The concept of ownership is natural (for whatever that’s worth, taking a shit in the woods is natural but we don’t do that either). Animals defend their territory. They defend the meat they kill. The “man-made” concept of ownership is that you have a right to the fruits of your labor. That no person can arbitrarily take what is yours without your permission. Without these man-made laws, we would essentially live like animals - the strong would take from the weak and we would spend all our time defending our shit from theives and bandits.
Since you are correct that man-made rules can be changed, that is why we have government and taxes. We have social safety nets like unemployment insurance, welfare and homeless shelters so that we don’t have large segments of the population that must resort to desperate measures.
I’m surprised no one has addressed my question about killing to preserve your own existance.
Killing someone for food…hmm. I believe it to be immoral. I think there is a difference between killing someone and taking their stash of food and taking the last parachute. In the first case you cause the death directly. If you and three others are on a plane that is about to crash with only one parachute, unless you caused the plane to crash, you are not directly responsible for the deaths of the other passengers. Using a resource that will save your life, but that is not available to others is kind of a morbid competition. Maybe the ethical thing to do here would be to draw straws.
In the end, if everyone has this same kind of attitude, you are going to have to stay out of these situations. Otherwise, only big buff, warrior-types will be left on the planet. That wouldn’t be good.
Animals (actually just certain predators) defend their territory because they need a certain area to hunt so they can survive. Predators defend their kills because they need to eat to survive. After they fed, they abandon whatever is left.
None of these has anything to do with “ownership.”
So you agree that any and all inheritance should be taxed 100%?
Any any rate, say you picked a bunch of apples from a tree, how is that you now own those apples, as you did not produce any of them yourself?
Or say you found a gold nugget. How is it yours?
That’s already happening everyday, it’s just we now call it “competition.”
My own position is this: everyone has a moral responsibility, but everyone also has a right to feed themselves and their family.
In my own case, I’m working class. I’m currently working a job I consider unethical, though legal, but at the same time I’m looking for work. The job I’m applying for today might be less profitable, depending on the hours, but is in accordance with my ethical beliefs.
I feel this is a good balance between extremes. I will not let myself starve, but I will not use this as an excuse to be lazy about ethics.
For other situations, I don’t think of ethics as “an expensive luxury.” On the contrary. At different times in my life, I’ve been middle class, destitute and working class. The favour is expected to be returned, if it’s ever needed, and I’ve found that poorer people are usually willing to help one another out in a crisis – this, in turn, creates a sort of extra safety net.
Additionally, many moral beliefs pay. I don’t support state-sponsored gambling, so I’ve saved a helluvalot of money on that. As an environmentalist, I’m opposed to reckless consumerism and conspicuous consumption – so I’ve rethought my purchases and rarely buy luxury items of any kind.
In other words, ethical principles are as likely to pay back in the long term as they are to cost.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Urban Ranger *
**Your examples do not hold.
Animals (actually just certain predators) defend their territory because they need a certain area to hunt so they can survive. Predators defend their kills because they need to eat to survive. After they fed, they abandon whatever is left.
None of these has anything to do with “ownership.”
I don’t see where you get that from my post but no. I do not agree that inheritance should be taxed 100%. That money belongs to me and if I choose to pass it on to my family, then that is my right.
How is it not? If I am in posession of something, do you have the right to simply walk up and take it? If I make the effort to pick a bunch of apples, why do you feel you have the right to just take one without putting in any work?
:rolleyes:
“Competition” takes place within the confines of what the law and society accepts. We do not consider it acceptible for companies to “compete” with each other by driving car bombs into each others factories. You are not free to murder your coworkers to ensure a promotion or to occupy and defend a neighbors home after he leaves for work in the morning. Competition does not mean “law of the jungle”.
Abandoning your “morals” because of neccesity is usually a sign of a failure of the imagination. The example of stealing to feed your children is on point. OK, if the choice is between your children dying and stealing, you steal. But surely there were better choices you could have made BEFORE you got yourself into that position in the first place. Why can’t you get a job? Why can’t you apply for government assistance? Why can’t you ask your friends for help? Why can’t you ask you family for help? Why can’t you glean thrown out food? Why can’t you go to your church? Why can’t you go to a rescue mission? Why can’t you get food stamps? Why can’t you gather wild food? Why can’t you beg in the streets? Why can’t you sell your non-food possessions? Why can’t you tell the shopkeeper your children are hungry and ask him if he’ll give you the food?
I think the circumstances, in 21st century America, where one is forced to steal to survive are extremely few and far between. People who feel they MUST steal are making choices. They don’t really face death, they just face embarrassment. Either that or they have some serious mental or emotional problems that prevent them from making rational choices. No child in America goes hungry because the only choice is between stealing and starvation. It does not happen. See my above list. Yes, children go hungry, but not because no one was willing to give them food.
This is an interesting and provocative point of view, and coincidentally, I agree. There are all kinds of things most people can do in order to avoid starvation and even malnutrition, yet people don’t because whatever - they’re strung out on drugs; proud; neglectful; sick; who knows?
If 21st century America more resembled the 1930’s, then it would be more common, I suppose; but as things stand now, there really is no good reason why adults have to go hungry. I’m not blaming those who are hungry FOR being hungry, rather suggesting that dealing with realities sometimes takes creativity, intelligence and resourcefulness, and not everybody has any of those qualities.
I think the point is that not all moral systems are based around codified rules; it’s possible to have a coherent moral system based around certain basic principles.
For example, my moral system is based around satisfying desires and interests and avoiding thwarting desires and interests, very loosely speaking. I recognize that the baker has a desire and interest to sell her bread, and that my stealing bread will thwart that desire. I therefore consider it prima facie immoral to steal her bread – not because I have a rule against stealing, but because doing so would thwart her desire.
I also recognize that my (hypothetical) child has a desire to eat dinner, and that if I don’t give my child food, I’ll thwart that desire. I therefore consider it prima facie immoral to not give my child food – not because of any rule, but because failing to do so would thwart his desire.
In the real world, usually I’ve got more than two options: my choices aren’t limited to “steal bread” or “starve child.” But this is a moral hypothetical, so we can artificially constrain the options down to these two.
Either way I act will thwart a desire. In order to figure out what to do, I don’t consult a rulebook; instead, I figure out which actions I take will thwart the least important desires. In this hypothetical, stealing bread thwarts a less important desire than starving my child; that is therefore the correct moral decision.
The same types of judgements would help me decide whether to lie, whether to cheat, whether to punch someone in the schnozz, etc. This is not relativism – I’m not saying that you can sometimes do bad things and sometimes can’t. Instead, I’m saying that the standard is based on outcomes, on whether desires and interests are thwarted, not based on deterministic rules.
:mad: This is the problem. Because children go hungry in this country every day.
Our dear and loving President and his cohorts in Congress have virtually eliminated Welfare. They’ve told people to Work Or Else!!!
Now we have 9 Million Unemployed Americans. That’s 6% of the population. And that doesn’t count anyone who is ineligible for unemployment, or has exhausted their benefits, etc.
Food Stamps? OK. Try getting food stamps.
98% of this country’s wealth is in the hands of 2% of the people. And we give those 2% tax incentives. You may have gotten a tax incentive. Probably $400. But that 2% got $40,000. Why? Because it is the “moral” decision of our government that this benefit will trickle down to you. . .
We just had an optomistic announcement. Those “moral” men and women in Washington are proud to announce that unemployment will be reduced to 5.5% by next November. That means 8 million 250 thousand people will be unemployed in America next November. And that is optimistic. Now remember that anyone who has exhausted unemployment benefits is no longer considered unemployed.
Is that a “moral” society?
Morals are not a luxuary. But we’ve forgotten what they are.
A government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. . .
Unemployment is the number of people LOOKING for a job who can’t find one. It has nothing to do with benefits.
I’m pretty sure this has been mentioned before.
For what? To pay for internet service?
Ignoring the factual inaccuracies of your rant, what “moral” thing do you suggest the government does? Create a socialist welfare state so we can enjoy endless unemployment insurance and a 9% unemployment rate like in Europe?
It’s often a given to most people that homicide is necessary in order to secure wealth and power. Even if you’re in the upper middle class bracket of ~$200,000 per year, you can bet that someone’s doing some homicide to secure this degree of wealth hording. Wealth and power can buy security and thus act as “self defense”.
“The best defense is a good offense”
I think “Bush” could get off on the exclusion clause of “It’s ok to kill in self-defense.”
What fantasy world do you live in to make such a ridiculous statement? People with $200,000 a year salaries are a dime a dozen (and they aren’t all gangsta’ rappers). Do you think they’re all running around “offing” people like a bad episode of Melrose Place?
Not being an absolutist, I would just say it is easier to stay clear of the laws when you are rich, and much harder when you are poor. Morals are a different matter, as they are often adjusted for one’s income and social standing.
The Golden Rule is indeed relativistic. It operates well so long as all people involved have similar wants and desires. If you put it under a strenuous test, it would not always work, for example in the case of a masochist or a total sociopath. Yes, it’s a nitpick, but it’s still important. Kant tried to bridge this with his “Formula of Humanity” which says “Act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.”
My question is though, I know there are many who do not believe in the relativism of morality on this board; where are their responses?
On preview:
“Adjusted” I understand, but by whom? Is there a universal judge that says, “Ok, I guess it’s ok for you to steal since you’re hungry, tired, and have a child, but it’s not ok for your neighbor there to steal because he has no children”? If you’re subscribing to moral relativism, then the meaning of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ become so skewed as to mean nothing at all.
As I’ve said before, ethics class is mostly bullshit. There is “right” and there is “wrong”. It is wrong to steal. It is wrong to murder people. Punishment should fit the crime. If you are living on the street and steal a loaf of bread, it’s still wrong but it’s not exactly a capital offense either.
How about this view: no moral system is perfect; these flaws are exposed in extreme situations?
BTW, regarding the stealing-to-feed-the-children example, I think it’s clear that what is intended is a situation where the man has done everything legally possible, then resorts to stealing a loaf of bread (probably from someone who won’t starve because of that.) Further, I think there are, and certainly have been, people in this situation, though I agree some people would use this as a justification when it isn’t. Do we have to go out and find a specific person fitting these circumstances, or can we debate the example as it’s intended?
Most people I think would say ‘stealing’ was justified then. Of course, the steals from other starving children to feed his own. In that case neither answer is satisfactory, though some moral systems would suggest one or the other.
an anomaly like the sadomasochist or sociopath would eventually be spotted by the rest of the population and dealt with. the sadomasochist would still follow the golden rule of inflicting pain on others as he would others unto him, while he may not last long trying to practise his beliefs on others in a normal society, he would thrive in a sadomasochistic society and be accepted.
I’m stating that not all of 6 billion people are going to agree to who makes this type of money and why they make it. To even make this amount of money in this world is going to require things like homicide. The very act of accepting such wealth is known to be an act of homicide or even worse. I don’t find that to be a controversial idea.
Additionally, I was making the point that it’s very difficult to differentiate between defense and offense. If we reasonably look at a fellow like our president, it becomes clear that whatever atrocities he allows to hold such wealth is in his interest of self defense. I mean seriously, we know he’s well defended! It’s almost tautological. I was clarifying that if the criteria, “It’s ok to murder in self defense.”, was added to the complaint made by hroeder, that the person he’s pointing a finger at would most likely qualify as someone who is a perfect example of murdering for self defense pro-actively. The proof is in the fact that he’s well defended.
Who said that they had to? A lot of people want to make a quarter million salary. Most of them don’t want or can’t put in the work required. Does that mean that no one should earn more than anyone else?
It is this statement which I find ridiculous. It shows a lack of understanding of economics, wealth, money, any sort of professional career or the generally accepted definition of homicide for that matter.
What homocide does a surgeon making $250,000 a year commit?
Know to who where? People in Bizarro world?
Really, because I was under the impression you were having difficulty diferentiating between “homocide” and “making a lot of money”.
Wha??
He’s well defended because he’s the president. Most people who make $250,000 live normal lives like the rest of us. They just live them in bigger houses and nicer cars.
No…one is not allowed to “murder” in self-defense “proactively”. One can take anothers life as a reaction to an immediate threat to their own life. There are also laws that allow your to take a reasonible action to respond to a pending threat on your life ie the police can intervene in situations where you are being threatened or somone conspires to commit a crime against you.
I like potatoes. I live in NY. Ergo everyone in NY loves potatoes.
