This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Morality
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Interest
I would steal to feed my family.
And would you accept responsibility for that?
I probably would, but only if I knew the consequences also wouldn't adversely affect my family (i.e. they starve anyways because no income).
Post by
MyTie
I would steal to feed my family.
And would you accept responsibility for that?
Responsibility for what?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.
Then you are likely on Stage 4 of moral development.
Post by
Adamsm
I would steal to feed my family.
And would you accept responsibility for that?
Responsibility for what?If you were caught, would you accept going to jail for stealing?
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.
Then you are likely on Stage 4 of moral development.
Stages of moral development? This kind of interests me, can I have a link to something that explains this?
Post by
MyTie
If you were caught, would you accept going to jail for stealing?
Absolutely not. I was right and the law was wrong. The law needs to change, not punish me. I would defy the law, and then renounce the judicial punishment. Like I said earlier, if I were a jurist on a decision in which the accused was guilty of violating an unjust law, I would find the defendant not guilty.
Stages of moral development? This kind of interests me, can I have a link to something that explains this?
Link
Post by
donnymurph
1F
Post by
Adamsm
If you were caught, would you accept going to jail for stealing?
Absolutely not. I was right and the law was wrong. The law needs to change, not punish me. I would defy the law, and then renounce the judicial punishment. Like I said earlier, if I were a jurist on a decision in which the accused was guilty of violating an unjust law, I would find the defendant not guilty.Even if the accused was a murder? Since, let's be honest, something like this could be used to get off killers who really shouldn't. As for that type of defense well...we all know what would happen.
Post by
MyTie
A law against murder is not an unjust law, Adamsm. Re-evaluate my post and try another response.
Post by
Adamsm
Well what falls under the 'unjust' law; sure you stole to feed your family, but you stole broke numerous laws to do so. So when do the unjust laws stop being unjust?
Post by
OverZealous
Well what falls under the 'unjust' law; sure you stole to feed your family, but you stole broke numerous laws to do so. So when do the unjust laws stop being unjust?
When what you're doing is "morally right", if I'm understanding correctly.
Post by
MyTie
Well what falls under the 'unjust' law; sure you stole to feed your family, but you stole broke numerous laws to do so. So when do the unjust laws stop being unjust?
While the specifics of right and wrong cannot be agreed on, the understanding that there IS a moral right and wrong beyond and above legality, and the attempt to do that, is what is required for advancement to post conventional morality (level 3). Acceptance of law as your moral compass is inferior to trying to reconcile your actions with a universal meaning of right and wrong.
Post by
Adamsm
Well what falls under the 'unjust' law; sure you stole to feed your family, but you stole broke numerous laws to do so. So when do the unjust laws stop being unjust?
While the specifics of right and wrong cannot be agreed on, the understanding that there IS a moral right and wrong beyond and above legality, and the attempt to is what is required for advancement to post conventional morality (level 3). Acceptance of law as your moral compass is inferior to trying to reconcile your actions with a universal meaning of right and wrong.
Okay; but where does the shop keeper who you stole from fit into the situation? Doesn't he deserve some kind of justice as well?
Post by
donnymurph
That article about stages of moral development is really interesting, MyTie. Looking through it, I can see the different stages that I went through, and could probably pinpoint roughly how old I was, where I was and what I was doing when I went through each stage.
Currently I'd say I traverse the line between stages 5 and 6.
Post by
MyTie
Okay; but where does the shop keeper who you stole from fit into the situation? Doesn't he deserve some kind of justice as well?
Why?
Adamsm, I know you are capable of abstract reasoning and moral inclinations. Think about the shop keeper. Think about his actions. Think about Heinz, and think about his actions. Now remove the law completely from your mind. Don't even take it into account.
A few very basic facts should enter your mind:
1) If Heinz does not steal, his wife WILL die.
Regardless of the status as his wife, this is a human being. The fact will stand that Heinz will not prevent death if he does not act. Now, bring back into your mind the understanding of law. Is the law JUST, in the prevention of a theft in the event of this human being's death?
2) The shopkeeper's actions do not reflect the actions of Justice.
The shopkeeper does not want justice. If he did, he would have aided the dieing human being. He is a human being. He should empathize with her. His own lack of empathy caused a situation where it is morally plausible to disregard his own legal rights. Think about that. We may not all agree that it is morally acceptible for Heinz to steal, we should be able to all agree that it is at least morally plausible for Heinz to steal from him. That is the very nature as to why this question is worded this way.
3) Justice does not always follow law.
If it did, the woman would live.
4) If Heinz is plausibly compelled to act against the law in a manner that is parallel with morality and justice, then perhaps you should reconsider using legality as a measure of morality.
Point 4 is the cruix of it. You should never... NEVER base your moral reasoning solely on law, or rules, or authority. Question authority. What makes them right? There has to be universal laws of morality that they fit before they can be automatically considered "morally right". Law DOES NOT define morality. It can't, since law is different depending on location, but actions remain the same from location to location.
Post by
Adamsm
we should be able to all agree that it is at least morally plausible for Heinz to steal from him. And that is a slippery slope...since where does it stop? I mean really, according to that logic, any homeless person on the brink of starvation should be able to steal from whoever they want to feed themselves....since it's their lives they'd be saving after all. There still the issue of what happens if Heinz runs into the doctor while stealing the drug; if he physically assaults the doctor, are we suppose to ignore that as well?
Point 4 is the cruix of it. You should never... NEVER base your moral reasoning solely on law, or rules, or authority. Question authority. What makes them right? There has to be universal laws of morality that they fit before they can be automatically considered "morally right". Law DOES NOT define morality. It can't, since law is different depending on location, but actions remain the same from location to location.That doesn't mean you cut them out of whatever decision you are going to make...since most courts will just scoff at that as they lock you up.
I choose 1D, because I'd be accepting of the fact that laws are being broken to do so.
Post by
MyTie
I mean really, according to that logic, any homeless person on the brink of starvation should be able to steal from whoever they want to feed themselves....since it's their lives they'd be saving after all.That's right! That's exactly right. Dang it. Death is more important than law.There still the issue of what happens if Heinz runs into the doctor while stealing the drug; if he physically assaults the doctor, are we suppose to ignore that as well?Not part of the scenario. But, I suppose, yes. Certainly morality is not black and white, and this is more black than simple theft, but I find it still acceptable. Death > assualt.That doesn't mean you cut them out of whatever decision you are going to make...since most courts will just scoff at that as they lock you up.First of all, I'm not suggesting that my personal decisions are the measure of right and wrong. I'm not saying that I automatically trump law. I'm saying that law doesn't trump morals, nor define them. That is all. Secondly, I don't care what the courts think, and what they do. If they are wrong, they are wrong. Imposing a jail sentence on me doesn't make them more right.
Post by
Interest
I mean really, according to that logic, any homeless person on the brink of starvation should be able to steal from whoever they want to feed themselves....since it's their lives they'd be saving after all.
To be honest I wouldn't have a problem with that, although isn't there a way to get food anyways? That sort of makes your example irrelevant.
Post by
Adamsm
Not part of the scenario. But, I suppose, yes. Certainly morality is not black and white, and this is more black than simple theft, but I find it still acceptable. Death > assualt.And I don't, so guess it's split here.
First of all, I'm not suggesting that my personal decisions are the measure of right and wrong. I'm not saying that I automatically trump law. I'm saying that law doesn't trump morals, nor define them. That is all. Secondly, I don't care what the courts think, and what they do. If they are wrong, they are wrong. Imposing a jail sentence on me doesn't make them more right.And I feel laws are a part of morals so guess it's a stalemate here.
I mean really, according to that logic, any homeless person on the brink of starvation should be able to steal from whoever they want to feed themselves....since it's their lives they'd be saving after all.
To be honest I wouldn't have a problem with that, although isn't there a way to get food anyways? That sort of makes your example irrelevant.
There are ways; but depending on the person, they won't go to shelters due to other issues. And I would have a problem with that, since it would mean areas wouldn't be safe due to people attacking other people to steal from them(alright, yes there are already cities like that).
Post by
MyTie
Adamsm -
Sorry, but I'm going to have to Godwin this. Were Nazi soldiers, who were following the law, and following orders, who murdered people, which were they:
1) Morally right
2) Morally excused
3) Morally wrong
Post by
Adamsm
I can't speak for them.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.