Parrothead

Rose and company, today is Mrs. Parrothead's and my anniversary. We have been goofing off here for a bit but we are off for dinner, cigars, and whatever mischief we can conjure up.

SockPuppet

7 pages... I only read page 1.

I dont think most people understand the meaning ofthe word moral. My W doesnt. I asked some of my friends (because Im reading Plato's The Republic) and none of them could follow the discussion and it was eventually dropped.

Everyone has their right to personal morals. We are all individuals and raised differently. No way around it... Maybe fascism would work at forcing preffered morals down our throats.

The other problem I see is how you pick on us secular individuals. I find the idea of right and wrong to be a bit silly, especially in regards to these things. There is, and there is not. Taking context into consideration one persons actions could be seen in either light.

As far as morals are conserned I dont think there can ever be an Absolute truth. There are far too many americans for anyone to impose a set of absolute morals that doesnt piss people off. Besides, since the dawn of time mankind has always been quite happy with doing a little bad for greater benefit. But thats not moral is it?

nice777guy

Happy anniversary! Stay safe...

nice777guy

Wanted to say congrats btw...always great to hear a happy ending around here.

RoseRed

Happy Anniversary!

God Bless you both!

RoseRed

Please know that I am addressing this as a calm thoughtful person... In no way a personal attack...


Morals are based upon truth... there is no context to be considered. In our huge mortal experience, there are alot of grey areas, but the fundamental moral code is black and white. It is the 'right vs. wrong'.

Just as an example I will use one that I am familiar with, one of the ten commandments... (and this moral is found in other religious realms too)

"You shall not steal" (Exodus 20:15 NKJ)

Meaning you shall not steal. PERIOD...There is no other context to consider... There cannot exist "I do not steal in general, but I am allowed to steal in certain circumstances"

There is no if, ands or buts about it!

That is the moral plain and simple...

Now its application to an ethical code... that is the human societal effect.

A man of a homeless family stole a loaf of bread because he was destitute.

If he has the mind that he is allowed to steal because he thinks the store, and the store owner wouldn't know the difference that the loaf of bread is gone, or that he deserves the loaf of bread because the storeowner is rich and he is poor.

If the man in his mind, knows that he is doing wrong, but out of desparation and his pride prevents him to going to a soup kitchen, steals the bread.

It is up to the courts.. justice must be served, he stole, its against the law, and he shall be punished... to determine the scale of punishment. This is all born out of MOTIVE of the man. It is the courts duty to administer the correct judgement.

I am intrigued by your comment of doing a little bad for the greater benefit. WHO'S BENEFIT????

Cheating on an exam so that you can pass with flying colors, but you don't really know the material... where is the benefit in that?? All that happens is you get a good grade, you still don't understand the material, and then the next level course you are even MORE lost in understanding the course material because you don't understand the fundamentals. If anything you have caused yourself great harm!

I would love to hear from you a positive example of this 'little bad for the greater benefit'.

tacoma

Rosered,

I`ve used stealing as a way to teach my daughter that morals are indeed subjective.

After Hurricane Katrina an interesting video clip appeared on the web.

The first portion was a man wading through waist deep water with four brand new pairs of Nikes still in the box and a case of beer in his arms.Obviously stolen goods.
His action was immoral according to my secular standards.

The last part of the video was a woman wading through the same waist deep water.
She had a toddler on her hip, a 2-3 year old on a raft and a young teen pulling the raft which held a box of diapers, a case of baby formula, and 4 boxes of cereal as well as the 2-3 year old.

I don`t find her actions immoral considering the sanitation/food/shelter situation immediately after the floods came as well as the lack of knowledge about when help would arrive.

It was a perfect opportunity to give my then very young daughter a lesson on why morality is indeed subjective and not black & white.

According to my standards starving children is a far greater "sin" than taking product from Walmart that is going to be paid for in the insurance settlement anyway.

RoseRed

I must admit that I am saddened by your response...

In both cases theft occurred, motives were different.

Case 1) nike shoe theft... purely selfish motive... does not see the wrong of his action.

Case 2) desparate times, desparate measures, the motive was for the perservation of her and her childrens lives.

The justice for each case would be different...

But saying its alright to steal and then let the insurance pay for her bad act is insane!! Why should the insurance company pay for her immorality???

Would it not be the right thing to do for the woman, after the crisis was well over, approach WalMart and say, "I stole these items for the survival of my family in such an overwhelming circumstance, and now I think it right that I should pay you for these items I took." To acknowledge that in desparation she had to do in such a life or death circumstance but fully accepts that what she did was wrong and wishes to make it right. More than likely WalMart would be so moved in mercy and forgive her transgression...that they would show compassion.

Doesn't matter that the insurance company would write off the whole store and contents anyways... The insurance was BOUGHT by WalMart and now the write off.. the store and contents are OWNED by the insurance company to salvage. ... oh... but wait.. perhaps insurance wouldn't cover that... it was a natural disaster.. depends on the corporate policy.

Ok... lets change the scenerio a bit something closer to home for the situation you describe.

You are away from your house, lets say on vacation, and there was a big storm and your window got smashed in. A family is caught in the weather, cold, hungry and miserable and desparate enters your house, because they know it is empty, eats all the food in your fridge and pantry, takes clothes from you and your childrens closets and then leaves. All this was caught on your home security video tape and when you got home you see all the evidence by the empty fridge and pantry, your closet missing items.

What would you do??? How would you feel?? Do you think what they did was right? moral?

Of course you would call the police, report the incident to your insurance company.

The police find and apprehend the family, they feel what they did was right, they feel no remorse... thinking your insurance company would cover it...

Oh... maybe since it was a storm, and your window got broken by natural causes which led to an insecure premises... the insurance company does not pay out...its up to you to use your money to refill the fridge and pantry, to buy new clothes for you and your family.

How would you feel?? what would you do???

tacoma

Well I think you`re putting too much emphasis on my "insurance" remark.

I also don`t think your analogy is even close to equal to the woman's plight in the flood as it seems to me she took even less than what she needed(I would have had a case of bottled water on the raft as well) Where the family you noted simply went to excess in utilizing the house break.(Eating everything, stealing, when it was entirely unecessary)

The only point I`m trying to get at is that these two thefts(The guy with the beer and the woman with the kids) are not equal.
The situation isn`t black and white and each should be considered and judged by the circumstances that surround them.

It would be incredibly unjust to state that "All theft is the same and will be punished the same" in a black and white manner when they obviously aren`t the same.

That`s really my only point.
Morality is not objective, if it were the world would be an ugly horrible terrifying place that I would have checked myself out of long ago.

RoseRed

I did say that justice is subjective... The metting of punishment would be variable depending on the situation and remorse of the guilty.... mercy is in the hands of the courts... (and in my mind God too) however the moral is not...

I do not see how you cannot equate the two... the family that entered your house was desparate... in their eyes just as desparate as what you mentioned in the Katrina video example....

When you brought up the notion of the insurance company will pay for WalMarts loses is quite telling of perhaps your train of thought...

How is it that if it affects a huge corporation, do you think it can 'suck up' any loses? How is that any different from you personally...

Why is there a subjective morality shift just because it doesn't affect you personally???

tacoma

In my mind, if the justice is subjective because of the circumstances that led to the behavior then the moral that judges the behavior is indeed subjective as well.
It`s seems obvious to me that the woman in the video was "less wrong" than the man.

I cannot equate the two because the woman in my story only took what she needed (less actually) while the people in your house took far more than they needed, they took "all" the food and clothing when all they needed was shelter.
They were not nearly as desperate as the woman with three kids in the midst of the flooding of New Orleans.

It`s only "telling" if you project your own ideas onto my reasoning.
If you have read my posts in this thread you`ll see that I base my moral foundation on the simple edict "Cause as little violation as possible."
The violation caused to Walmart by the womans actions was minuscule in ordinary circumstances.
It becomes almost non-existent during the flooding of New Orleans.

Again, this is your misperception of my intent and not my actual intent.

I haven`t a clue where you would get this idea.
I have clearly and distinctly stated what founds and drives my morality more than once in this thread.

Excuse me, I need to go recharge my battery, the tingling pain is beginning to subside.

SockPuppet

I appreciate that. Personally attacking an anonymous person on the internet is kind of rude in my books :P I kid, I kid. Just for future reference, I state my opinions, but they are always up for change


These absolutes may have served us well in the past, but todays society is increasingly complex in comparison. I will however agree with the premise of the article posted by ParrotFace, in that, society would be better off with an adopted fundamental moral code, and that most people, not just the youth, don’t understand or follow any moral compass… or so it would seem according to the mainstream media and my personal experiences.

Morals are based upon truth. Truth is what we learn as we grow and experience new things. It is usually false truth that gets so many people in trouble and into these forums. I see no possible way in which we could prevent people from spreading false truth, and therefore I see no way in which an absolute truth or fundamental morality can ever be in reality.

I draw the conclusion, as per my previous post, “everyone has the right to personal morals.”

I am not opposed to hiding my atheist beliefs to continue the conversation. As I see it, the only way for there to exist an absolute truth under the guise of morals, is with the existence of (a) God. A being/presence that far exceeds our own who can pass down morals and the absolutes of right vs. wrong.

I would consider how we treat the majority of our livestock to be cruel, disgusting and immoral. Google can do a better job than I at explaining the benefit of having an abundant and cheap meat supply.

RoseRed

Before you hit the battery... just one last thought if you would so indulge me...

Taking your New Orleans woman in the Katrina crisis...

What if... you lived in New Orleans, and you and your family boarded up your house and evacuated.

You saw on the news that the video, however instead of Walmart, it was your house. She broke into your house and stole what she thought she would need... so with such a disaster, it was all your food in your pantry, fridge, and took clothes from your and your childrens closets. And we all know insurance wouldn't cover your home.

How would you feel? What would you do? Do you think your moral would be different? Would you not feel violated? Would you not think it wrong? I simply ask you think of your childrens reaction once they came home to find their clothes missing BEFORE you informed them of what had happened. How do you think they would instinctually feel? Hurt? Violated? Sad?

Is stealing from Walmart less wrong than stealing from you?

If so, why?

I am purely curious to your reasoning.


If we have each individual determining what is more right and less wrong... we as a society will come into chaos.

You have a dog. It is the beloved family pet... you and your children love him dearly...The fence that divides the the backyard with your neighbour is on your neighbours side. Your dog likes to dig... and he digs under your neighbours fence and starts eating your neighbours petunias. Your neighbour shoots the dog for eating his prized petunias. If morals are all personally subjective... who's morals are right and who's are wrong?

tacoma

I don`t believe we can come to an understanding of each other here and the reason is quite ironic.
We won`t cometo an agreement because we both look at morality differently.

You see morality in black and white while my morality is based on a scale of harm/violation.
To you all stealing is wrong regardless of the reason for the theft.
To me there are circumstances where stealing is morally preferable to not stealing if the theft causes less violation and harm than not stealing would.
In the case of my NO woman with the children the theft of $50.00 worth of baby food and diapers is less harmful than the starvation and sickness that would come without the theft.

If my house was ransacked by one individual in the manner you describe it would more closely fit the scenario of the man with the Nikes and beer than it would the woman with the children.
I`ve already stated I believe this to be immoral.

However if I saw video of this woman leaving my house wading through the water with a few boxes of my food and some clothing for her children I wouldn`t even attempt to pursue prosecution.
In fact I`d refuse to press charges if the authorities asked me to.
It would be immoral for me to wish to punish a woman who was doing nothing but trying to keep her children alive and healthy in a horrible situation.

Again, it has nothing to do with who she took the stuff from and everything to do with "What is the route of least violation?"


I have repeatedly stated my reasoning.
It seems you don`t wish to acknowledge it and keep fishing for something that`s not there.

But this is exactly what we have.
I believe if we have every individual holding to an inflexible black and white dogmatic morality THAT would cause chaos.

According to my moral standard of "Cause the least violation possible" my neighbor would be in the wrong.
He would be wrong because he caused more violation than necessary.
He would have killed a sentient creature over some plants.
To choose killing in a situation that could be easily fixed with a discussion is indeed immoral.

As an aside..

Last night my wife and I went to Home Depot and purchased $136.00 worth of lumber and small hardware fixtures.
While she paid I went to pull my truck up to the front doors to load the lumber.

When I had removed a number of 2x4`s from the lumber cart she found $20.00 worth of small hardware fixtures that were hidden under the boards, the cashier never saw them or scanned them, we hadn`t paid for them.
In fact her exact words when she found them were "Oh, I stold these!"
I told her to go pay for them.

Home Depot is a pretty large corporation with a lot of money.

I wonder why I did that?

nice777guy

I get what both of you are saying, but this statement is hard to argue with.

If the woman in the video was taking necessities from my boarded up, dry home, I wouldn't consider it to be stealing.