A lot of folks see it that way which is why Jesus said:
[i]38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
That’s true, but how can you be sure evolving is not devolving? Everyone thinks they are doing right.
I brought up Hitler because it’s colloquially assumed he was evil, not that he actually was. He is just representative of the general cultural idea of evil. I’m not judging him. I’m just saying that if you, by chance, assume he was evil, then consider that he thought he was doing good.
Because I’m a hypocrite like everyone else lol
Yes I would like some good advice, but no one can answer my questions it seems
I’ve read that if someone breaks into your home and hurts themselves, they can sue you lol, so I wouldn’t be surprise if you were arrested for stealing the bomb.
What I would do would depend on who they intended to blow up
This reminds me of some philosophical puzzles from college. Who is worse: the one who holds the person under water or the one who chooses not to save a drowning person? Who is better: the one who helps little old ladies across the street because he enjoys it or because it’s his duty?
Yes you can rationalize it, but can you quell your conscience? It’s only not-wrong if you honestly and truly believe it is not wrong, not because you have a list of justifications.
I would not trust them. You’d be in jail by your own admission of guilt and the bombers would be free for lack of proof of intent or no crime committed. The justice system is not at all just, but a money-making racket mostly.
I disagree but that aside, my moral duty is to myself first and others later.
My duty is to act first in doing what I think is moral.
If the system I live under does not support my morality then so be it. I will spend some time in jail and some poor bunch of my fellow citizens will end in being bombed.
Better jail than dishonor.
I have a real life experience where I purposely fought the law and had 16 years of jail time hanging over my head because I put duty and my honor ahead of the possibility of jail. I am not bragging here. I am complaining as our laws should be well thought out enough that a citizen should not have to go to such extremes to fight the laws he thinks need amending.
I am more abstinent and headstrong than the average guy.
Well, golly gosh. It is not the same scenario in the sense you seem to want here. It is the same idea. The intention is not to get someone’s stuff for oneself, it is to prevent great harm. The intention is not to harm someone, it is to minimize harm. Those two are very similar ideas oh, fussy one. We tend not to use negative words about things when the goal, in fact the act, is not about that negative word. There are gray areas but neither scenario is the same.
Well, I can be fussy back.
Not always. Patients come into emergency rooms unconscious sometimes and they are operated on. Sometimes they even are upset about the doctor’s choice. However he is still not maiming, even if he make the wrong medical choice. He is trying to help the greater good - in my example the greater good he is trying to help includes the patient, in your example it does not include those who had the object. But the person who removes the bomb is not a thief, nor are they stealing.
The two who are stolen from did not volunteer to have their bomb stolen.
Taking that bomb by breaking into that room is break and enter and thief, in the legal definition.
If you would not call break and enter and taking someone else’s property thief, what would you call it? The legal term would be nice.
[/quote]
It would be called preventing a terrorist act. If you are about to shoot a child, I can shoot you and no one will call it murder. There are all sorts of scenarios where what would otherwise be called a crime is not called that given the situation. If you drive your car into a lake and cannot get out of your car, no one, no court, not police officer, will label my breaking the car window property damage or criminal damage as it is called in parts of the UK. They will say I saved your life. No one will say it was criminal damage, but we will not prosecute because of the reason. The situation precludes the use of that term. Get it?
And that is why my example was perfectly fine: what would be considered a crime in other circumstances is not because of those circumstances. The terrorists are never, in that scenario, victims of a crime.
Isn’t that the same reasoning that a psychopath, a serial killer, a thief, a murderer uses?
The morality that a society adopts has to be some sort of agreement about what is right and wrong conduct. And obviously some individuals will disagree for a variety of good and bad reasons.
I agree with this argument, but I think it is unnecessary. There is no crime of stealing in the scenario. In many situations we can legally, and generally are considered to be able to morally, do something that in other circumstances would be considered a crime or immoral, but is never considered that in those situations. The terrorists lose any property rights related to their bomb once it is an object part of a terrorist process. It is not as if a crime is committed but then weighed against the crime it prevented. There never was a crime. If a plane is crashing on the highway and I drive my car off the road crashing into a military base through the fence, I have not trespassed, driven negligently, criminally damaged property. And the plane’s insurance company will pick up thte tab if anyone’s does.
There may be scenarios where more minor crimes/sins get outweighed, but that wasn’t one of them.
A psychopath would never say ‘my duty is to act first in doing what i think is moral.’ They don’t think in morals, though they know others have them and this is just another property of other people to be aware of and utilized. The psychopath does not consider any duty to others regardless of how this is prioritized. I doubt serial killers would think this way, either.
Well that’s just how GIA phrased it but it amounts to personal “conscience” determines correct conduct. A psychopath can say that his duty is to be true to himself.
That’s just silly. You steal things to have them yourself or sell them. It wasn’t stealing. It is not that act. It is another act.
If you are on fire and I knock you down and roll you smothering the flames, I did not assault you, even though if I did that to someone else, the exact same movements, someone who was not on fire, it would be considered an assault.
We’re humans, and dumb as the law can be at times, it reflects the fact that the meaning and intent of an action can change what that actions means and is.
We are not billiard balls.
By the way, I hate that shrug smilie thing. It seems to imply that it is so obvious what you are saying is true and ridiculous you even need to point out the a priori point you are making. I may not have convinced you but jeez, that smilie emoticons can go cower in a hole.
[/quote]
You have a legal right to stop a terrorist act in that scenario by taking the terrorists bomb. Taking it. If you steal it and keep it for yourself or sell it after stealing it, that would be stealing it and not taking it.
It works for all other animals. Male lions kill the kittens from the defeated male. If a human busted into someone’s home, killed the man and all his children, then impregnated his wife and forced her to raise his children, he’d be burnt at the stake even today. Animals function on instinct while humans flatter themselves for possessing some divine attribute for the asserting of an objective right and wrong.
What is good for society? Is a good society one that grows larger and larger forever? Is it a function of genetics, morals? What? If we can’t define a good society, assuming that a good society is good, then how can we determine what is good for society?
Depends on what “works” means. A female praying mantis eating her mate works for her I guess. Should we structure human society along the same lines? Who knows.
Apparently you know that trusting your conscience is good but you can’t figure out what is good for society.
