Should we just believe in a god...

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.

 

(maybe he should kill the pharmacist if there is resistance during the theft and the sales clerk also)

Here is the correct answer: Heinz should have been given the medicine because the fundemental value of human life was worth way more than the greed of the pharmacist.

Heinz should not have been put in that position to be deparate to steal medicine to save the life of his wife.

How about we do this, we give Heinz 15 yrs for theft and let him out after serving one day on good behavior

Everybody is happy and we don't have to say 'sometimes it is ok to steal'
if everyone gets to decide for themselves if they have a good reason for stealing or lying or killing then you might end up with things like politicians, crusaders and terrorists

I am quite sure that a group of 5 yr old kids would let Heinz off pretty easy under the circumstances.

 

nothing like avoiding absolutes by saying: "moral judgments are non-existent"

i just think there are some circumstances that it's difficult to apply black/white logic to. i can not imagine the God I understand through Jesus condemning this man.

 

Stage four (law-and-order): Heinz should not steal the medicine because the law prohibits stealing, making it illegal. Or: Heinz should steal the drug for his wife but also take the prescribed punishment for the crime as well as paying the druggist what he is owed. Criminals cannot just run around without regard for the law; actions have consequences.

 

exactly, He wouldn't, now those selfish *%!&%$*!! who wouldn't help him save his wife, that's another story

 

If Heinz did not steal the drug and his wife died he would not be in the wrong.

Heinz stole the drug to save his wife's life and I think anyone with a good mind could see that he didn't deserve the full punishment of the law for the theft.

He was not a criminal disregarding the laws, he was a desparate husband.

Restitution to the pharmacist is fine, but if he cannot pay he cannot pay.

There is nothing wrong with mercy. Here is where people are confusing these issues:

Mercy is for the guilty.
Justice is for the not-guilty.

In other words if you have a perfect justice system then there are times you show mercy to the guilty.

But also in a perfect justice system the not-guilty are always exonerated.

Before a person is eligible for mercy they must be guilty of something.
If not, then justice will do just fine.

Heinz was guilty, he did wrong, but he should be given mercy for his wife's sake. Now that's not too hard to understand.

Let poor Heinz alone, I say he goes free.

 

Those are some fine gymnastics rhester. I have been cutting and pasting from Wikipedia, but I'm trying to show you that justification is a progression in mental faculties... that recognizing where a child is can help you guide them in the process. Some people stop at stage one... that is, authority.

The Bible tells me so. Or, that's what the law says.

Well, the Bible says lots of things, worse still, preachers, mullahs, whatever...say lots of things.

I will again recommend Kant for an exploration of judgment and morality that is well beyond my ability to enunciate.

 

gymnastics- you haven't seen me I am way out of shape!

I agree and I wasn't trying to deny that, justification of choices is not only real it is the norm... and I certainly see it as a progression in mental faculties, but justification of actions and judgment of actions are 2 very different things.

moral means by definition right or wrong. I think people get a little stressed about this because we do justify ourselves too often and judgment is so easily perverted by people.

for a really good exploration of judgment and morality read the new testament gospels, Jesus did an excellent job of showing how morals, judgment and mercy work in harmony

 

Not really.

 

According to one theory.

 

Are you getting at a categorical imperitive? I'm rusty on my philosophy but I think what Rhester is talking about is essentially a categorical imperitive as an apriori moral view of the situation.

 

pretty much in the sense that moral judgments aren't viewed as hypothetical but practical

 

Even if this doesnt completely have to do with that

How you define what is? How do you define the reality you find? What about when there is change to what is? Is change like a ripple of a small wave in a running river, noticeable, random, yet insignificant and meaningless?

If someone's angry rabid pet dog is attacking me, I don't care what PETA says if I have a gun Its getting shot in self defense. Then I'll burn down your house, just because. Quantum theory - where you're unaccountable, and accountable.

Nothing can explain why the sky is blue, so extroplating that nothing explains explain why any action in the universe of any type exists. No pre-determination, no post-determination, just is. Absolute truth and absolute focus on framework of being is the ultimate aim, if there's an aim.

(Which of course gets the Jay Leno opening dialogue treatment "Try explaining that to the wife after she finds your p*rn collection")

 

But sometimes it is OK to steal.

People do decide those things for themselves. Who else would decide for them?

And you would also end up with Mother Theresas, MLK Jr.'s, Ghandis, etc.

 

Even without string theory, we're still a collection of subatomic particles vibrating in concert for a very, very brief moment in the universe. And when we die, they part their merry ways, like they did when stars went nova to produce heavier elements.

Times like these is where I wonder if there are shades of existence, such as whether a colony of spores attains a new self recognition, or in this case, a group of particles determining it's own "shape".

Just because we can't grasp or define life within our own confines and limitations doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

I believe sometimes it is OK to forgive, to pardon, to give another chance.
It is never OK to violate someone else against there will by taking away something they should rightfully possess. It is very right to consider circumstances and give grace when it is best.

Right and wrong is not a personal opinion. What people do is decide for themselves whether they will be selfish in their choices or loving.

What is right is always what is just, loving and impartial.

As far as who decides (with regard to judging what is right and what is wrong), that would need to be someone who is perfect. No person would qualify for that position.

Well the reason you have the very few people like these is because most people try to decide for themselves what is right and you end up with poverty, caste systems, oppression, racism and wars.

Morals are absolutes. If they are not absolutes then they are not morals.

Suggestions would be a better term or opinion.

 

Let's say somebody has unjustly imprisoned you and decided to let you starve to death just for jollies. Is it really wrong to steal a bit of food from them in order to survive?

Your absolutist stance on stealing ignores disparate power relations that force people into desperate situations.

You're right that morality is not an opinion; it's an action. You choose what is right and wrong for yourself by the decisions you make.

First of all, this standard is self-contradictory, as love can often cloud one's impartiality and prevent justice. Take lpbman's example, where love lead a man to unjustly (in your eyes) steal to save his wife.

Also, there are many things we do in the course of our lives that have nothing to do with love or justice. Are those things wrong or just morally neutral?

There is no ultimate distinction between perfection and non-perfection. There is only existence and its consequences. You are a perfect rhester, as there is no other possible rhester other than yourself.

Absolutely false. The MLK's and Ghandis of the world came about because they chose to decide what was right for themselves, when they were told they were wrong their entire lives. It is when people let others decide what is right for them that we get the systems of oppression to which you refer.

This is nothing more than circular reasoning. Morals do not have to be absolute, and they don't have to be the same from person to person. Morality is a construct that allows us to reflect upon our behavior and modify it if need be.

Not sure what you mean here.


The fact is, whether you believe in absolute morality or not is irrelevant. Ultimately, you make decisions for yourself no matter who or what you pass the responibility off on. In that sense, you choose what is right for you by your actions.

 

If you're being unjustly wronged, then the social contract has been violated and the main issue becomes self-preservation above all else.

Just as murder can even be justified as an extreme course of action for the cause of preserving one's right to live, morality is certainly relative in some cases.

 

Of course it is wrong to steal the food, the question is should you be punished for it under the circumstances. A person under those circumstances wouldn't steal if they could avoid it. You are trying to destroy the moral rightness of being honest and trustworthy for the sake of a situational ethic.

There is no circumstance that makes stealing right. There are circumstances that make punishment wrong.

Not at all. I have repeated that there are many times circumstances dictate that there be no punishment for a crime. I gave the example of breaking the speed limit to rush my son to the hospital. I was not saying that speeding is right, I was saying that there was a circumstance that I was willing to be arrested because I wanted to save my son's life.

Here is another example, suppose I tell my wife do not ever yell at the kids, do not scream at them, always talk to them in a normal voice and tone even if you are angry. The next day my small son is playing in the yard and his ball roles out into the busy street and he runs after it. Before he reaches the curb my wife is screaming at the top of her lungs for him to stop and he does and she is able to get to him before he runs out into the traffic.

Did she disobey me? yes- should she be punished - no , in fact she should be commended because her actions were just and loving. The principle behind the rule was upheld not changed or disregarded.

This is impossible because you cannot choose what is right unless it is right. For every action there is a consequence. You might think it right to drive a car while drunk but that doesn't make it right at all. It is totally absolutely impossible to control the consequences of our decisions.

In other words I cannot choose what is wrong and receive the consequences of doing what is right.

Take traffic signs for instance- If everyone thinks they have the right away at every intersection then there is no need for any traffic signs or lights, but the consequences dictate differently regardless of people's opinons. It is the same for all moral choices.

Love must be defined. By my definition it is simply choosing the highest and greater good in any circumstance. Love led the man to do wrong not because he felt stealing was right but because the circumstances were desparate for good to result. That is exactly why he should not be punished for his theft, in fact the pharmacist made the wrong moral choice and he should be punished.

Everything in life can have only one of two motives- self interest or love, these are opposites. Love only chooses for self when it serves the highest and greatest good.

In fact this is why Christ died on the cross and exactly what should be distinct in the life of a Christian. A Christian should be motivated by Christ's love.

The human condition in my opinion and the Christian bible is imperfect, basically selfish and needs to be changed. I would use the word distinct or unique istead of perfect. I am the only distinct and unique rhester in existence.

As far as their choices I would look at their own testimony as to why they lived as they lived- MLK and Mother Teresa did so because of God's love or moral directive- Love God and Love mankind.

I don't know why Ghandi lived as he lived or much about him I did not see the movie.

Moral (webster's online dictionary) principles of right and wrong in behavior

all moral means is that something is either right or wrong- that is an absolute- the problem you are having is that you think the judgment of right and wrong is always the same regardless of the circumstance and that is not true and I have maintained that.

I agree totally there... great discussion LScolaDominates, thank you