These. I’d need to see an explicit statement that those who would are morally defective, before I could describe the statement as a moral judgement.
Personally, given factors such as the Square-cube Law I’d go with the tarantula as the more survivable option. And I am no fan of spiders.
I suppose “I would never loot and burn stores in anger at police - because I’d be up on the rooftops shooting people” doesn’t qualify as a moral judgement either.
Hey, if you’re going to Purge, Purge big.
I would never loot and burn stores in anger at police because that would do nothing to get justice or vengeance or even properly express my anger at the police. The people who are doing the looting and burning clearly have other motivations or are so caught up in mob hysteria that they are effectively insane. Mobs scare the shit out of me so I probably wouldn’t fall into that group.
I don’t think I could make a moral judgment without knowing an individual’s thinking behind their actions.
I wouldn’t sleep with every man I meet because I have high standards. That’s not a moral judgment
Yeah. I wouldn’t sleep with every man I meet, because, eww, have you seen every man I’ve met?
And there are a lot of reasons why someone might decide not to loot due to being angry with the police:
- because it doesn’t really hurt the police, just the store owner
- because I’m clumsy and afraid I’ll hurt myself on glass and things scattered around in the chaos
- because it’s not worth the risk of getting caught
- because I don’t want to contribute to the looting getting big enough that I have to worry about it spreading to houses like my own
- because even if I’m not violent, another looter might be and attack me for what I took from a store
But both of your linked posts expressly added an unless-you’re-just-lazy qualifier. And both of the other linked posts are, of course, copy-and-paste replies to your posts!
As I used it (or at least implied it), it was indeed a moral judgement. (The same goes for the thing about not sleeping with someone else’s girlfriend.) My argument was simply that this didn’t matter for the larger argument that Terr was making about the meaning of the words “justified” and “understandable.”
I originally went ahead and explained my point on that again, but I realize that’s not really the topic of this thread. Plus I told the OP that I was done talking about it with him.
I marked “Other”. There is an element of moral judgment in the statement, “I would never do that” but in the thread you took that one step further to mean, “therefore they are a lesser person than I am [morally]”
So there’s a moral judgment on the specific situation, but when you expand it to include a person’s character, then no, there is no judgment there.
Define “morally defective”, without using yourself (including your religious belief system) as a reference.
I voted no, because the statement itself contains no judgment, it simply states the what the speaker would do in those circumstances.
I’m reminded of people who make a great show of explaining or justifying drinking around me because I don’t drink. I have my own reasons for not drinking, but honestly I don’t care if you do (as long as you’re not driving me home). But some people think the mere fact that I don’t drink is a moral judgment.
I voted Other. Like many posters, I’m reasonably confident that a moral judgment was implied or intended, but was not explicitly stated. So the statement itself is not automatically a moral judgment, and I’d want to ask for clarification before I reacted to it as one.
(Otherwise, I’d be just like crowds of rioters who have decided to act on emotional ignorance rather than waiting for unimportant things like facts. And just to be clear, that was intended as a moral judgment.)
Public poll? I can’t find how to view who voted how?
I need help here. Anyone?
Never mind I just accidentally found it.
I just knew that would happen right after I finally asked. :smack:
All this is making me flash back to 1992. What happened in L.A. was mirrored in some other cities. IIRC, it was in D.C. that some people were going into grocery and variety stores and quietly, non-violently helping themselves to items like diapers and staple foods. They were probably living paycheck to paycheck, and that week, they couldn’t even count on a paycheck. So they took what they needed. I don’t think it was wrong then, and I don’t think it was wrong after Katrina. If you want to call it looting, if you want to be that strict, go ahead, but I’ll still call it finding food.
Oh, I didn’t understand. I hadn’t heard about the case, so I voted “no” because in my case it would be a simple statement of fact with respect to myself.