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
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Stealing is still stealing Sold; you don't get to pick and choose what is and isn't moral....cause if you do that well...
You don't seem to be able to grasp how something can vary in how bad it is, and I edited my post.
But, you yell and yell about people doing just that, then when you do it, it's okay? How does that work? Since according to you, morals can't be subjective....but you are doing so right now with this example. Please, correct me if I'm wrong in that assumption, but it is what you are saying.
Post by
Patty
Stealing is still stealing Sold; you don't get to pick and choose what is and isn't moral....cause if you do that well...
You don't seem to be able to grasp how something can vary in how bad it is, and I edited my post.
The point is that you're seemingly basing your morality as something subject to change depending on the material value of something. That's morally inconsistent, surely.
And hang on a minute, the good/badness of things can vary, from the poster arguing there's no such thing as grey morality? Okay...
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
You should; you are taking money from them by doing so and it's not to save a life, it's just to be selfish and greedy.
Post by
Patty
It's 1 dollar! Off a 60 dollar purchase! I'm positive I could tell the cashier and he'd be like "oh, doesn't really matter", cause it's a dollar, off a 60 dollar purchase, its such a minor difference it's almost completely insignifigant. It's so minor that I doubt he'd even bother taking the time to fix the mistake, cause it's such a tiny mistake that it's virtually irellevant. Or, let's make this example even better:
a 2000$ purchase, and 1 cent, ONE CENT, one measly little cent, was accidentally discounted off. Are you seriously telling me that anyone, anyone anywhere, would give a dam?
If they would or wouldn't is irrelevant to the topic of morality. Morality is about what is the right thing to do. An invisible wrong is still a "wrong". That's the point. Your argument for this is material, not moral.
Post by
Lombax
a 2000$ purchase, and 1 cent, ONE CENT, one measly little cent, was accidentally discounted off. Are you seriously telling me that anyone, anyone anywhere, would give a dam?
I would. I don't care how small the % is or how little cash it is, I would always give the money back.
Post by
Azazel
So, 10 million people each pay for something worth 60 dollars. And they all get a dollar extra back in change.
But who cares? It's only 10 million dollars!
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
It's 1 dollar! Off a 60 dollar purchase! I'm positive I could tell the cashier and he'd be like "oh, doesn't really matter", cause it's a dollar, off a 60 dollar purchase, its such a minor difference it's almost completely insignifigant. It's so minor that I doubt he'd even bother taking the time to fix the mistake, cause it's such a tiny mistake that it's virtually irellevant. Or, let's make this example even better:
a 2000$ purchase, and 1 cent, ONE CENT, one measly little cent, was accidentally discounted off. Are you seriously telling me that anyone, anyone anywhere, would give a dam?
If they would or wouldn't is irrelevant to the topic of morality. Morality is about what is the right thing to do. An invisible wrong is still a "wrong". That's the point. Your argument for this is material, not moral.
It's a wrong, but an extremely minor, probably the most minor of wrongs. Which means you can't judge a person on that at all. And besides, I already said I would inform them of their mistake because they might get in trouble for it, which is the right reason to do so, since a few cents accidentally discounted off an extremely expensive purchase is so minor that virtually noone in their right minds would give a dam about the simple fact that the accidental discount was made.
You know what the wrong reason would be for informing the cashier? Fear that I would get in trouble if they ever found out later on, that's the wrong reason. That would show that I don't give a crap about doing something like that unless it negatively affected me, but like I said, I don't, I'd inform them because it might negatively affect THEM, not me, THEM. And I had said FROM THE BEGINNING that I'd tell them if it was a truly noticeable or large amount of money discounted by accident, basically anything above a buck or 2, or if the discount made up more than 1% of the price.
So now your moral compass is based on the likelihood of someone else being punished for your decision, and not because it's a wrong decision?
Post by
Adamsm
He only started thinking of that other person when it was pointed out to him.
Post by
OverZealous
But Sold, wouldn't the definition of "insignificant amount of money" vary from person to person? And if it is morally okay to keep an "insignificant amount of money", despite it actually being theft, wouldn't that say that morals (at least in this very example) are subjective, since they vary from person to person depending on what they feel is a significant amount of money?
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Stealing is still stealing Sold; you don't get to pick and choose what is and isn't moral....cause if you do that well...
You don't seem to be able to grasp how something can vary in how bad it is, and I edited my post.
I agree that there are degrees of morality, but if I was overcompensated by a penny, and it were not unreasonable for me to rectify the imbalance, I would correct it.
I think what we are all trying to tell you is that something that is minutely immoral, is not therefore morally acceptable due to the size of the infraction.
Post by
Adamsm
Because to the truly moral person......there shouldn't be a difference. And yes Sold, it's a real theft as that's not your money.
@adamsm, that was because I never considered the possibility that they may get in trouble for accidentally discounting.Then you don't think very hard about the people around you eh?
I mean, look at myself; I do my best to live up to the Wicca Creed of "Do what you will, but harm none." I'm also a firm believer in the Rule of Three; whatever you do comes back to you threefold; do something good, and be rewarded, do something horrible and well..... And I believe in karma; so for me, no matter how 'little' is taken, it's still stealing, still wrong, and will come back worse to me.
Post by
Lombax
And you Soldrethar just don't get it either.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Because to the truly moral person......there shouldn't be a difference
Incorrect, you can't be moral and assume each and everything good and bad is 100% equal in how good and bad they are. You can't compare petty theft to murder, they aren't even remotely comparable. The only reason,
the one and only reason
, that I'd tell the cashier he made a mistake if he discounted something as little as a 1cent off of a 2000$ purchase is because he might get in trouble, because it's 1 cent, one cent, no one in their right mind cares about a penny. People litter with pennies more than they spend with them. It's not a serious offense, not even remotely close to being something you can judge a person by.
So let me say this again : an offense as extremely minor as not telling the cashier he accidentally discounted 1% of the price off the purchase, assuming you don't know he might get in trouble and lose his job for it, is not something you can judge someone's moral compass off of, and thinking you can is pure silliness. It's not moral absolutism, it's not moral relativism, its silliness.
But.....that's your entire point Sold; you've told us, across three threads, there is no gray zones, there are only black and whites, so if you do something like this, it must be wrong, since it can't be gray. And really...silliness is the best way to describe you in regards to anything dealing with morality, since you don't really get the definitions of absolutism, relativism, or anything else.
Oh Sold, that's where you are wrong: There are more then enough people there who judge others for littering....do you really think there wouldn't be people judging you for stealing what amounts to a penny? Come on man, you know better then that.
Still doesn't excuse any type of stealing though.
Post by
MyTie
I agree with this first part:Incorrect, you can't be moral and assume each and everything good and bad is 100% equal in how good and bad they are. You can't compare petty theft to murder, they aren't even remotely comparable. The only reason,
the one and only reason
, that I'd tell the cashier he made a mistake if he discounted something as little as a 1cent off of a 2000$ purchase is because he might get in trouble, because it's 1 cent, one cent, no one in their right mind cares about a penny. People litter with pennies more than they spend with them. It's not a serious offense, not even remotely close to being something you can judge a person by.And disagree with this second part:So let me say this again : an offense as extremely minor as not telling the cashier he accidentally discounted 1% of the price off the purchase, assuming you don't know he might get in trouble and lose his job for it, is not something you can judge someone's moral compass off of, and thinking you can is pure silliness. It's not moral absolutism, it's not moral relativism, its silliness.
It is siliness to think you can know all about a person's morals if they have a very minor moral infraction. However, you can know that the person wouldn't be honest in a ridiculously minor situation. The fact that the immoral situation is minor (and I agree with you here and disagree with Adamsm), on a broad range of moral "greyness", still doesn't make it moral. While I empathize with you in the degree to which it is a minor infraction, it is still an infraction. To illustrate my point, look back over our conversation, and see how the infraction has shrunk. First, it was a dollar off of a meal, then it was a dollar off of a large purchase, and eventually, somehow, it has shrunk to 1 penny off of a 2K dollar purchase. You are trying to justify an immoral action by showing how very minor the immoral action is. But, at what point is it minor enough to be considered acceptable? 1% of a large purchase is immoral? .7% is immoral? Do you see the problem? The fact is the action itself is immoral, not how small the action is. You have tried to decrease the importance of your infraction, and this has manifested in how the situation has changed through this conversation. Instead, offer us philosophical reasoning for how a minor moral infraction is acceptable. I agree that dishonestly holding onto a penny is a smaller moral infraction than murder, but that doesn't justify the former.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.