I like Kohlberg as a first cut to determine where people are coming from, even if they don't know :^)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development
Kohlberg used moral dilemmas to determine which stage of moral reasoning a person uses. The dilemmas are short stories that describe situations in which a person has to make a moral decision, yet they provide no solution. The participant is asked what the right course of action is, as well as an explanation why.
A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug-for his wife.
Should Heinz break into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
Stage one (obedience): Heinz should not steal the medicine, because he will consequently be put in prison.
Stage two (self-interest): Heinz should steal the medicine, because he will be much happier if he saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence.
Stage three (conformity): Heinz should steal the medicine, because his wife expects it; he wants to be a good husband.
Stage four (law-and-order): Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the law prohibits stealing making it illegal.
Stage five (human rights): Heinz should steal the medicine, because everyone has a right to choose life, regardless of the law. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the scientist has a right to fair compensation.
Stage six (universal human ethics): Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because others may need the medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant.
Even more ethical considerations...
- Thread starter JerryS
- Start date
- Status
Thankfully, no such difficult moral dilemmas in the original fact pattern here. It involves a theft of information that does nothing more than shift a financial leverage advantage from one party (the victim of the theft) to another (the thief and his peers). We can debate all day long about the right and wrong of the employer making use of this info for its benefit (which surely it does), but that doesn't provide an excuse for stealing the info so that someone else can enjoy a financial advantage.
Quote:
Sorry Jerry - I'm solidly with Win on this one. Let's see how convincing you find all this "philosophy" when you suddenly find that some "ownership-concept-challenged" citizen (more commonly known as a thief) has taken from you something that you worked long and hard to save the money to purchase. It seems like it's pretty easy for you to spin pseudo-sophisticated arguments about other peoples' things. Somehow, I'm thinking your perspective will change when you wake up one day and find that some thug has helped himself to a few thousand dollars worth of your stuff. . .
Quote:I find both of your critiques unconvincing. I don’t think you could stick your hand in a hat and pull out a solid philosophy that proposed to shield you from disappointment or anger as the result of being victimized. Quite the contrary in my case; I’m saying the values you hold are of paramount importance. You should be mad as a hornet (if you have any zeal for life) when what you want is taken from you. One of the supreme advantages in this worldview is that you are operating on the assumption that people would likely want the things you have (unless one of those things only suits some bizarre fetish of yours). Perhaps it even makes it a little easier when you take one up the pooper if you can see where the other guy is coming from. If my life had been free of loss and disappointment, it would have been at least partially because I’d have had the skill and intuition to make it so. My life has not been sunshine and roses. I have played both the “victim” and the “victimizer” in my days on this earth, and I think my experiences have aided in constructing a practical perspective for myself. And at present, I earn what little money I make fair and square, thank you very much. “I am not a crook”. I work with people and I work against people, but I do not work for people. I value and enjoy my life, and I would expect no less from any other reasonable creature. As apparently uncommon as this worldview is, it’s no small wonder that people should think it a rare compliment that I view them worthy enough to pursue what they feel is important. The aim of philosophy is to clarify our understanding of the world around us, help us lead fuller lives by finding ideals, and building means to attain them — not construct pie-in-the-sky fantasies that make us feel TEMPORARILY better about our vulnerable condition. If the whole of nature is deserving of any adjective, it is “amoral”. I do not and cannot apologize for that being unsettling to anyone. I find it intimidating myself sometimes. However, I’m not subjecting myself to the unwarranted rule of some soothing sophist’s moral dictates and I’m not placing my bets on the expectation that every resident of my social network will either. I know who’s giving those orders: my enemy. It’s a call to lay down my arms and let them extract the passion out of me (the undertones of this post are decidedly homo-erotic...), even if they mean well. My member status in the Homo sapiens club of Illinois guarantees the existence of a system of achievement-oriented compulsions in my beautifully sculpted physique, and I’m under the impression that I use what is commonly understood as my “free will” to manipulate these drives to expend their energy towards a pleasurable existence for myself. At the same time, I am looking to work with those that share my same values in the hopes of a better end than I could achieve on my own. I am more than willing to discuss my plan for action with those that have scrutinized my beliefs and found them lacking, and more than willing to listen to those who have gone before me. I do not know everything. I do not always make decisions that I like the results of. Sometimes I’m just too tired to give a ________. But unless those people trying to persuade me can produce a decent reason for me to change my way of life; I can only assume that they are acting in their own interests just the way I would expect them to. Perhaps the poorly focused condemnation in your first point was due to the fact that for all the verbal cartwheels you saw me doing to celebrate the validity of other people’s desires; you forgot that the one writing it believed the same thing about his. Adios.
Thankfully, no such difficult moral dilemmas in the original fact pattern here. It involves a theft of information that does nothing more than shift a financial leverage advantage from one party (the victim of the theft) to another (the thief and his peers). We can debate all day long about the right and wrong of the employer making use of this info for its benefit (which surely it does), but that doesn't provide an excuse for stealing the info so that someone else can enjoy a financial advantage.
Oh Jerry, come now. . .
Let’s peel this onion back some. The numbered statements are from your last.
1. “I don’t think you could stick your hand in a hat and pull out a solid philosophy that proposed to shield you from disappointment or anger as the result of being victimized. ”
True, but why would I need one? Anger and disappointment are but two generally proper feelings in response to being victimized in some fashion. The real issue here, however, is the question of excusing the victimizer (here, a thief) from moral and legal accountability for his crimes. By the way, seeing a criminal punished for his crimes often goes a long way to mitigating the pain of being victimized.
2. “Perhaps it even makes it a little easier when you take one up the ****** if you can see where the other guy is coming from. ”
No. Again, you’re offering excuses for people who commit crimes and hurt other people. If someone steals from me, I don’t care why they did it, I want restitution and I want them punished. If some thug steals your kid’s new bicycle that she’d been wanting for months, will you comfort her by encouraging her to see things from the crook’s perspective?????
3. “ ’I am not a crook’. ”
OK, I’m willing to presume this. But you do have a do have a disturbing tendency to offer excuses for crooks!
4. “it’s no small wonder that people should think it a rare compliment that I view them worthy enough to pursue what they feel is important.”
. . .but then, having attained whatever it is that “they” feel is important, it’s then OK for me to steal whatever it was they were pursuing???
5. “The aim of philosophy is to clarify our understanding of the world around us, help us lead fuller lives by finding ideals, and building means to attain them — not construct pie-in-the-sky fantasies that make us feel TEMPORARILY better about our vulnerable condition. ”
Philosophy can also be misused to make the very simple appear to be extraordinarily complex. The original situation that Mike posted was very simple. It involved one person stealing something of value from another, for no reason other than to gain economic advantage for himself. No sick kids to save, no nuclear bombs to diffuse, no greater good served at all. The situation is no different than if the boss had left his wallet on his desk and the protagonist had decided to help himself to the cash. You can philosophize that all day long, but it still boils down to one thing – cold, calculated, premeditated theft.
6. “If the whole of nature is deserving of any adjective, it is “amoral”. ”
Of course, that’s true of “nature” generally. Last I checked though, humans set higher standards for themselves. It’s that whole “society with laws” thing. Yes, I’m irritated when a squirrel takes seed from my bird feeder. No, I don’t consider it the same when a crook steals my wallet or car. For the former situation, I purchase a squirrel-proof feeder because I understand squirrels will be squirrels. For the latter, I call the cops, because the thief needs to go to jail.
7. “I know who’s giving those orders: my enemy. It’s a call to lay down my arms and let them extract the passion out of me (the undertones of this post are decidedly homo-erotic...), even if they mean well.”
Would that fly as a justification for the actions of the thief who steals from your kids? (“I’m sorry Jane, Thuggo took your new bike, but that’s OK, because he wanted to, and he doesn’t have to follow the rules because the rules make him feel oppressed, and he doesn’t like the people who made the rules. . .”)
8. “I can only assume that they are acting in their own interests just the way I would expect them to.”
No problem with that. I just temper it with the realization that my right to swing my arms ends at the beginning of your nose.
I trust I’ve brought things into sharper focus. . .
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,800
Last I checked though, humans set higher standards for themselves.
Hmm...I tend to think that every human sets higher standards for society ..but have no such strict adherence to those standards themselves.
As a parallel (for reference)
A society that has one segment perpetually in poverty "owes" something to fix the condition.
I personally owe nothing.
..and for the most part ..in varying degrees ..I think that the fear of punishment is more an influence then any personal ethics/tenets/etc.
G-Man himself said that if he violated his code of ethinics ..he'd be punished in peer review. Eliminate the consequences ..how do we know that the ethical behavior would be adhered to on its own merit??
We don't. Hence there's no seperating "self interests" in the mix there.
Shoot Gary, such a dark view of the world!
I have yet to meet a fellow human who is either perfect or not a hypocrite. I am certainly no exception. Degrees of hypocrisy certainly vary, with some people unquestionably falling into the group you describe. Equally as clearly, plenty of others don’t.
Punishment, or the fear thereof, is but one force that tends to “encourage” compliance with “the rules.” Your argument on this just isn’t that persuasive. There are plenty of folks who very deliberately choose to do “bad things” irrespective of the probability (or even certainty) of punishment (hence, my job security...). It is also clear that many people will do the right thing even if no one is watching and even if they find themselves confronted by a temptation in a situation where they know they would not be caught if they gave it and broke the rules. If I found your cash-packed wallet, do you presume that I’d just pocket it, and its contents, for myself? We could certainly debate the ratio of “wallet returners” to “wallet keepers” there are out there, and I’m guessing we’d disagree about that.
We can an also debate the substance, the right and wrong, and the efficacy of “the rules” (our laws, regulations, ordinances, social expectations, etc.). While “the rules” are far from perfect, would you really prefer a world with no standards?
Quote:Alas Gary, I’m afraid that the IRS might take issue with that. Sorry, I couldn’t let that one pass!
I personally owe nothing.
Punishment, or the fear thereof, is but one force that tends to “encourage” compliance with “the rules.” Your argument on this just isn’t that persuasive. There are plenty of folks who very deliberately choose to do “bad things” irrespective of the probability (or even certainty) of punishment (hence, my job security...). It is also clear that many people will do the right thing even if no one is watching and even if they find themselves confronted by a temptation in a situation where they know they would not be caught if they gave it and broke the rules. If I found your cash-packed wallet, do you presume that I’d just pocket it, and its contents, for myself? We could certainly debate the ratio of “wallet returners” to “wallet keepers” there are out there, and I’m guessing we’d disagree about that.
We can an also debate the substance, the right and wrong, and the efficacy of “the rules” (our laws, regulations, ordinances, social expectations, etc.). While “the rules” are far from perfect, would you really prefer a world with no standards?- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,800
Well, let's refer back to G-Man's assertions.
)
Quote:Taken on its own weight doesn't that seem to indicate ..or (at least a) "may be implied"..that the self interest(s) was/were trumped by fear of punishment? And this is one of our most learned and allegedly highly socialized members. But generally I agree with your real world assesment ..at least at this time. I'm the type that would leave a wallet intact and attempt to return it too its owner. I don't need gain at the point of someone else's misery or hardship ...however ..we are shown this exact same behavior on a more society wide level ..and are told to accept it in civil obedience. Most of us are selectively antisocial ...in fact we all are. Not one of us doesn't rationalize our existance in some manner. We just never view ourselves as defective. We tend to look in the mirror and see that the person looking back is A-O'kay (cough-cough
Example: I can think of situations where it would be the moral thing to do for me to violate my ethical obligation of attorney/client confidentiality. But I cannot go before the bar and argue that it was really the ethical thing to do. I operate within an ethical framework imposed by the bar and I can't get around that by claiming some other ethical standard is paramount. It doesn't work that way. I can always fall back on morality, but when it comes to ethics, the standard is objective and one has to face the consequences of violating that standard.
)EKPolk, and Gary..
Not that it means much coming from little old formerly Squid -me, but as always: 
Polk, ya shoulda been a Professor..
But we're lucky you're Lawyerin' for us.. 
Polk, ya shoulda been a Professor..
But we're lucky you're Lawyerin' for us.. Quote:You’re leaving out one important detail in the nature of this beast. When you act, you’re not just acting on your external environment; you’re also acting on yourself. You also ought to keep in mind the deeply entwined relationship between temporal and latent reinforcement/punishment. Let me crack open my copy of Republic :
G-Man himself said that if he violated his code of ethinics ..he'd be punished in peer review. Eliminate the consequences ..how do we know that the ethical behavior would be adhered to on its own merit??
Quote:He goes on to list three proofs. Assume very little of the thoughts of yours truly on other concepts published in this text, but here I find myself in sympathy with the writer. At the end of the second, the two men conclude:
And suppose the same ________, who carried him away, to surround him with neighbors who will not suffer one man to be the master of another, and who, if they could catch the offender, would take his life? His case would still be worse, if you suppose him to be everywhere surrounded and watched by enemies. And is not this the sort of prison in which the tyrant will be bound — he who being by nature such as we have described, is full of all sorts of fears and lusts? His soul is dainty and greedy, and yet alone, of all men in the city, he is never allowed to go on a journey, or to see the things which other free men desire to see, but he lives in his hole like a woman hidden in the house, and is jealous of any other citizen who goes into foreign parts and sees anything of interest. “Very true”, he said. And by virtue of evils such as these, will not he who is ill-governed in his own person — the tyrannical man, I mean — whom you now just decided to be the most miserable of all — will not he be yet more miserable when, instead of leading a private life, he is constrained by fortune to be a public tyrant? He has to be master of others when he is not master of himself: he is like a diseased or paralytic man who is compelled to pass his life, not in retirement, but fighting and combating with other men. Is not his case utterly miserable? And does not the actual tyrant lead a worse life than he whose life you determined to be the worst? “Certainly”. He who is the real tyrant, whatever men may think, is the real slave, and is obliged to practice the greatest adulation and servility, and to be the flatterer of the vilest of mankind. He has desires which he is utterly unable to satisfy, and has more wants than anyone, and is truly poor, if you know how to inspect the whole soul of him: all his life long he is beset with fear and is full of convulsions and distractions, even as the State which he resembles: surely the resemblance holds? “Very true”, he said. Moreover, as we were saying before, he grows worse from having power: he becomes and is of necessity more jealous, more faithless, more unjust, more friendless, more impious, than he was at first; he is the purveyor and cherisher of every sort of vice, and the consequence is that he is supremely miserable, and that he makes everybody else as miserable as himself. “No man of any sense will dispute your words”. Come then, I said, and as the general umpire in theatrical contests proclaims the result, do you also decide who in your opinion is first in happiness, and who second, and in what order the others follow: there are five of them in all — they are the royal, timocratical, oligarchical, democratical, tyrannical. The decision will be easily given, he replied; they shall be choruses coming on the stage, and I must judge them in the order in which they enter, by criterion of virtue and vice, happiness and misery. (9.579 - 9.580b)
Quote:
Then, I said, reflect. Of the three individuals, which has the greatest experience of all the pleasures which we enumerated? Has the lover of gain, in learning the nature of essential truth, greater experience of the pleasure of knowledge than the philosopher has of the pleasure of gain? “The philosopher”, he replied, “has greatly the advantage; for he has of necessity always known the taste of the other pleasures from his childhood upward: but the lover of gain in all his experience has not of necessity tasted — or should I rather say, even had he desired, could hardly have tasted — the sweetness of learning and knowing truth”. Then the lover of wisdom has a great advantage over the lover of gain, for he has a double experience? “Yes, very great”. Again, has he greater experience of the pleasures of honor, or the lover of honor of the pleasures of wisdom? “Nay”, he said, “all three are honored in proportion as they attain their object; for the rich man and the brave man and the wise man alike have their crowd of admirers, and as they all receive honor they all have experience of the pleasures of honor; but the delight which is found in the knowledge of true being is known to the philosopher only”. His experience, then, will enable him to judge better than anyone? “Far better”. And he is the only one who has wisdom as well as experience? “Certainly. Further, the very faculty which is the instrument of judgment is not possessed by the covetous or ambitious man, but only by the philosopher?” What faculty? “Reason, with whom, as we were saying, the decision ought to rest”. Yes. And reasoning is peculiarly his instrument? “Certainly. If wealth and gain were the criterion, then the praise or blame of the lover of gain would surely be the most trustworthy?” Assuredly. “Or if honor, or victory, or courage, in that case the judgment of the ambitious or pugnacious would be the truest?” Clearly. “But since experience and wisdom and reason are the judges — the only inference possible”, he replied, “is that pleasures which are approved by the lover of wisdom and reason are the truest. And so we arrive at the result, that the pleasure of the intelligent part of the soul is the pleasantest of the three, and that he of us in whom this is the ruling principle has the pleasantest life. "Unquestioningly”, he said, “the wise man speaks with authority when he approves of his own life”. And what does the judge affirm to be the life which is next, and the pleasure which is next? “Clearly that of the soldier and the lover of honor; who is nearer to himself than the money-maker”. Last comes the lover of gain? “Very true”, he said. Twice in succession, then, has the just man overthrown the unjust in this conflict; and now comes the third trial, which is dedicated to Olympian Zeus the savior: a sage whispers in my ear that no pleasure except that of the wise is quite true and pure — all others are a shadow only; and surely this will prove the greatest and most decisive of falls? “Yes, the greatest; but will you explain yourself?” I will work out the subject and you shall answer my questions. “Proceed”... (9.582 – 9.583b)
Quote:*long, slow pause* Again, you should be mad as a hornet (if you have any zeal for life) when what you want is taken from you. I am NOT vomiting some argument for ethical chaos. What I am espousing is that there are real, fundamental reasons why we desire one behavior over another that many men agree upon. In recognizing this, presumably, we construct laws which the ANTICIPATION of effective enforcement thereof provide incentives or deterrents for certain types of behavior in the further recognition that the reasons for why one should or should not act in a certain way are not always overtly clear. [Ever potty-train a child?] We give the less shrewd among us (and ourselves) a little “help” along in the form of punishment and reinforcement until they can understand the truth behind those behaviors having value in and of themselves. However: if by some product of chemical arrangement, a person is unable to find pleasurable pursing the values of the common man, you are in no position to convince him otherwise. Your values are in COMPETITION with the behavior of this man. You need not concern yourself with tolerating his behavior unless you desire to be trampled. It is also quite possible to make a very grievous error in assuming what another person desires or needs your "help" in achieving when constructing these laws unless you are omniscient. It is also quite possible that a law and the threat of its enforcement can be conspired by a considerably smaller group of men whose only (or greater) goal is to rape the life of another individual or group of individuals. Again, if you are one of these individuals, you are in COMPETITION with the behavior of these men, and you ought to be under no obligation whatsoever to comply with their wishes. (Though you indeed may be, and if these men are clever, there may also be any number of deceitful methods they apply to accomplish their goal: e.g. manufacturing social pressure to conform. You may be forced to compromise if you do not possess the skills needed to achieve your goal that is in competition with theirs. A clever enemy will exploit your weaknesses.)
Would that fly as a justification for the actions of the thief who steals from your kids? (“I’m sorry Jane, Thuggo took your new bike, but that’s OK, because he wanted to, and he doesn’t have to follow the rules because the rules make him feel oppressed, and he doesn’t like the people who made the rules. . .”)
Quote:**equally long pause back...** So, after your daughter has saved the money she made selling Girl Scout cookies (or however), she purchases a bike for herself, and it's still merely something she wants??? You're that hard over against the concept of letting someone "own" something? Yes indeed, we are in competition with a substantial number of folks who desire to follow their own "law." I don't intend to lose the "competition" with these folks. If they don't like the rules the way they are, let them go to Washington or their state capitals and press for change as any of us can. In the meantime, I really prefer to call their "competition" by its more accurate name -- crime. But let's revisit the original fact pattern for a moment. I have yet to see a convincing justification for someone taking something that isn't theirs to take, and using it for their own personal benefit, while such use actually hurts the true owner. At least you conceded that your daughter could be angry when the neighborhood thug steals her bike (oh wait, not hers, just something she "wants"...). Why should the owner or owners of the company involved be any less angry at having their "stuff" stolen? And why is anger the appropriate emotion, as you agreed? Because the act causing the anger is wrong (both morally and criminally, in both instances).
(...snip...)Quote:*long, slow pause* Again, you should be mad as a hornet (if you have any zeal for life) when what you want is taken from you. (emphasis added). I am NOT vomiting some argument for ethical chaos. What I am espousing is that there are real, fundamental reasons why we desire one behavior over another that many men agree upon. In recognizing this, presumably, we construct laws which the ANTICIPATION of effective enforcement thereof provide incentives or deterrents for certain types of behavior in the further recognition that the reasons for why one should or should not act in a certain way are not always overtly clear. [Ever potty-train a child?] We give the less shrewd among us (and ourselves) a little “help” along in the form of punishment and reinforcement until they can understand the truth behind those behaviors having value in and of themselves. However: if by some product of chemical arrangement, a person is unable to find pleasurable pursing the values of the common man, you are in no position to convince him otherwise. Your values are in COMPETITION with the behavior of this man. You need not concern yourself with tolerating his behavior unless you desire to be trampled. (...snip...)
Would that fly as a justification for the actions of the thief who steals from your kids? (“I’m sorry Jane, Thuggo took your new bike, but that’s OK, because he wanted to, and he doesn’t have to follow the rules because the rules make him feel oppressed, and he doesn’t like the people who made the rules. . .”)
"I have yet to see a convincing justification for someone taking something that isn't theirs to take, and using it for their own personal benefit, while such use actually hurts the true owner."
I haven't seen a good case yet for taking and sharing the salary data in the original question, but do allow for others to justify their actions in other cases. In the example where Heinz stole the drug, one justification that I've run across is that not only is it wrong to sacrifice a life for a profit motive, but the person would steal the drug openly so that others in his situation might benefit from his actions.
What about illegally boarding a ship to throw someone else's tea overboard :^)
Quote:Call it whatever you want, seriously. Whether she “owns” or “possesses” it, it can still be stolen. Whether she “owns” or “possesses” it, it can still break. Whether she “owns” or “possesses” it, she may not want it later. Whether she “owns” or “possesses” it, it is still under her power to use and enjoy as she sees fit. There are only two functional differences between “owning” and “possessing”. The first one is the result of convincing yourself there’s a difference, whatever that result may be (e.g. an inflated sense of security regarding the permanence of your possession of that object). The second one is the result of convincing other people that there’s a difference (e.g. making it a taboo of sorts to steal, and thus making your possession less likely to be stolen). Try and think of another difference.
So, after your daughter has saved the money she made selling Girl Scout cookies (or however), she purchases a bike for herself, and it's still merely something she wants??? You're that hard over against the concept of letting someone "own" something?
Quote:That’s certainly one option you have; might be worth a shot.
If they don't like the rules the way they are, let them go to Washington or their state capitals and press for change as any of us can.
Quote:“What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet...”
In the meantime, I really prefer to call their "competition" by its more accurate name -- crime.
Quote:Read my above post on “possession”. Nothing in this world is not “yours to take” unless you have convinced yourself it isn’t, or you are literally unable to take it (same thing in a way I suppose). I’m not automatically “excusing” or “justifying” (if by which you mean tolerating or approving of) anything. I’m providing an explanation for their selfishness, and saying that this selfishness is supremely valid. So is mine. So is yours. It makes sense for something to try and protect its own existence. You have the ability to do a lot of things that you “ought not” to do. But the only reason you “ought not” to do them is because they aren’t going to make you happy or reduce your pain. Perhaps the reason you’re fighting this is because you don’t realize the vast number of behaviors popularly perceived as “unethical” that fit into this category. Same for the things you “ought” to do. Even what you think is the smallest thing affects you or your environment somehow for better or worse. I’m just saying that an unwavering ethical ruler to judge your action by seems a very strange thing indeed when you consider that the effect of an action depends very much on the context. The reason any rule (religious, social, legal, etc.) ought to be considered right or wrong is because following them produces happiness or reduces pain. If they don’t produce happiness or reduce pain, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE RULE? To have more rules? When you allow people to starve for happiness or let them soak in pain when it is in your power to remove the obstacles you are responsible for, you are not “unethical” in any sense unless it results in the same condition(s) for yourself. It very, very often does because of the nature of our modern social relationships. In a very liberal usage of the phrase “cause and effect”, this behavior then “is” unethical. A lot of causal relationships (between behaviors and their “effects”) are at least perceived as stable enough to craft maxims around. Read the above passage. Most humans are quick enough on their feet to figure out who the pitiless dogs are. This type of ruthless behavior can become extremely maladaptive, you have no partners. This is probably quite unfortunate for you, because most people want (or are forced by fate) to live in the company of other people. Being a pitiless dog in this case is “unethical”. If, however, you can find a way to be a pitiless dog that results in absolutely no negative consequences in any area of YOUR life, then it’s not unethical for you to be a pitiless dog. If you have things you want to guard, why would you not expect that other people would have things they also want to guard? And if it makes them happy without affecting you, why is it not ok to let them guard it? I can have what makes me happy, but you can’t have what makes you happy? Is that “fair” or “just”? You can have what makes you happy, but I can’t have what makes me happy? Is that “fair” or “just”? And just for the record, what DO you mean when you say “excuse”? (speaking to ekpolk) This might be a source of confusion between us. How would you define it in your own words? Only when the self interests of different people collide does it become a problem. The collision doesn’t necessarily mean that one person was “right’ or “wrong” for wanting what they want. It does not mean that the universe is going to implode. It means that without a little diplomacy, only one, or perhaps neither of you is going to get what you’re after. Diplomacy in action: I’m not going give every single person who crosses me a taste of my pimp hand. If someone backwashes into my beer, I’m not going to start in with a lecture, because I’ll probably accidentally do the same thing to theirs in about 5 beers. If someone knocks a plate over into my lap, hey, it happens. It’s a social contract. I won’t get mad at you when you flop a plate onto me if you won’t get mad at me when I (surely at some point) do it. Now if someone knocked a plate of food into my lap, and then showed absolutely no remorse at all, I’m probably going to lay into them so they get the idea that it wasn’t cool. It’s not going to clean the food off my pants, but it might make them a little more careful the next time (if they are the type of person who is intimidated by that kind of reaction from me).
But let's revisit the original fact pattern for a moment. I have yet to see a convincing justification for someone taking something that isn't theirs to take, and using it for their own personal benefit, while such use actually hurts the true owner.
Quote:Eh, close enough for me. I would probably say the act is in conflict with my values/desires. For example: I don’t want to be robbed, because I want ice cream. I can’t buy ice cream without money. After being robbed, Jerry is legitimately mad because now I can’t buy ice cream. If the only thing money was good for was buying ice cream and someone gave me all the ice cream I wanted at no cost, I wouldn’t care whether I was robbed.
And why is anger the appropriate emotion, as you agreed? Because the act causing the anger is wrong (both morally and criminally, in both instances).
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,800
This almost appears like a bahaviorist defining the world from the position that everything that we are is one complex defense mechanism.
Actually, we're a search engine, a bank, the driver, the passenger, and something else too. Forget what that one other thing was.
Anywho, there at least has to be something to defend. 
"What about illegally boarding a ship to throw someone else's tea overboard :^)"
Following up on that topic, if the colonials had lost the Revolutionary War they might have been tried not only as criminals for destroying private property, but also as traitors. But we won so the actions are 'patriotic' instead of criminal; what's the lesson there ?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,800
what's the lesson there ?
That victors get to write the history, maybe 
These days all you have to do is declare victory, write history.
Do wrong, make an excuse, justify your behavior, everything's fine.
The values of the dominant society (either larger and/or more powerful) changed for whatever reason. What the dominant society used to consider of value they now do not, or vice-versa, and a few steps later, they use their position to change things to suit their preference. What used to be a "prohibited act" (one the society had deemed unwanted) is no longer prohibited.
Also very possible for the dominant society to lose it's master status to a competing society (society of rebels living in the same land, or a completely foreign power). Maybe through physical war, maybe just propaganda, like Mark said. (And Gary too, but that would be maintenance of status.)
Quote:Hey! I saw that! You had it before you edited that part in...
Do wrong, make an excuse, justify your behavior, everything's fine.
Quote:Jerry, The distinction is profound. Ownership is the full panorama of rights associated with property, including the right to delegate its possession, property of course including both the tangible as well as the intangible. Possession, or possessing, generally is something less than ownership, such as a qualified right in property, although some types of possession (there are many) may have many of the attributes of ownership. The advantage of having a system of law in place, based on clearly defined principles, of long standing, that are easy to understand and apply, is that people are liberated and empowered to go about their lives within that system, rather than hunkering down to protect themself from someone else and their supremely valid selfishness, wants, bizarre self serving norms of behavior, or other aberrations. If you are going to offer up and argue at length for alternate views, at least try to offer up something that is liberating as opposed to anarchy and every man for his self based on his or her peculiar views of right and wrong, his view of the validity of his wants versus his neighbors wants, or other such moral relativism.
There are only two functional differences between “owning” and “possessing”. The first one is the result of convincing yourself there’s a difference, whatever that result may be (e.g. an inflated sense of security regarding the permanence of your possession of that object). The second one is the result of convincing other people that there’s a difference (e.g. making it a taboo of sorts to steal, and thus making your possession less likely to be stolen). Try and think of another difference.
Several of you seem to have somehow gotten the idea that I spend my life in a castle covetously clutching my gold coins. I try to make my life a balanced blend of times for savoring, storing, dissecting, perfecting, healing, resting, and protecting and other times for discovery, spontaneity, exploration, addition, progression, and testing. Something like that anyway. Everything in moderation, including moderation, as I always say. Anyway...
Some people perceive a controlling structure as mostly liberating; I happen to see it as mostly oppressive. This is partly due to differences in our personalities and tastes (not bad or good, just different). Some, when they are able to achieve simply the "better part" of their goal, or set their goal from the beginning as something more reasonable [read: attainable] are perfectly content in their own eyes. Your final impression also partially depends on whether your goals are more oriented towards completing a task for its own sake, and/or completing a task to reach an end (so to speak).
If the controlling-structure-is-liberating folks are lucky, sometimes following the structure gives them what they want, but not always. In an admittedly submissive (<----I was looking for a stronger-sounding word here) position you are much easier to be taken advantage of. If this doesn’t bother you all to pieces, perhaps you see this as sort of a trade-off. Support for control. Fine and dandy, as long as you’re happy, and you fully understand and are prepared for the fact that the noose could become a little too tight at any given moment. At least part of that sloppy, steaming load I shoveled into this forum earlier is really true, I swear. If you have nothing to trade and nothing to defend yourself with, you need to get up off your butt. Sometimes people take because they want or need to (and rightly so), and while you may have a trick or two up your sleeve now in case you get cornered, if you don’t use it you lose it. You may find yourself not only without a crutch and a map one day, but find them fighting you to the death: that is not the time to decide you need to develop self-reliance. It is also equally possible that structure is appealing partly because you tend to see things as immovable or unchangeable. While I’m personally with you for a good bit of this, constantly operating in this thought pattern can result in you missing legitimate opportunities to swing things your way or discover a new passion. If you have been doing nothing but coloring inside someone else's lines your whole life, it’s going to be that much more difficult for you to break character when you “ought” to.
To some degree, certain qualities of the controlling-structure-is-liberating crowd are a good thing, because they signify awareness of limitation (both in need and ability). Just don't sell yourself short. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that there are plenty of folks who have laid their soul under a microscope and still concluded that they want to live in and by a system, and others who don’t know what will benefit them because they lack self-awareness. I honestly have no ill-will towards the first, but “gnothi sauton” to the latter. There are people who will offer to help you (in exchange for some kind of gain of their own) find what you want if you do not think you can do it on your own. Maybe it’s a therapist, maybe it’s your mom, maybe it’s your pastor, maybe it’s a book. Whatever helps... helps.
Neither the position of the dependent nor the anarchist nor any derivation thereof is innately favorable. One orientation may provide varying degrees of utility over another for different people in different contexts, but what is “useful” is very relative anyway. At any rate, I find nothing wrong with a person operating contentedly in whatever manner AS LONG AS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU’RE REALLY DEALING WITH. Making personal decisions regarding what will make you the most happy will most decidedly not be to your benefit if you make these decisions based on misinformation. The role of the responsible educator is not to shove a lifestyle down your throat; it’s to provide information, perhaps coupled with some insight, and then give you a slap on the ________ to get you going. In that spirit I continue my rant:
Quote:Re-read how many times you used the word “rights” in your statement, and then look at where those words are positioned. I assure you that’s of significance. You have no “rights” to speak of unless other people agree you do.
The distinction is profound. Ownership is the full panorama of rights associated with property, including the right to delegate its possession, property of course including both the tangible as well as the intangible. Possession, or possessing, generally is something less than ownership, such as a qualified right in property, although some types of possession (there are many) may have many of the attributes of ownership.
Quote:That’s how it’s commonly understood for whatever reason; only this difference is strictly due to differences in perception on the part of the people involved. Would you say that you “own” your house, but not the soda you bought at the store? Why? Because you risk more losing it? Because more of you was invested in obtaining it? Those are both perfectly valid reasons to craft the mysterious concept of ownership status in the minds of others. Control over the house is more desired by you and other people than control over the soda. You need to convince those people that this taboo of the “untouchable” owned object cannot be broken, and if that doesn’t work, you need to convince them the almighty hand of ________ (or if not Him, the law, and if not the law, your gun) will reach out with malice if they cross the line if you desire to reduce the likelihood of losing your valued possession. The judicious use of this imaginary line "taboo" defense is perfectly functional in many instances, but you need to be aware of its limitations. One day someone is going to come along who has a full realization of what it really means for something to “belong” to you. You can kiss that object goodbye if you’re totally relying on the effectiveness of your indoctrination. The barter system is alive (but maybe not well) even among thieves though. In the case of theft at gunpoint, I trade the promise of my safety for goods. Exactly the same structure as any other tit for tat exchange — no difference. Maybe this is harder to grasp if you don’t have a sick criminal mind. You’re a good man Charlie Brown, and I know you wouldn’t steal from me. I’ll respect the blood, sweat, and tears that went into acquiring your article of value if you return the favor. Too bad not everyone is like you. Often times it seems that the ones who have no collateral at risk if they break their end of the “deal” are the same ones who have an affinity for theft. Coincidence? And FYI, anarchy does not = every man for himself. An anarchy is a cooperative network of people with either a non-existent or very weakened system of government. Just sayin...
Possession, or possessing, generally is something less than ownership
- Status
Similar threads
