Jack steals Jill's purse Jill believes Jack to be acting immorally Jack believes that he is not acting immorally Fred sees Jack's act and believes Jack to be acting immorally Ted sees Jack's act and does not believe that Jack is acting immorally Who independent of our personal opinions is right and who is wrong? Why?
All parties, it appears, are acting in good faith. They all believe something however, belief is a substitute for knowledge, a symbol chosen to represent an unknown variable. Neither right nor wrong, they are all simply dreaming.
At first glance, without consideration of variables that may be present in a real situation but which were not included in the question, Jack and Ted are wrong. Stealing is wrong prima facie. The action is wrong because stealing causes suffering. Jack and Ted are wrong in their belief that the action is not immoral, because morality is absolute, not relative. Of course a relativist would beg to differ. But to me morality is meaningless if it is not absolute, and I cannot see how the relativist can avoid moral nihilism. I do not think that I can answer the question without relying on concepts of utility although I don't consider myself strictly utilitarian.
Actually suffering is caused by the misapprehension of reality. We suffer because we do not find what we are looking for. As would a realist. [/QUOTE] But to me morality is meaningless if it is not absolute, and I cannot see how the relativist can avoid moral nihilism.[/QUOTE] Truth, nature, or reality are all absolutely moral in their verdicts. Men are generally vile to themselves as well as to their brothers in their estimations of morality.
I still think we have a prima facie duty to not steal. Take for instance a situation like punching an innocent person in the face. When a person who is sufficiently intelligent and aware to know that hitting people causes physical pain does indeed strike someone without justification that person has done something wrong and can be held accountable. Regardless of the root cause of suffering I think the average person knows that if he steals from someone that the victim of the theft will experience some sort of grief, so we can hold the average person morally responsible for this action, of course barring any other relevant moral factors not mentioned.
Steal what? Property is a human artifact only and has no objective constituent in reality. Punching anyone in the face puts oneself in jeopardy and in that regard alone can be considered an unwise act. Sans any moral considerations what soever.
The fact that something is a human artifact does mean that it is not real. Morality is entirely created by humans, but it is still real. But why engage in discussions of morality if you do not want to consider morals? Aren't you wasting your time?
If you're going to be completely objective then everyone's right because they just exist and it is happening. You can't argue as to whether or not it's a reality. It's not something they can possibly be wrong about, you dig?
what do you believe? property is theft--by owning something --your denying it to every one else----so thats the standard its moral or immoral depending on what you believe--society has deemed it immoral and punishes you for it---but native americans used to steal horses for pride and skill and manhood rites--were they immoral--personally id defend my property with violence if necessary---but i didnt really hate the thieves just had to let em know go steal from someone else--or ill shoot your ass---lol im amoral the only crimes that bother me r child molesting and murder-----war being the worst crime
Why ,then, is it right or moral to kill humans sometimes and not moral to kill humans other times if morals are absolute and situational ethics are of no value? If you want to make up a story,then I can add to the story(make up what I want) and postulate"What if Jill had stolen 20 dollars from Jack a week before"? Was Jack right then to attempt to recover his 20 dollars(that I made up) by stealing the purse? As Mr Toast referanced,if one is to be completely objective-then I say what does any of it matter?As emanresu said ,"morality is completely made up by humans",then again -what does any of it matter,other than humans have to make decisions on the basis of what's best at the time a situation comes about.Some situations deeply offend our sensibilities and require the application of situational ethics,such as war.Others are merely the usual mundane issues of life.-----"Does this dress make me look fat"?the little woman asks."yes",you reply."It makes you look fat"."Do you like my hair"? "NO-it looks bad"."Do you like working here"?--"No--I don't like this job".Specious and simplistic as my examples are--try some on for size in real life and see if absolute morality works for you.That is ,if you believe lying is immoral.
I argue for the universal morality found in the tasteful arrangements of nature, not in the way men think things should be. Those kind of moral considerations consist only of varying degrees of taboo and do not actually allow one to take a sounding of our true moral depth.
Jack is wrong, Ted not because he has an opinion which he is entitled to have but didn't steal himself. Jack's wrong because it's still generally considered a bad deed to steal someone's purse.
Independent of our personal opinions, no one is right and no one is wrong. I say this because I see morality as comprising a subjective construct of ethical principles rather a statement of fact. -Jack stole Jill's purse because Jill has an antidote nestled in that purse that will cure his little child, let's call him "Tim", of an otherwise incurable and terribly painful disease. Jill refused to hand over the purse because she is a very mean person who would like nothing better than to see little Timmy die. Just because. A villain through and through. It is also the case that she acquired the antidote in a questionable manner - she saw it fall out of Superman's tights, whom she knew had wrestled it away from Lex Luther for the express purpose of administering it to Tim. Go ask Ted if you don't believe me. To say it with less hyperbole - Well, is it wrong to lie? I'll say, that it is usually wrong to lie. An exception would be say when you see a wild-eyed abusive boyfriend running after his battered girlfriend. -Did you see her? -Yes, she went that way (pointing toward the security officer's last known position) OK a bit of hyperbole added there. The point is, while there may have been a better way of handling it I disagree that it is immoral to lie to a person you know is likely to cause (additional) harm to someone should he happen to locate her. I apply the same viewpoint to theft. And this, Emanresu, can be argued on a strictly utilitarian basis - which is a philosophy about as strongly opposed to absolutes as can be found, and can defend torture, murder, slavery etc. etc. The thing is, it gets quite difficult to argue that interests are being considered when advocating for these blatant atrocities. A lie, or a theft, in comparison is an easy thing to justify. You don;t really even have to call on Superman.
