(May 8, 2016 at 4:34 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 6:40 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: There are some actions that are almost universally regarded as moral or immoral.  For instance, giving to charity is generally regarded as moral, while stealing is generally regarded as immoral.  Two examples:

1.  John has donated $1000 to Oxfam.  He simply donated the money, and didn't talk about it.  James, through whatever means, found out and donated $2000 to Oxfam, and immediately went round crowing about how he donated twice as much as John, that cheap fuck.  Further, James' motivation for his giving was solely to get one up on John, who he never liked.  Does John's motivation (helping hungry people) make his action more moral than James' motivation (making himself look better than John)?  Remember that in both cases, the end result is the same - people are helped.

2.  Susan sees a money clip lying on the floor of a restaurant.  No one is about, so she scoops it up and uses the money to buy the shoes she's had her eye on but just couldn't afford.  Brenda finds a wallet on a park bench and takes $50 from it to buy the medicine her 6 years old son needs, but which she can't afford.  Does Brenda's motivation (helping her sick child) make her action more moral than Susan's motivation (really cute shoes)?  Remember, in both cases theft has occurred and innocent parties are out money due to the actions of both women.

Boru

I think these two scenarios just highlight a difference between good moral character and good moral actions.  I think EP was saying a similar thing.  James's moral action was good but his moral character was boastful and spiteful, character traits that are usually considered immoral.

I'm saying giving that money to charity would've been moral even if he got the money by killing and robbing someone. Still agree with me?

(May 8, 2016 at 3:54 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 3:51 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: But isn't it perfectly plausible that one can go to jail for a moral act?

Boru

I never said it's perfect.

It's less than perfect, it's self-refuting:  How can the law determine (or even enforce) morality if moral acts can run afoul of the law?

Boru

(May 8, 2016 at 3:55 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 3:51 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I didn't say you couldn't, I'm asking how you do so.

Boru

I see no problem reconciling the two, you're the one questioning it, so maybe you should come up with a reason why I couldn't.

See the post immediately above.

Boru

(May 8, 2016 at 4:39 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 4:34 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I think these two scenarios just highlight a difference between good moral character and good moral actions.  I think EP was saying a similar thing.  James's moral action was good but his moral character was boastful and spiteful, character traits that are usually considered immoral.

I'm saying giving that money to charity would've been moral even if he got the money by killing and robbing someone. Still agree with me?

Well yeh, giving the money to charity is morally good action still.  Overall the actions of robbing and killing someone to give the money to charity I'd say were morally bad and I'd say the person doing the killing was of a morally bad character.  Unless the circumstances were extremely unusual but I can't think what those circumstances would be right now that would make me change my mind about that.

(May 8, 2016 at 10:44 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 10:36 am)PETE_ROSE Wrote: It appears to me that our motivations do influence our individual sense of morality.  I often see the debate centered around morality being relative or absolute.  Why not both?  We all have been influenced by our environment and are often reminded of the differences in the sense of relative morality when interacting within different cultures.  

It also appears we are all instilled with certain absolute morals.  Any sane person, would agree that it is immoral to torture children, issue wholesale death to West Highland Terriers, or discard perfectly good cheesecake.

Bold mine.


Not necessarily.

Delusional at best! I will concede the point if you can point to even 1 person that would morally condone wasting good cheesecake

(May 8, 2016 at 6:40 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: 2.  Susan sees a money clip lying on the floor of a restaurant.  No one is about, so she scoops it up and uses the money to buy the shoes she's had her eye on but just couldn't afford.  Brenda finds a wallet on a park bench and takes $50 from it to buy the medicine her 6 years old son needs, but which she can't afford.  Does Brenda's motivation (helping her sick child) make her action more moral than Susan's motivation (really cute shoes)?  Remember, in both cases theft has occurred and innocent parties are out money due to the actions of both women.

Boru

Both examples aren't actually stealing but embezzlements. At least that's how our courts tend to regard things like that. Did I pick up a 20 lying on the floor without the owner being round? Yes, and I pocketed it. And I don't feel any worse for it, to tell the truth. Did I lose a 20 at some point in time? Certainly, and I didn't go looking for it or tell the police, since fat chance of it ever turning up again. Not worth the effort and the only person to blame was myself.

Stealing is, if you grab it out of the pocket of anyone. Or if you invade a home to take whatever strikes your fancy. Would I do it if I had the skills? Certainly not from grandma collecting her pension. But from some obvious fat cat, the answer would be, I don't know.

There has been a pretty recent example of someone forgetting a bag containing 25.000 in cash in the bus. Now if someone can carry around 25.000 and then forget about it, the conclusion is, they won't miss it. I'm not sure if I had be as honest as the actual finder turning it in.

(May 8, 2016 at 5:10 pm)abaris Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 6:40 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: 2.  Susan sees a money clip lying on the floor of a restaurant.  No one is about, so she scoops it up and uses the money to buy the shoes she's had her eye on but just couldn't afford.  Brenda finds a wallet on a park bench and takes $50 from it to buy the medicine her 6 years old son needs, but which she can't afford.  Does Brenda's motivation (helping her sick child) make her action more moral than Susan's motivation (really cute shoes)?  Remember, in both cases theft has occurred and innocent parties are out money due to the actions of both women.

Boru

Both examples aren't actually stealing but embezzlements. At least that's how our courts tend to regard things like that. Did I pick up a 20 lying on the floor without the owner being round? Yes, and I pocketed it. And I don't feel any worse for it, to tell the truth. Did I lose a 20 at some point in time? Certainly, and I didn't go looking for it or tell the police, since fat chance of it ever turning up again. Not worth the effort and the only person to blame was myself.

Stealing is, if you grab it out of the pocket of anyone. Or if you invade a home to take whatever strikes your fancy. Would I do it if I had the skills? Certainly not from grandma collecting her pension. But from some obvious fat cat, the answer would be, I don't know.

There has been a pretty recent example of someone forgetting a bag containing 25.000 in cash in the bus. Now if someone can carry around 25.000 and then forget about it, the conclusion is, they won't miss it. I'm not sure if I had be as honest as the actual finder turning it in.

Austria must look at embezzlement differently than most places. Here (and it the UK) it is the misappropriations of funds left in your trust for personal gain. Taking a wallet full of cash or a loaded money clip that clearly isn't yours would be prosecuted as theft. And - as far as I'm aware - embezzlement is merely a particular type of theft.

But I'm not sure how that alters the original point. Legal niceties aside, taking cash that doesn't belong to you is widely considered to be an immoral act, so the hypothetical remains unaffected.

Boru

(May 8, 2016 at 4:48 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 3:54 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: I never said it's perfect.

It's less than perfect, it's self-refuting:  How can the law determine (or even enforce) morality if moral acts can run afoul of the law?

Boru

It's not "self-refuting", it it were, you would be living in an anarchy. It works. It doesn't work flawlessly but it obviously does work. And we are improving on it with every passing year. Nothing has to be perfect and nothing ever will be, but aiming for it is a good thing.

The law does determine and enforce morality regardless of whatever other arguments you can come up with. The police, the courts, the rulemakers, they're all both controlling and responsible for your life, for all of our lives. That's a moral system at work. I'm not sure how much more I can point out obvious stuff and having it be dismissed before I get annoyed with the pointless banter that it is.

Quote:Any sane person, would agree that it is immoral to torture children, issue wholesale death to West Highland Terriers, or discard perfectly good cheesecake.

Great. Now I have a desire to throw a perfectly good cheesecake at a West Highland Terrier and do so in front of a child.

Boru

Quote:The law does determine and enforce morality regardless of whatever other arguments you can come up with.

*chuckle* It's nice when people capitulate and don't realize it.

Boru