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.
One has to consider the obvious definition of the word “steal”. Later, one can move on to other considerations.
You know what they say … one person’s ‘terrorist’ is another person’s ‘freedom fighter’.
“Legal right” is itself problematic … what if a law is enacted which allows you to search any person’s wallet and take out any currency which exceeds the amount in your own wallet, thus equalizing the amount in both your wallets. Is that “legal right” ethical? I’m sure lots of people would say “yes”.
You have a lot of integrity and I am the same way, so I know the downside of it. Isn’t it strange that I’ve grown to hate people because I’m considerate of them (since that’s the only reason to have integrity)? The bad part of holding yourself to high standards is being in judgement of those who don’t. I’d like to think of myself as easy-going because it really doesn’t matter what we have for dinner or what we watch on tv (to an extent) and I see myself as pliable and varied in interests, but can’t tolerate when people can’t keep their word and they never can. Never. It’s a grand fluke if someone accidentally did what they said they were going to do. So if there is a bomb, screw it, it’s not my business because it’s likely a lot of people who would piss me off anyway with their lack of consideration: pull in front of me then turn left, drive slow without giving others an opportunity to pass, raise hell and make noise with no regard for neighbors, promise to arrive at a time and then not show, etc, etc, etc. People are animals with an extra helping of pride and I’ve no obligation to protect the haughty. I’d sooner protect a real animal and if I ever caught anyone torturing an animal, one of us is going to die.
I’ve done a lot of soul searching lately and I don’t know why I keep my word. Why do I bother? No one else can. It’s as if I’m playing a game and I want my character to be a certain way for no reason whatsoever, other than to see how it plays out. Has anyone noticed how I diligently reply to everyone and every point? No one returns the favor however as all have left me hanging. So why do I bother? Why do I do for others what they won’t do for me? Why do I hold myself to such a standard? Idk, I’m still in the process of figuring things out.
“Those who know, don’t speak; those who speak, don’t know.”
“The act of writing is the act of discovering what you believe.”
So here we are… the blind leading the blind, muddling along and trying to figure it out.
Psychopaths lack empathy, consideration, which incidentally seems consistent with most of the population (lack of consideration). Hitherto I thought psychopaths were rare, but now I’m thinking they may be the norm. How many people genuinely consider how their actions affect others? Or maybe they aren’t smart enough to give it consideration. Something is lacking!
If your conscience tells you what is good for you, then it’s also saying what is good for the people who you interact with and as a consequence what is good for society.
Why do you retreat from that idea and pretend that you don’t know what is good for society?
