User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 65

  1. #21
    Insert Snarky Quip Here Stigmata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    It's interesting how your sense of morality is so absolute, which in my opinion isn't logical. There's a concept in United States law called mens rea , which essentially means the crime is judged by a person's intent. Perhaps the legal system is more Te/Fi and your thinking is Ti/Fe. Don't know.
    Hmm. Well, rather that pillars of stability, I tend to view morals as flexible principles more or less to which I try to abide by yet are not bound to. I will flex my principles in the event I can both rationalize and justify my means for doing so, yet just because I can justify them I say they weren't morally correct.

  2. #22
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stigmata View Post
    Hmm. Well, rather that pillars of stability, I tend to view morals as flexible principles more or less to which I try to abide by yet are not bound to. I will flex my principles in the event I can both rationalize and justify my means for doing so, yet just because I can justify them I say they weren't morally correct.
    Which means you're a moral absolutist, is what it seems. It strikes me as a rather Victorian mindset, "stealing is always wrong, even if you're dying of hunger and you're in that position because of the actions of other people in the society being unethical fuckwads!" and "lying is always wrong, even if telling the truth means you could be trapped in your abusive situation rather than fleeing a violent captor!"

    It seems extraordinarily simplistic to me. I CAN'T EVEN WRAP MY MIND AROUND IT. IT SEEMS CRUEL AND ILLOGICAL AND COMPLETELY DIVORCED FROM "THE BIG PICTURE."

    I think ethics and morality have depth. Morality and ethics have to be examined for motive, intent, and practical real-world application.

  3. #23
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    weigh need and potential benefit for the stealer versus need and cost for the stealee.

    in general i feel like since people are unfairly born into different circumstances, stealing isn't a very clear moral no-no. it is in the sense of not being kind, but i don't necessarily see it as unfair. though it can be unjust if done improperly. it's all very complicated i think actually

    Quote Originally Posted by GemPOPGem
    E.g For an individual who has taken nothing but crap from the system and been screwed over financially because of it... i'd say hats off if they managed to defraud a multinational out of a million.
    If someone who just didn't give a shit and had no need to steal, stole from a family run corner shop...i'd be very cross.
    exactly.

    though you do have to be careful because sometimes stealing from the "big corp" is actually going to hurt the people at the bottom more than the people at the top.

    i've never really stolen anything of consequence. pen, sheet of paper, etc. i feel like in general i don't really have any justified need to steal.

  4. #24
    Insert Snarky Quip Here Stigmata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    Which means you're a moral absolutist, is what it seems.
    Call it what you will.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    It strikes me as a rather Victorian mindset, "stealing is always wrong, even if you're dying of hunger and you're in that position because of the actions of other people in the society being unethical fuckwads!" and "lying is always wrong, even if telling the truth means you could be trapped in your abusive situation rather than fleeing a violent captor!"
    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    It seems extraordinarily simplistic to me. I CAN'T EVEN WRAP MY MIND AROUND IT. IT SEEMS CRUEL AND ILLOGICAL AND COMPLETELY DIVORCED FROM "THE BIG PICTURE."

    I think ethics and morality have depth. Morality and ethics have to be examined for motive, intent, and practical real-world application.
    Hmm. Well, in your first example, while the person may be dying of hunger which is a perfectly legitimate reason to steal, they are still in fact stealing, regardless of circumstance. I view morality and justification as two separate entities rather than in a position in which one must be complementary of the other. You seem to be saying that circumstance in turn reflects what we call the action, and to a certain extend I agree. If someone attempts to mug you in a dark alley and you in response by shooting them in an act of self-defense, and that person later dies as a result of that, that's a perfectly justifiable reason for doing so and I don't think you should be punished for that, yet despite how you justify it you did in fact kill someone. You seem to have the misconception that I'm viewing this all in a linear fashion that if by acting immorally you should be punished regardless of circumstance, which isn't true at all. I'm just saying that doesn't in turn change the actions from what they are.

    As far as the second one goes, other options exist, they would just produce a result which is than optimal or ideal. You're implying the lack of other options, which I don't agree with.

  5. #25
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stigmata View Post
    Call it what you will.




    Hmm. Well, in your first example, while the person may be dying of hunger which is a perfectly legitimate reason to steal, they are still in fact stealing, regardless of circumstance. I view morality and justification as two separate entities rather than in a position in which one must be complementary of the other. You seem to be saying that circumstance in turn reflects what we call the action, and to a certain extend I agree. If someone attempts to mug you in a dark alley and you in response by shooting them in an act of self-defense, and that person later dies as a result of that, that's a perfectly justifiable reason for doing so and I don't think you should be punished for that, yet despite how you justify it you did in fact kill someone. You seem to have the misconception that I'm viewing this all in a linear fashion that if by acting immorally you should be punished regardless of circumstance, which isn't true at all. I'm just saying that doesn't in turn change the actions from what they are.

    As far as the second one goes, other options exist, they would just produce a result which is than optimal or ideal. You're implying the lack of other options, which I don't agree with.
    The second example I gave in response to Chana is more of a Robin Hood principle and has nothing to do survival stealing.

    Actions aren't immoral, intentions are. This is where you and I disagree, and apparently will continue to disagree.

    It's why I can't follow Christianity or any other religion where it's all like, "okay here are the ten commandments, it's always wrong to lie, to steal, and to be gay." I can't even wrap my head around that kind of thinking.

    It strikes me as Fe because it appears above and beyond to be about simplistic social control, and indeed, social control can create a harmonious society if everyone treats one another fairly, in an ideal world.

    On the other hand, I think there's a great deal of room for cruelty, and for what I personally consider immoral behavior, in that sort of moral absolutism.

    For example, the old lady who believes that sex before marriage is always wrong and throws her daughter out into the street for becoming pregnant out of wedlock, the daughter panics and commits suicide. The mother still feels morally justified in what she did, and then blames the daughter for acting in further immorality by committing suicide.

    In my opinion, the mother is the entity of heinous evil, not the daughter.

    Also, the idea of being a "martyr," people who suffer and die because they refuse to break a commandment. Oh please, give me a break. I can't get with that either, and it's unsurprising to me that martyrdom is most frequently associated with IxFJs (Fe).

    I'm not saying this absolutely is an Fi vs. Fe conflict, but it seems like it. I could be wrong.

    Either way, we shall have to agree to disagree.

  6. #26
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    It's why I can't follow Christianity or any other religion where it's all like, "okay here are the ten commandments, it's always wrong to lie, to steal, and to be gay." I can't even wrap my head around that kind of thinking.
    Except that isn't Judaic-Christian either. At least, "narratively" (rather than legalistically), there are more examples of grey area morals. Take the story of Samson, for example.. a leader of the Jews who was captured by his enemies, blinded, and tied up for public display. The story (far fetched though it may be) ends with him praying to God for one last bit of strength to overcome them. He managed to bust the pillars he was tied to, caving in the entire complex he was in, killing himself and everyone along with him. He's considered a hero.

    Or David, also caught by enemies (although at the time, he was disheveled and they didn't know who he was). He escaped by going "full retard", acting like a crazy man. They thought he was insignificant and let him be. You could interpret this as "lying" for a good purpose.

    Or Rahab the prostitute. She was a resident of the city of Jericho, an enemy state of the Israelites. They had sent spies into the city before they began their siege, who happened to meet this prostitute on accident. She helped them, knowing that they were probably going to win, and was spared once the war began. After that point, she was kind of considered an honorary member of their society.

  7. #27
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    Except that isn't Judaic-Christian either. At least, "narratively" (rather than legalistically), there are more examples of grey area morals. Take the story of Samson, for example.. a leader of the Jews who was captured by his enemies, blinded, and tied up for public display. The story (far fetched though it may be) ends with him praying to God for one last bit of strength to overcome them. He managed to bust the pillars he was tied to, caving in the entire complex he was in, killing himself and everyone along with him. He's considered a hero.

    Or David, also caught by enemies (although at the time, he was disheveled and they didn't know who he was). He escaped by going "full retard", acting like a crazy man. They thought he was insignificant and let him be. You could interpret this as "lying" for a good purpose.

    Or Rahab the prostitute. She was a resident of the city of Jericho, an enemy state of the Israelites. They had sent spies into the city before they began their siege, who happened to meet this prostitute on accident. She helped them, knowing that they were probably going to win, and was spared once the war began. After that point, she was kind of considered an honorary member of their society.
    Good examples. There are countless other ones in the old testament; most people are shocked if they actually read the historical sections in detail, considering all the crazy stuff described there. It's more complicated than people nowadays seem to look at it.

    Other points:
    - Prohibition against teh gay is not in the 10 commandments
    - it's not "lying," it's "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." I.e., accuse him of doing something he didn't do, or not doing something he did do.
    - another popular commandment is "not taking the lord's name in vain" = 'swearing/coarse language,' which also is not true... it's basically putting words in God's mouth, saying he will or will not do something that one doesn't have any special insight on, or else calling on God in every situation blindly, just like the heathens called on their gods as if to give validity to their own oaths. (which is why Jesus said to "let your yay's be yay's, and your nay's be nay's")
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #28
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    Which means you're a moral absolutist, is what it seems. It strikes me as a rather Victorian mindset, "stealing is always wrong, even if you're dying of hunger and you're in that position because of the actions of other people in the society being unethical fuckwads!" and "lying is always wrong, even if telling the truth means you could be trapped in your abusive situation rather than fleeing a violent captor!"

    It seems extraordinarily simplistic to me. I CAN'T EVEN WRAP MY MIND AROUND IT. IT SEEMS CRUEL AND ILLOGICAL AND COMPLETELY DIVORCED FROM "THE BIG PICTURE."
    Think of this way: the starving man is outside your house, which would you prefer him to do? A) Knock on the door and ask you for food because he's starving to death or B) Smash the door down and steal your food.

    As for the lying issue, we have another thread for that, but me and Nicodemus seem to agree that the preferred option in such a situation is to simply refuse to answer.

  9. #29
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Concerning lying and the classic "murderer at your door" scenario:
    The natural law theorist is NOT saying that you are obliged to tell the murderer where his intended victim is. In fact you are obliged not to tell him. The claim is rather that it is wrong to resort to lying, specifically, as a way of avoiding telling him. You could instead say nothing, or try to distract him, or say something that is vague or ambiguous or subtly off-topic but not untrue. You could threaten him, since he is himself threatening someone under your protection. Indeed, you can do more than threaten him if you are certain that his attempt at murder is imminent. You can punch his lights out, or even kill him if that is the only way to save your own life or that of the person you are hiding. This would be self-defense, and thus not murder. There is no question whatsoever here of your having a duty to sit back and let him do what he wants. The claim is only that it would be wrong to lie. And even if you did lie to him, the claim is not that you would have done something seriously wrong. You would be guilty of at most a venial sin, given the circumstances. So, things are hardly as dire as critics of the view might think.

    http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010...r-at-door.html
    Which helps show a larger point that there are other options involved in such scenarios people. You're not trapped with a simple either/or dilemma in most situations like this. As I mentioned above, the starving man has the option of asking people for food, and certainly within Biblical morality you would be obligated to provide some care for the man. Think of the parable of the Good Samaritain as a famous example. Plus nomadic tribes in the region(both then and now) have traditions of hospitality towards strangers in need of food and water, since it's a matter of life or death in the desert.

  10. #30
    ¡MI TORTA! Amethyst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 so/sx
    Socionics
    SLE Ti
    Posts
    2,182

    Default

    I'm not entirely against stealing, depending on who you're stealing from.


    Stealing from a Wal-Mart isn't the same as stealing from a Ma and Pa shop. Just my own opinion.

Similar Threads

  1. testing karma and trying to see if the universe is fair!
    By jcloudz in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-19-2012, 02:01 PM
  2. [JCF] All is fair in love and war?
    By Hate in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 05-28-2010, 06:26 AM
  3. Why is it unfair that you are not female/male?
    By nolla in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 11-28-2008, 04:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO