A Discussion on Ethics Options

[DoomedOne]

Due to the flame war I started in the Coffee Shop (more like a flame execution) by merely discussing my day, I think it's clear something of this magnitude should be given it's own topic, so here it is.

I'll give some rules:

No flaming and no disrespect. All standard forum rules hold here. This is a thread for people's personal discussions on ethics and justification for their actions. I know people can feel very strongly about these sorts of things but no one has the right to insult or attack people instead of their ideas. Also, for those being attacked, remember don't mistake an attack on your ideas as an attack on you.

So this was spawned due to this idea: Is there any justification in stealing?

[Tellie]

Stealing...no, simply beacuse you take something that do NOT belong to you. Even though you may be poor with little or no money, you desperately wants to have that thing, or feel that you have been tricked and want to act revenge, stealing is not an option.

Taking something that dont belong to you, is not nicely done, and if you do it to someone who deserves it, you have failedand fallen down to their level, and is just as big a loser as they are (this is not meant as an offense to anyone)....so for the love of God, dont steal.

[mritchey]

If it is a question of doing something that has to be done in order for the survival of your family then, yes, stealing could be justified. It would not be justified in the US and many other countries because there are so many social programs available to those who need them.

[mplantinga]

Since you've opened the "ethics" can-of-worms, I'll give it a shot.

People tend to perceive me as fairly rigid when it comes to ethics. Stealing is always bad, just like murder is always bad. Whether or not something is a crime depends not on the circumstances, but on the law. The law says stealing is a crime, so stealing is a crime. Circumstances do not excuse bad behavior or criminal activity.

Okay, having said that, there are situations in which all possible actions are ethically bad. Killing is clearly wrong, but it may be the best choice if it is the only way to avoid being killed yourself. (This is, of course, assuming that one's own death is ethically bad, which could be an entire argument in itself). This does not mean that killing in self defense is okay, as in ethically excusable. Your actions still lead to the death of another, which is always undesirable.

But perhaps killing is a bit too extreme an example for the current discussion. It may be more relevant to consider a situation in which someone needs to steal to survive. Ethically, this person is still stealing, and stealing is always bad. But, they are faced with an impossible situation where their choices are death or stealing. If I were in that situation, I would probably steal also. But that doesn't mean that stealing would be justified. It would simply be understandable.

In short, stealing is never justified.

-planty

(I do expect a great degree of disagreement. I look forward to hearing your arguments.)

[DoomedOne]

I see ethics as a paradigm, not as a choice between right and wrong but as a choice between shame and pride in some cases, or punishment and reward, or life and death. Life has presented me with no evidence that right and wrong actually exist, and that ethics in themselves are social paradigms. I mean, that's what makes it so hard to disect classism in India. According to Hinduism, you are born into a certain class because karma has placed you there, but that sort of contradicts the age old theorem that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Take the upper classes in India, the way they treat people, it's pretty clear they aren't higher beings, and they certainly are building up a lot of bad karma.

So, occasionally people like Meher Baba and Gandhi come along, part of the Hindu and Indian culture, part of that society, proclaiming the flaws in the ethical systems within that society, and it seems pretty clear once someone from within speaks out about it, everyone else is allowed to then criticize that society.

And now, let's look at the law. The law is supposedly a way to bridge higher ethical choices between what's right and wrong into a simple crime=punishment dichotomy. They take the thinking out of it, and in that sense I think people who follow the law as the highest ethical judge are immature people. Look at how the law is processed. The legislative branch members of this government, throughout the last 20 years have proven time and time again their only accomplishments, their only multipartisan decisions are ones that increase their pay and their incumbancy, and they are the ones writing these laws. The fact is the only way to get any real progress done and put in writing in this country to jerry mander the congress, rig the election, control the media and stuff a million dollars down the throat of anyone with power who protests. And even then, half the country or more will disagree with the progress. So what is the law but the half-assed result of bribes, corruption, deceit and crooked politics. What is the constitution but an outdated edit to the Articles of Confederation, and an edit made in the persuit of power. How many brave men have spilt blood fighting against blind loyalty to bad laws? People who blindly follow the law are merely Dogmatists in the religion of Patriotism. And I don't mean to offend dogmatists, but dogmatism is a stunt in real moral growth.

In ten years I will believe in very different morals than I do right now, and it's because I allow my ethics to build themselves based on practice, based on understanding, based on growing my perspective and enduring real experience. I understand what I can accomplish and what I can't. I could say I have the rigid ethical statement that anything done in favor of the preservation and prosperity of life in it's most natural, sustainable form is good and anything that means progress in the opposite is bad, but what I learned is trying to justify any actions usually ends up as a cover for something greedy. I have found I have a very strong conscience, and so I'll accept that I'm honoured user, and that I was a honoured user when I made the choice to be a meat-eater. Despite that I know people don't deserve to suffer, and that if I stand still and allow injustice to occur then I am part of that injustice, and that words without actions are useless... I could go on with these little things I've learned based on my own experiences forever, but I'd rather just finish hoping I've made a point somewhere.

As far as stealing goes, well I couldn't care less about what the law says. I couldn't care less if it was from an immoral company, or a company that has done something or put money into something that I consider unjust. I wouldn't call it ethical, especially if I have nothing to lose by not stealing, there's just no way you could convince me stealing is wrong no matter what.

[Black Hand]

Since you asked.......

My personal opinion is between the maintenance of the social order and the understanding that all ethics and morality are HUMAN designs.

The social order was designed so the weak may live with the strong and that all humans supposedly are given equal chances within a society, rather than be at the mercy of predators and natural phenomena. This thinking is further reinforced by emotional damaging given early in life with the concepts of right and wrong, good and evil.

However, I know that these things are only that. Concepts. Everyone who says that stealing is always wrong no matter the circumstance are merely voicing an opinion. Same as me.

If I were broke and had'nt eaten in days, I would steal to eat. That is not stealing, that is called survival. Just as if a person attacked with intent to kill me, I would do everything in my power to defend myself up to and including killing the other person. That is not murder, that is self-defense.

Stealing arbitrarily for no reason other than to possess a material object that serves no purpose other than having it, well, I don't like being stole from, so I do not steal from others. Simple as that. It's called respect and it goes a long way.

But as for the people who want me to believe in the concept of right and wrong, good and evil, sin and salvation, I don't beleive in these things any more than I do the tooth fairy or Santa Claus, as none of these things truly exist.

[Red]

Just because people dissagreed with your thoughts on theft and moderators told you to stop talking about it doesn't mean there was a flame war, it means you were in what they considered the wrong.

Right, wrong, good and evil are all just titles. We live in a strange society that has turned from a self-survival system to a Anarchist system to a large scale, divided society system, and over that time our loyalties and beliefs of others has changed. We believe things are right and wrong, true or false, just or unjust, but we do not consider the opposite side. You may think you're in the right, but to the otherside, you're wrong.

For example, the American WW2 soldier was a young, scarred boy fighting a growing evil, while the Nazi WW2 soldier was a young, scarred boy figting the evil invader. Now, looking at it this way may make you feel a little compassion for the enemy, but you don't want that. Good is good, evil is evil, nothing could possibly be two sided, so you give them a name. Nazi is a good one as you simply think of the true enemy, Hitler. Calling a black man the "n" word instead of "Homo sapian of different skin tone but similar genetic build" makes being rascist easy.

Now, onto theft. You could say that you're just stealing from a heartless corporation, but you know the truth. You're just trying to think of it without a face, pretending its some sort of souless, thoughtless, money making machine. When someone broke into the Blockbuster I work at and stole thousands of dollers, every single person had there job threatened due to suspicion. now, I could have said "damn managers are trying to take away my job" but then I thought, not only was this not the managers idea, but the manager was facing losing work staff. If this happened, he'd have to pick up slack, find new applicants and if he couldn't, he'd lose his job. This system goes all the way to the CEO of the company.

I know I probably haven't changed you're ideals on theft, but let me tell you, if I were working at the place you decided to steal from, I'd have been quite pissed.

[Dantrag]

I see ethics as a paradigm, not as a choice between right and wrong but as a choice between shame and pride in some cases, or punishment and reward, or life and death. Life has presented me with no evidence that right and wrong actually exist, and that ethics in themselves are social paradigms. I mean, that's what makes it so hard to disect classism in India. According to Hinduism, you are born into a certain class because karma has placed you there, but that sort of contradicts the age old theorem that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Take the upper classes in India, the way they treat people, it's pretty clear they aren't higher beings, and they certainly are building up a lot of bad karma.

So, occasionally people like Meher Baba and Gandhi come along, part of the Hindu and Indian culture, part of that society, proclaiming the flaws in the ethical systems within that society, and it seems pretty clear once someone from within speaks out about it, everyone else is allowed to then criticize that society.

And now, let's look at the law. The law is supposedly a way to bridge higher ethical choices between what's right and wrong into a simple crime=punishment dichotomy. They take the thinking out of it, and in that sense I think people who follow the law as the highest ethical judge are immature people. Look at how the law is processed. The legislative branch members of this government, throughout the last 20 years have proven time and time again their only accomplishments, their only multipartisan decisions are ones that increase their pay and their incumbancy, and they are the ones writing these laws. The fact is the only way to get any real progress done and put in writing in this country to jerry mander the congress, rig the election, control the media and stuff a million dollars down the throat of anyone with power who protests. And even then, half the country or more will disagree with the progress. So what is the law but the half-assed result of bribes, corruption, deceit and crooked politics. What is the constitution but an outdated edit to the Articles of Confederation, and an edit made in the persuit of power. How many brave men have spilt blood fighting against blind loyalty to bad laws? People who blindly follow the law are merely Dogmatists in the religion of Patriotism. And I don't mean to offend dogmatists, but dogmatism is a stunt in real moral growth.

In ten years I will believe in very different morals than I do right now, and it's because I allow my ethics to build themselves based on practice, based on understanding, based on growing my perspective and enduring real experience. I understand what I can accomplish and what I can't. I could say I have the rigid ethical statement that anything done in favor of the preservation and prosperity of life in it's most natural, sustainable form is good and anything that means progress in the opposite is bad, but what I learned is trying to justify any actions usually ends up as a cover for something greedy. I have found I have a very strong conscience, and so I'll accept that I'm honoured user, and that I was a honoured user when I made the choice to be a meat-eater. Despite that I know people don't deserve to suffer, and that if I stand still and allow injustice to occur then I am part of that injustice, and that words without actions are useless... I could go on with these little things I've learned based on my own experiences forever, but I'd rather just finish hoping I've made a point somewhere.

As far as stealing goes, well I couldn't care less about what the law says. I couldn't care less if it was from an immoral company, or a company that has done something or put money into something that I consider unjust. I wouldn't call it ethical, especially if I have nothing to lose by not stealing, there's just no way you could convince me stealing is wrong no matter what.

Pride vs. shame, punishment vs. reward, life vs. death. If you (a general you, not directed at anyone in particular, just used for the sake of argument) play by those rules, what do you live for? Yourself? Relativism is great and all, but the line has to be drawn somewhere, because if you believe in everything you pretty much don't believe in anything. (if that makes sense at all.)

Right and wrong is more than a social paradigm, as DoomedOne put it. It's common sense. We'll take stealing as an example. Or if you've never stolen anything, just pick something else you've done wrong.

Everyone thinks stealing is wrong, until they do it once or twice. Let me explain.

The first time you (again, general you) stole, did you feel bad about it? I'm going to guess the answer is yes. Then, as you continued stealing, you started feeling less and less guilt because you've pretty much desensitized your conscience. Which is where the perspective of, 'Right and wrong is relative to the individual' comes from. Relativism is a result of the decay of one's moral standing, not moral growth.

And it's the same way with those law makers you spoke of. I'm sure they felt like compassion the first time they screwed the general public over for personal gain. Then, as they continued to do it, they learned to ignore the feeling of guilt. They're no different than us, their actions just have larger consequences.

Just because people dissagreed with your thoughts on theft and moderators told you to stop talking about it doesn't mean there was a flame war, it means you were in what they considered the wrong.

Yeah, but I was being a jerk about it.

This post has been edited by Dantrag: Jul 27 2006, 06:22 AM

[DoomedOne]

Dantrag, that is interesting, but the funny thing is I have a very strong conscience. One time in my life I stole from a friend of mine and I couldn't even talk to him until I paid him back in full, I was so ashamed. It's not common sense, for me, I don't know where it stems from but I'm practically in tears every time I hear about the new corruption being dealt out in places all around the planet. Funny thing though, when I was like 12 and I heard about how the manager of this store in my home-town submitted lies about the local, independent grocery store to the newspaper, I stole from that supermarket and I wasn't so ashamed that I went back an returned it in tears, as I did with an action figure I pocketed from another store years ago. I was over joyed, I felt like all I could do was just boycott that place and take what I wanted, and I did. So theft is not something I came to terms with over time, it's something I still believe is wrong in most circumstances. And who get's hurt? Not the employees or the consumers, really just the managers, because if it happens too often they get replaced, and the company itself because they're losing profit. No, by stealing I don't fight on the side of justice but I'm a multifaceted person and stealing is not what I'm about at all. I just happen to know how to live for free so I do. The most you could call me is a leech, but sometimes it seems like the more moral decision than to be apart of modern economics.

So, in short, I go by what my feelings tell me. I've tried to rationalize them in the past but I always fall short. All I can say is I live outside the commonly accepted beliefs of what's right and wrong, and especially so outside the law.

[Ibis]

Well, I hope we hear different from you from college in years to come and not the same old same old from a prison cell. DoomedOne. You talk about that your ethics are growing and changing but keep in mind that (as in India) kharma has a way of catching up with you and sometimes when you least expect it. Police don't always just hand out a ticket for stealing, keep that in mind too.
I've visited inside and it's really not nice.

[stargelman]

I wouldn't call it ethical, especially if I have nothing to lose by not stealing, there's just no way you could convince me stealing is wrong no matter what.

I think application of the golden rule might help.

[DoomedOne]

I don't believe in the Golden Rule, I think it fails to consider justice. Just because someone doesn't like it doesn't mean they don't deserve it.

Also, Ibis, you realize I don't believe in kharma, or equivelance either, right? And you can believe whatever suits you, but I'm not ignoring the moral dilema, I'm not consciously deciding that I don't care about ethics, I do, I just don't think there's anything wrong with stealing from the rich, even if it means to some that I'm sinking to that level, it feels good to steal from billion dollar companies. I feel like I'm equalizing.

Okay, we've had our run with this topic, onto the next one?

Do you think if you can, it's right to avoid paying taxes?

I feel like if I could I wouldn't because most of it goes to committing atrocities, even though I want to support education and social programs, I can't have it either way. There are lot's of people who say they have all their taxes paid to a bank account and they're waiting for when that money will not be used to pay for unjust coups, political prisons and genocide.

[Tellie]

But then again Black Hand, defending yourself from an attack, and stealing beacuse you hadn't eaten in days are two different things. If you get attackedd,you are ALLOWED to defend yourself, stealing is not allowed,even if your starving, remember your not the only who needsfood.

And if you are sobroke that you have no food, you need to get help, go to the salvation army for eksample,or the social offices, heck maybe even the police station....most western lands will care for such persons who need help, and the most likely get help...

[Dantrag]

I don't believe in the Golden Rule, I think it fails to consider justice. Just because someone doesn't like it doesn't mean they don't deserve it.

Also, Ibis, you realize I don't believe in kharma, or equivelance either, right? And you can believe whatever suits you, but I'm not ignoring the moral dilema, I'm not consciously deciding that I don't care about ethics, I do, I just don't think there's anything wrong with stealing from the rich, even if it means to some that I'm sinking to that level, it feels good to steal from billion dollar companies. I feel like I'm equalizing.

Okay, we've had our run with this topic, onto the next one?

Do you think if you can, it's right to avoid paying taxes?

I feel like if I could I wouldn't because most of it goes to committing atrocities, even though I want to support education and social programs, I can't have it either way. There are lot's of people who say they have all their taxes paid to a bank account and they're waiting for when that money will not be used to pay for unjust coups, political prisons and genocide.

So do you agree with the death penalty? (Which I know you don't) Because a murderer wouldn't like to be executed, but he deserves it. Is that your alternative to the golden rule?

So these managers are automatically rendered unworthy to have a job because they've worked hard to better their pay and position in the workplace? It sounds to me like you have a vendetta against managers because of this one manager.

Just a random question : are you a fan of socialism or communism? Because the whole 'equalizing' thing made me think that way.

Tax evasion is the same as stealing for me, so it's really the same topic. I agree with Jesus when he said, 'Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.' You live in this country just like everyone else, and everyone should support it whether or not they agree with its current leadership. Think of it this way; if you think they are doing little good now, think of how much less good they'll do if they have less money.

This post has been edited by Dantrag: Jul 27 2006, 02:48 PM

[milanius]

And if you are sobroke that you have no food, you need to get help, go to the salvation army for eksample,or the social offices, heck maybe even the police station....most western lands will care for such persons who need help, and the most likely get help...

There are places in the world in which nobody wishes to help nobody and nobody really gives a s***. There are places in the world in which an individual can't get help, because, quite simply, there isn't any help arround. And finally, there are places in the world where people sometimes have no choice but to steal, swindle, smuggle thing and con others. You (not YOU, dear Tellie, but "You" as in general you, someone who reads this post) just have to accept that fact.
For someone, ANYONE, to say such a blunt thing, like "Killing of another human being in self-defence is justified because of self-preservation, but stealing for same reason isn't" is really an idealistic and mainly black/white way of looking at life. People who think that in every country in the world social services, homeless shelters and other charitable organisations actually work are people who need to be disillusioned. So, wake up. I will not glorify stealing, but I will not be stuck up and act like a godamn paladin about it.

...as for the taxes, I would not avoid them. It is, after all, a way to keep a country strong and aid it, so the country could, in return, aid its citisens in any way it's nesseccarry.

p.s.: once again, this Quick Edit thing is awesome

This post has been edited by milanius: Jul 29 2006, 03:08 PM

[Alexander]

As far as stealing goes, well I couldn't care less about what the law says. I couldn't care less if it was from an immoral company, or a company that has done something or put money into something that I consider unjust. I wouldn't call it ethical, especially if I have nothing to lose by not stealing, there's just no way you could convince me stealing is wrong no matter what.

Ok, let me make this very clear once and for all, Stealing is against the law, and therefore it's not something I find appropriate for this forum. Piracy is against the law, if we see someone discussing that you're instantly warned, so why should we allow you advocating theft? Makes no sense.


If you disagree with my opinion, or even the law that's fine, feel free to do so but don't bring it up again.