it would be odd if there was a universal moral code.

I think that morality is derived from man, and has been encoded at various times into a variety of religions and teachings. But I do not think that it is entirely personal: the moral code tends to regulate the operation of society, and it is out of societies that moral codes are born. Within a society, moral codes are established and have impersonal aspects. Between societies, these moral codes can be seen to vary (evidenced most obviously through the formation of religions with different moral principles).

How does morality establish itself? I think that this is a combination of biological and environmental factors. Biology takes its role in, for example, causing a biological reaction that encourages us away from incest and from being scatologically inclined (the power of smell!). The environment takes many forms, but geographic instability might result in sacrifices to the mountain gods, incorporating into the code animal or human sacrifice, or population pressure might result in the moral code tending towards either polygamy or polyandry (polyandry discussed here). Ultimately, a moral code is a societally endorsed compromise between competing interests, between peoples with a common biology within a variety of environments.

Various societies have existed successfully for thousands of years based on a variety of moral codes. I do not think that there can be one accurate moral code, but rather that people as a whole are inclined to adopt and drop parts of moral codes as they become inconvenient or as they are exposed to alternatives.

Americans are sometimes taught to believe in "self evident rights" (and I have been accused of being an idiot for questioning them), but in reality there are few areas of morality that are self evident between societies. This is especially so when considered across time: the developed world is increasingly a single society and has tended towards some common principles, but historical examples of moral variety abound.

Some would argue that the principles that commonly arise amount to a "natural law" that humans tend towards, and because humans tend towards them that is evidence that natural law exists (not something that I personally ascribe to, but that is another discussion).

edit: fixed link

Message edited by author 2005-12-05 07:58:03.

Didymus

12/05/2005 09:25:10 AM · #161

To the initial question:
No, I don't condone his action as in I don't think people should go around robbing drugstores.
But in this case I understand the man's reasons and I forgive him completely.
If he gave the drugstore guy a black eye in the process, so much the better. Just as a reminder that people should be nice to each other. And what goes around, comes around.

12/05/2005 09:31:28 AM · #162

In an attempt to interpret the original question in the light of my last post, I think that the answer would depend on the moral code of your society as interpreted by you.

It is fundamentally unsatisfying to consider which answer is the correct one. Fundamentally, there is no absolute "self evident" truth, there is no right answer, and any debate about the right answer cannot be won. The debate cannot be considered without context (as evidence of which, several people have sought to add their own context to the facts in order to make a more convincing argument; but the context can be manipulated to result in any answer). It is fundamentally unanswerable, but we can discuss the source of morality and how it arises, and how different people can consider the same facts and intelligently conclude differently. [Simply stating how your own morality code can be applied to the facts is a little dull, as it is not right, wrong or debateable]

A society that places no value on intellectual property might place no import on the research cost of the drug as against its retail price (per African and Taiwanese examples) and the drug could be copied more cheaply. A society that holds human life and family foremost, with a strong sense of social values might agree with the thief's actions, and decry the meanness of the pharmacist. A society of shopkeeping capitalists might defend the poor pharmacist. A deeply religious society with a strong belief in the afterlife and salvation might decry the thief's actions for depriving his wife of the chance of earlier experience of nirvana. None of these are "right" or "wrong". In reality, our societies are very diverse, and the result is the debate witnessed hereâ�¦

The real problem arrives when one person claims to have the right answer, and refuses to acknowledge that the world is not a "you are with us or against us" type of place (especially if he is a presidentâ�¦).

Message edited by author 2005-12-05 09:33:07.

Didymus

12/05/2005 09:51:32 AM · #163

That's a beautiful essay, but not very useful as a practical guide to life.
All those pro et contra arguments are very fine as long things go smooth and tomorrow is a copy of yesterday.
However, the man was in a crisis where superficial social rules collapse to singularity. By superficial I mean those rules that are not essential for physical survival. In the poor guys situation, if he had entered an educated discussion with the shopkeeper about moral values and property rights instead of saving his wife's life, he'd have been a true moron. In his situation the choice was very simple, really - do you choose to save the life of your loved one or do you prefer to save the wallet of some remote, faceless company. Not a very difficult question, the way I see it.

Besides, the shopkeeper as an embodiment of society in this example, rid the man of responsibilities toward the society by refusing him the basic means of survival. The man made an honest attempt but was flatly rejected. Thereafter he is entitled to go for any means necessary to save his wife's life. Of course, the society does not like to be stood up to and will in all likelihood seek to get revenge, but that's a different story.

Somebody once said that there is but one fundamental human right and just one responsibility to go with it: the right to do whatever you damn well please and the responsibility to take the consequences.

EDIT: corrected a typo.

Message edited by author 2005-12-05 09:53:33.

12/05/2005 10:15:56 AM · #164

Originally posted by Didymus:

That's a beautiful essay, but not very useful as a practical guide to life.

Your response was one guide to life, but it only provides one answer in a debate with countless answers and, as such, is not very useful in contemplation of the abstract issues raised by the question or in the broader context of the debate.

My broader point, which I think provides an excellent and practical guide to life is that no society and no person (and no religion) has a monopoly on morality. Do not be so self absorbed as to think that the morals you are used to provide the only "right" way, and accept that there are other ways that are not fundamentally "right" or "wrong", but merely different.

Montague

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

12/05/2005 10:16:27 AM · #165

This is a classical example.In fact, it is one of the key elements in Victor Hugo's novel Les Miserables. The main character there, Jean Valjean, stole a bread from a store driven by the need to find some food for his family. His children were starving. He is caught and thrown to jail (the infamous Bastilia). He escaped from prison, because he felt that the punishment was too harsh (no trial, just jail, for an indeterminate period of time). After that, he became a civilised citizen, a very respectable member of the community. But a policeman was after him the whole time. Jean Valjean is saving the policeman's life at one moment and after that the policeman finally reach to the conclusion that this guy wasn't guilty and that he followed him for nothing. And he kills himself.
Now this is about the relation between the sphere of justice and the sphere of law: are they always identical? This case implies that they are not. Is the law always right? No. Why? Well, this is another question!

Didymus

12/05/2005 10:20:55 AM · #166

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by Didymus:
That's a beautiful essay, but not very useful as a practical guide to life.

Your response was one guide to life, but it only provides one answer in a debate with countless answers and, as such, is not very useful in contemplation of the abstract issues raised by the question or in the broader context of the debate.

My broader point, which I think provides an excellent and practical guide to life is that no society and no person (and no religion) has a monopoly on morality. Do not be so self absorbed as to think that the morals you are used to provide the only "right" way, and accept that there are other ways that are not fundamentally "right" or "wrong", but merely different.

I didn't intend to sound arrogant or self-centered. If I did, I apologize.
What I wanted to say, was that in this guy's situation, there is no 'right way' or 'wrong way'. They cease to exist. There is only one way. So all discussions of morals are not applicable. Morals is about choices. If you can't choose, morals can't be applied.

Ah, of course, he could have let his wife die ...

Olympus 40-150mm f/3.5-4.5 Zuiko Digital

12/05/2005 10:31:15 AM · #167

Originally posted by Didymus:

I didn't intend to sound arrogant or self-centered. If I did, I apologize.

not necessary!

Originally posted by Didymus:

What I wanted to say, was that in this guy's situation, there is no 'right way' or 'wrong way'. They cease to exist. There is only one way. So all discussions of morals are not applicable. Morals is about choices. If you can't choose, morals can't be applied.

Ah, of course, he could have let his wife die ...

I prize life very highly, and I would do a lot to protect my wife. But I cannot imagine myself breaking into a pharmacy or hospital where there may be drugs to prolong life in very many situations. It would have to be a pretty extreme circumstance for me to break into a place - very extreme in fact, when I think about it.

This is what I mean about context: If my wife were 80 and the drugs would give her a few extra days, would I rob a store and kill the 25 year old owner to get at those drugs? If my wife were 25 and the drugs would cure her entirely, would I reach over the counter to pinch a packet while the attendant was not looking?

The only interesting points of debate that can be drawn from the example question, as stated, are how the competing moral forces arise in the first place.

Ombra_foto

Olympus E-300 EVOLT

12/05/2005 10:41:20 AM · #168

Life is often not a choice between moral and immoral.
Frequently it comes down to a decision between what is less immoral.

Morality and law work very well in a free, open and equal society. But ours is not. We have a society which is deeply divided on race, religion, and most of all, money.

For most people, it's hard to imagine how far one will go to protect their family until you are put in that situation. Most will never know it. Most people never get really tested as to how far they will go.

ScottK

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

12/06/2005 05:53:25 PM · #169

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by maxj:

Originally posted by bear_music:

"Segway" is an alternative means of personal locomotion. "Segue" is the word you're looking for.

R.

haha, thank you very much.

I believe that the verb "to segway" (with that spelling) is currently used by way of management slang. It is ironic that the two words are pronouced similarly and have essentially the same meaning, but people understand the brand name slang better than the English word.

I bet it has less to do with brand recognition, and more to do with fonix. :) "Segway" looks better, phonetically.

Or, blame the French. ;)

edit: Oops, guess I should have checked first. Its the Italians.

Message edited by author 2005-12-06 17:54:58.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

12/06/2005 06:09:12 PM · #170

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

For what it's worth, it's a matter of fact that the inventor of the Segway personal locomotion device had in mind the "real" word, "segue", which means "to slide smoothly from one state to another", and the alternative spelling was formulated to allow trademarking of the name. I'm sure you're correct that "to segway" has become a part of management-speak, but I refuse to accept the validity of management-speak on basic principles, after serving my stints in two internet/software companies as "the guy in charge of communication" :-)

R.

12/06/2005 06:47:42 PM · #171

Originally posted by ScottK:

Don't worry - the French introduced most Latinate words into the English language following William the Conqueror's 1066 invasion - we can still blame the French.