Moral Rightness?

[Drewtheunquestioned]

Consider this situation.

A man steals an object of great value from another man.

The man who stole the object is obviously in the moral wrong here. He stole an object of value for his personal gain paying no mind to the suffering it might cause others. This was a selfish, unlawful act.

The man who suffered the loss is also in the moral wrong. It is morally wrong to covet material possessions according to the modern ideal of morality. So he is wrong in suffering from the loss of the object. A morally righteous man would have suffered no loss from the absence of the object, as he only values otherworldly virtues such as hope, faith, and charity. Valuing an object would be considered worldly, which is a moral vice.

So it seems they are both in the moral wrong.


If this is so, how should we be expected to react morally? The thief is punished by law, but what of the victim? If they are equally wrong morally, should they not be punished equally? Perhaps the suffering felt by the victim's moral wrongness is punishment enough? Because he was morally wrong, he suffered and wouldn't have otherwise.

Consider this view on ANY crime committed within our society. Are victims of crime just as morally wrong as the perpetrators of crime?

If all people are considered equal and no one person is more or less than another, how are we to view this situation from a moral stand point?

[Maynar]

While some may argue that property is theft, to extrapolate this theory into the realm of personal crime (rape, murder) is perhaps erroneous.

Consider this view on ANY crime committed within our society. Are victims of crime just as morally wrong as the perpetrators of crime?

Should rape victims or murder victims' families be considered morally wrong? I think not.

You made a good point up until then, however.

[Amadameus]

There is a fundamental problem with your concept of "law" in this thinking. You are taking perfect moral standards, and applying the failure to attain these to the legal system.

The first question that comes to mind, who will do the punishing? Who will enforce the law? If the law is meant to be applied to persons of perfect moral rightness, then when will it ever be used?

Simply put, the law is not meant for moral decisions whatsoever. The law is there for the self-preservation of the nation, and nothing more. Ensuring that the citizens of the nation live together in a productive, sustainable state (ie, nobody killing each other, people working in exchange for money, etc.) is the only purpose of the law.

If the law were meant for moral decisions, it would either become dictatorial and require adherence to a single code, or it would be spread so widely and generally among the myriad of moral standpoints that it could not enforce anything effectively.

Consider:
The CEO of a company fires every employee he has to reconcile an error he committed. He retires in luxury.
A woman is using her partner for money, and leaves him an emotional and financial wreck when he runs out.
A man finds a financial loophole in a large company's contract and exploits it for thousands.
New zoning laws force a dozen restaurants to close, pushing minimum-wage workers into homelessness.

Simply put, the law is not there to make people good people. The law is not even there to prevent people from acting horrifically toward each other. The law is only there to make sure we don't harm the state.
Instead of personal betterment, think of the law as social engineering - because that's what it is.

Now, I can't deny that there is fault in both the theftor and the theftee, however the fault is not only within a single moral sense (Stoicism came to mind very strongly) but the theftee is within the highest realms of that morality. These are not standards that can be applied to everyone.

[Captain C]

Drew, are you trying to rationalize your committing crimes again?

[Captain C]

The man who suffered the loss is also in the moral wrong. It is morally wrong to covet material possessions according to the modern ideal of morality.

Which modern ideal of morality? There's only one? Who decided this? You?

So he is wrong in suffering from the loss of the object.

This is basically just a word salad. You might as well say that someone is wrong for suffering from a physical injury, since according to the same phantom ONE TRUE MODERN MORALITY hedonism is wrong. Granted the latter statement is utter bullshit, but no more so than your initial one about modern morality.

A morally righteous man would have suffered no loss from the absence of the object, as he only values otherworldly virtues such as hope, faith, and charity.

Once again, whose morals, chosen by whom? You seem to be using a passive voice to either abdicate responsibility from your own moral choices, or to hide from ownership of your own moral views. Not to mention, in this kooky view you're presenting, no one should have anything, and we should all be naked hunter-gatherers with a life expectation of 30.

Valuing an object would be considered worldly, which is a moral vice.

This sounds liked warmed-over old-fashioned religious bullshit of the type which was used to keep the peasants and other dispossessed in their place.

So it seems they are both in the moral wrong.

It seems you either think they are in the moral wrong, or, like others on this site, are talking shit for the purposes of sparking a flamewar.

If this is so, how should we be expected to react morally? The thief is punished by law, but what of the victim? If they are equally wrong morally, should they not be punished equally?

Maybe we should also punish murder victims, for not contributing to your art. Or rape victims, for being selfish and denying the rapist their desires. (Of course, if you were getting assfucked by a schmuck with a spiked dildo, you might change your tune, especially if it wasn't going to be videotaped and shown to everyone.) There's a substantial difference between a crime of property (theft), and a non-crime of possession that some individuals think, or claim to think, is morally wrong.

Perhaps the suffering felt by the victim's moral wrongness is punishment enough? Because he was morally wrong, he suffered and wouldn't have otherwise.

In other words, you've arrived at blame-the-victim by means of sophistry. Maybe you can try this one out in court when you get busted for something.

Consider this view on ANY crime committed within our society. Are victims of crime just as morally wrong as the perpetrators of crime?

Not with regard to the commission of that particular crime. I'm sure if there were self-defense issues involved, you would have mentioned this.

If all people are considered equal and no one person is more or less than another, how are we to view this situation from a moral stand point?

We should note that the interpretation you presented is utter bullshit. Did you steal something big from someone and are now hoping to a) not get caught? or b) not get punished for it?

[Amadameus]

It seems you either think they are in the moral wrong, or, like others on this site, are talking shit for the purposes of sparking a flamewar.
...
We should note that the interpretation you presented is utter bullshit. Did you steal something big from someone and are now hoping to a) not get caught? or b) not get punished for it?

I'm pretty sure that Drew was just talking about the Vox Populi of America, the common ideas of morality. At least, that's how I read it. Now let's all put the guns down...

[Maynar]

Ease down, Ripley. You'e just grinding metal.

[Captain C]

I'm pretty sure that Drew was just talking about the Vox Populi of America, the common ideas of morality. At least, that's how I read it. Now let's all put the guns down...

I'm pretty sure Drew was just talking out his ass. However, when he makes the kind of universal statements he did, he either needs to explain them and back them up, or deal with getting flamed (in part for not taking ownership of his own statements).

However, maybe you could explain how in a highly materialistic culture like that found in America, it would make sense to argue that THE (i.e the only, or vastly prevalent at least) prevailing moral view says that worldly possessions are wrong and immoral.

[Maynar]

[Drewtheunquestioned]

Success. And here I thought this site had become spiritually and intellectually stagnant.

While some may argue that property is theft, to extrapolate this theory into the realm of personal crime (rape, murder) is perhaps erroneous.

How so? To be a victim is weakness, which in ALL moral views, is wrong. One who is morally right and strong should be indomitable.

Should rape victims or murder victims' families be considered morally wrong? I think not.

Is it that disconnection with material value is easier for you to grasp than disconnection with the value of health and state of being? If they were morally righteous, they would know and love their family member enough to trust that they were morally righteous enough to not be victimized by the circumstances, or that they were not morally righteous enough to avoid victimization, to which they would react not with comfort but with teaching (if in the case of death teaching is not possible, they simply remember them for their strength and move on)

Sounds cold doesn't it? It is pretty cold out here.

There is a fundamental problem with your concept of "law" in this thinking. You are taking perfect moral standards, and applying the failure to attain these to the legal system.

this isn't so much about the reaction of the law, but rather our own moral reaction.

I'm aware that the law is simply the tool of the ignorant masses and that morally has no place in it, though it does try to elbow in from time to time.

If the law is meant to be applied to persons of perfect moral rightness, then when will it ever be used?

In a world of moral rightness there would be no need for law.

Now, I can't deny that there is fault in both the theftor and the theftee, however the fault is not only within a single moral sense (Stoicism came to mind very strongly) but the theftee is within the highest realms of that morality. These are not standards that can be applied to everyone.

You'll have to explain this a bit more.



Ah... Cap'n C. We meet again.

Drew, are you trying to rationalize your committing crimes again

Are you still frightened by this notion?

Which modern ideal of morality? There's only one? Who decided this? You?

This standard of morality is the one that seems to be most prevalent in our society. Nietzsche called it "slave morality", but you might call it Judeo-christian morality. That Other-worldliness is morally good (piety, restraint, charity, meekness, etc.), and that Worldliness is morally wrong (selfishness, cruelty, wealthiness, aggressiveness, etc.).

Is this not the common morality of most modern peoples?

You might as well say that someone is wrong for suffering from a physical injury, since according to the same phantom ONE TRUE MODERN MORALITY hedonism is wrong. Granted the latter statement is utter bullshit, but no more so than your initial one about modern morality.

How so? Suffering from physical injury is morally wrong in the same sense. You lament your loss of health, you reject your bodily harm. To value one's own physical health is to be worldly. According to this moral system, to be morally righteous is to sustain injury and bodily limitations is inconsequential. As long as one is able to continue to be morally righteous, there is no loss to lament.

Once again, whose morals, chosen by whom? You seem to be using a passive voice to either abdicate responsibility from your own moral choices, or to hide from ownership of your own moral views.

I'm speaking from the standpoint of the herd morality. My own morals and views are not being discussed as they do not apply to anyone but me. I'm questioning the morals of the masses and bringing to light their ignorance of them.

I suggest you take the same stance if you want any relevance here.

Not to mention, in this kooky view you're presenting, no one should have anything, and we should all be naked hunter-gatherers with a life expectation of 30.

Why not?

This sounds liked warmed-over old-fashioned religious bullshit of the type which was used to keep the peasants and other dispossessed in their place.

Actually this type of morality was developed BY the peasants being kept in place. This type of morality means to turn weakness into meekness, there by making their poverty and poor health a choice rather than a consequence.

It seems you either think they are in the moral wrong, or, like others on this site, are talking shit for the purposes of sparking a flamewar.

I'll bet anyone who still comes here prays for a flame war. At least then they'd have something to talk about.

Look at the history of this site. The only time philosophy or religion gets any traffic at all is when some hapless or over-confident christian walks in. Suddenly everyone has two cents to add. This place is a desert.

Maybe we should also punish murder victims, for not contributing to your art. Or rape victims, for being selfish and denying the rapist their desires. (Of course, if you were getting assfucked by a schmuck with a spiked dildo, you might change your tune, especially if it wasn't going to be videotaped and shown to everyone.) There's a substantial difference between a crime of property (theft), and a non-crime of possession that some individuals think, or claim to think, is morally wrong.

You think that simply saying there is a difference, with a few emotional appeals thrown in, is enough to prove there is a difference?

Try again Cap'n.

In other words, you've arrived at blame-the-victim by means of sophistry. Maybe you can try this one out in court when you get busted for something.

I've already said that law and morality do not coincide. This is not a blame-the-victim situation, just a statement of equal moral wrongness. The thief and the victim are both wrong. Their mutual wrongness does not lessen the wrongness for either. Not everything is black and white, Cap'n.

Did you steal something big from someone and are now hoping to a) not get caught? or b) not get punished for it?

Would it invalidate my point if I were?


Once again Cap'n, your anger clouds your judgment.

I'm pretty sure Drew was just talking out his ass. However, when he makes the kind of universal statements he did, he either needs to explain them and back them up, or deal with getting flamed (in part for not taking ownership of his own statements).

Better than talking out my dick, eh Cap'n?

However, maybe you could explain how in a highly materialistic culture like that found in America, it would make sense to argue that THE (i.e the only, or vastly prevalent at least) prevailing moral view says that worldly possessions are wrong and immoral.

That would be the hypocrisy created by the conflict of popular culture and moral values.

[Captain C]

Success. And here I thought this site had become spiritually and intellectually stagnant.

While some may argue that property is theft, to extrapolate this theory into the realm of personal crime (rape, murder) is perhaps erroneous.

How so? To be a victim is weakness, which in ALL moral views, is wrong. One who is morally right and strong should be indomitable.

Re: "ALL moral views": Every last one? Really? Every kind of weakness is the same? Being a victim is the same as not succumbing to temptation? Really? I'm having a hard time seeing you actually get behind this kind of oversimplification.

Plus, I'm pretty sure that in at least some traditions, being a victim is glorified; it helps you get to heaven. (I mean really, please demonstrate how in ALL moral traditions victimhood exactly=weakness exactly=immorality, or renounce such generalizations.)

Should rape victims or murder victims' families be considered morally wrong? I think not.

Is it that disconnection with material value is easier for you to grasp than disconnection with the value of health and state of being? If they were morally righteous, they would know and love their family member enough to trust that they were morally righteous enough to not be victimized by the circumstances, or that they were not morally righteous enough to avoid victimization, to which they would react not with comfort but with teaching (if in the case of death teaching is not possible, they simply remember them for their strength and move on)

Sounds cold doesn't it? It is pretty cold out here.

Um, Drew, you just claimed being vicitimized=weakness=morally wrong in, in your words, "ALL moral views," that is, without any differentiation between the various ways and nuances and connotations thereof by which one can be victimized. without the Maybe you're trying to say here that people are better off, what, working through things after they've been wronged, rather than dwelling on it? Um, yeah, thanks Captain Obvious, maybe next time just say it. Other than that, I'm not sure what you think you mean by this word salad. Perhaps you could, um, connect it with some real world examples?

There is a fundamental problem with your concept of "law" in this thinking. You are taking perfect moral standards, and applying the failure to attain these to the legal system.

this isn't so much about the reaction of the law, but rather our own moral reaction.

I'm aware that the law is simply the tool of the ignorant masses and that morally has no place in it, though it does try to elbow in from time to time.

So, to consider with the original topic, do you, Drew, consider possession of an object to be as morally wrong, and therefore apparently deserving of punishment, as someone stealing said object? When should they be punished? At the time of possession? When it's stolen? Why?

If the law is meant to be applied to persons of perfect moral rightness, then when will it ever be used?

In a world of moral rightness there would be no need for law.

What do you, Drew, refer to by morality and moral rightness? How is it known, and/or derived, and agreed upon? How do you get from the abstraction "moral rightness" to real world, concrete occurrences?

Ah... Cap'n C. We meet again.

Drew, are you trying to rationalize your committing crimes again

Are you still frightened by this notion?

Never was. I do find your obvious propensity for mindfuckery in lieu of actual human connection annoying, and I find it quite amusing the rhetorical contortions you will go through to try and justify being a dick, even if it's just for the sake of discussion. Seriously, though? Are you embarking on a career of burglary and trying out your legal defense just in case? If you get busted, be sure to post links of media coverage of your trial.

Which modern ideal of morality? There's only one? Who decided this? You?

This standard of morality is the one that seems to be most prevalent in our society. Nietzsche called it "slave morality", but you might call it Judeo-christian morality. That Other-worldliness is morally good (piety, restraint, charity, meekness, etc.), and that Worldliness is morally wrong (selfishness, cruelty, wealthiness, aggressiveness, etc.).

Is this not the common morality of most modern peoples?

Um, on paper, maybe. And if you look at, say, the various prosperity gospels that seem to be growing in popularity, even that lip service is going. Certainly, the prevailing morality in the world these days (as poured forth on TV and other mass-reaching media) seems to be "get some!" with a little bit of "fuck everyone else!" thrown in; even the craziest Xian fundies and Jihadists aren't stupid enough to proclaim that their ideal world is one of deprivation and restraint.

You might as well say that someone is wrong for suffering from a physical injury, since according to the same phantom ONE TRUE MODERN MORALITY hedonism is wrong. Granted the latter statement is utter bullshit, but no more so than your initial one about modern morality.

How so? Suffering from physical injury is morally wrong in the same sense. You lament your loss of health, you reject your bodily harm. To value one's own physical health is to be worldly. According to this moral system, to be morally righteous is to sustain injury and bodily limitations is inconsequential. As long as one is able to continue to be morally righteous, there is no loss to lament.

Setting aside your insistence on proclaiming what the ONE TRUE MODERN MORALITY (hereafter abbreviated to OTMM) "is," you're basically reducing "morality" to that preached and practiced by the grimmest of the early Xian ascetics. Are you seriously saying that this is the "morality" which is dominant, even on paper, these days? And if you're saying that one should just accept harm done to them, you can argue that this may be a good practical action, but how do you derive lament for one's injury=morally wrong=potentially punishable?

And can you please rephrase this:

to be morally righteous is to sustain injury and bodily limitations is inconsequential

it's a sentence fragment and doesn't make sense as written.

Once again, whose morals, chosen by whom? You seem to be using a passive voice to either abdicate responsibility from your own moral choices, or to hide from ownership of your own moral views.

I'm speaking from the standpoint of the herd morality.

Thank you for the clarification. In other words, you have proclaimed yourself speaker for everyone (except yourself apparently, see below). Please give a fairly detailed, but nonetheless not too long explanation of how you decided what their morals are, what they declare them as, which you refer to when you discuss "their morals," and why we should buy your assertion.

My own morals and views are not being discussed as they do not apply to anyone but me.

Maybe if you live on an island; when you share space, willingly or not, with other humans, they do become relevant. For the purposes of this discussion, you seem to find something wrong with the herd mentality; maybe you just don't care to discuss your reasons? Remember, you are part of the universe, not separate from it, and there is no such thing as "pure reason" outside of our heads, and ultimately, "morals" are abstractions, and become meaningless if they're not tied to something in real life.

I'm questioning the morals of the masses and bringing to light their ignorance of them.

Thanks. That's very benevolent of you. It's more fun, though, when you do it with nuance. I, too, get pissed off at the stupidity and venality that I see every day.

I suggest you take the same stance if you want any relevance here.

Speaks for the masses and decides what's relevant, too! Wow! You are one impressive dude! Generally, though, I'm happy to take ownership of my ideas, and do try to openly differentiate them from falsifiable data.

Not to mention, in this kooky view you're presenting, no one should have anything, and we should all be naked hunter-gatherers with a life expectation of 30.

Why not?

Nasty, brutish, and short. Go for it, if that's your thing, but remember, imposing this solution (were it even remotely practical) would require the deaths in a very short period of time of probably 75-90% of humanity. To those who advocate such solutions I just say, "you first."

This sounds liked warmed-over old-fashioned religious bullshit of the type which was used to keep the peasants and other dispossessed in their place.

Actually this type of morality was developed BY the peasants being kept in place.

Cite, please. You also would appear to diminish the constantly appearing variants of what was most recently termed "Liberation Theology." Read the histories of the various uprisings in Europe, for example, the Peasants' War of the Holy Roman Empire in the 1520s. The deterministic theology of Calvinism likely comes in large part as a reaction to that; Martin Luther himself announced that what he was doing, going against a corrupt Church, in no way meant that the social order should be overturned. In general, be-good-and-get-your-reward-in-the-next-life memes are pushed by those doing the shitting on, not the shat on.

This type of morality means to turn weakness into meekness, there by making their poverty and poor health a choice rather than a consequence.

Which is why it's generally pushed from above. That doesn't mean that those on whom it's foisted can't champion it, and even feel empowered by their now-"voluntary" deprivation. The fact that such internalization of values occurs is one of its biggest selling points; make the deprived think it's their own idea, and they're good people for it, and those evil Nobles and wealthy ones will get their just reward later.

Generally, though, people don't collude on their own oppression without some kind of earlier prompting.

It seems you either think they are in the moral wrong, or, like others on this site, are talking shit for the purposes of sparking a flamewar.

I'll bet anyone who still comes here prays for a flame war. At least then they'd have something to talk about.

There is that.

Maybe we should also punish murder victims, for not contributing to your art. Or rape victims, for being selfish and denying the rapist their desires. (Of course, if you were getting assfucked by a schmuck with a spiked dildo, you might change your tune, especially if it wasn't going to be videotaped and shown to everyone.) There's a substantial difference between a crime of property (theft), and a non-crime of possession that some individuals think, or claim to think, is morally wrong.

You think that simply saying there is a difference, with a few emotional appeals thrown in, is enough to prove there is a difference?

Examples, albeit lurid ones, not emotional appeals. I'm just trying to get a gauge of where you're at (not willing to tell us, apparently), or even where you claim all the rest of us are. But since you're apparently making the assertion, explain how there's not a difference between possession and theft or admit you're talking smack and STFU. Unless you want to start a separate thread on how property is, in fact, theft; theft =/= possession is pretty much the null hypothesis, as the former involves the removal of (in this case) an object from the person who presumably has "rightful ownership" of said object within the context of his society, and the latter involves one actually having "rightful ownership," that is, exclusive (or perhaps non-) use of/disposal of the object in question; this is a distinction which is maid, AFAIK, almost everywhere, even if local notions of possession and property are different from place to place.

Even if you're going to try to keep arguing that under the OTMM possession is a sin, and perhaps as much of one as theft, you're still going to have to explain how you got there; that is, for example, what texts &c. are you using to make this judgement, how do you see the hierarchy of values as leading to this, and so forth. You really do seem to be making some wild assertions and generalizations in this thread.

Try again Cap'n.

Right back atcha, Drew.

In other words, you've arrived at blame-the-victim by means of sophistry. Maybe you can try this one out in court when you get busted for something.

I've already said that law and morality do not coincide.

The relationship between the two is a lot more complicated than that.

This is not a blame-the-victim situation, just a statement of equal moral wrongness. The thief and the victim are both wrong. Their mutual wrongness does not lessen the wrongness for either.

So you are claiming that either "The Herd" thinks this, or you think this (doubtful, as you don't appear willing to share your own convictions)? Or you're just setting up a hypothetical that has very relation to anything that, you know, actually happens? If the former, again, please explain; this is a really big assertion to make unsupported. If the middle, well, only you would know. And if it's the latter, what, exactly is your point? Do you really find it more interesting in AbstractLand? I know it's messier in the real world, but, that's often part of the fun.

It's too bad, though, that you're not claiming it's a blame-the-vicitim situation (They should be punished, as well, one way or another, right? Just for something else? But again, why not when they got the object?); that would be fun to watch you try to defend.

Not everything is black and white, Cap'n.

Exactly. Please, please, listen to your advice here. You are the one making Grand Universal Statements and Assertions, and far off into AbstractLand.

Oh, and words have meanings, too. That's important. Really.

Did you steal something big from someone and are now hoping to a) not get caught? or b) not get punished for it?

Would it invalidate my point if I were?

It would increase the possibility, in "The Herd's" eyes, that you were bullshitting for the sake of self-protection. Your point is somewhere between invalid and meaningless.

Once again Cap'n, your anger clouds your judgment.

You seem to mistake passion and New York Attitude for anger, but really, if you want to make the argumentum ad hysterium instead of actually engaging, that's your choice. Whatever you need to do to feel better about yourself.

I'm pretty sure Drew was just talking out his ass. However, when he makes the kind of universal statements he did, he either needs to explain them and back them up, or deal with getting flamed (in part for not taking ownership of his own statements).

Better than talking out my dick, eh Cap'n?

Video, or it never happened. And with an NSFW warning.

However, maybe you could explain how in a highly materialistic culture like that found in America, it would make sense to argue that THE (i.e the only, or vastly prevalent at least) prevailing moral view says that worldly possessions are wrong and immoral.

That would be the hypocrisy created by the conflict of popular culture and moral values.

Um, OK. Thanks for the flash. No one's ever plumbed that one before.

I'm sorry, Drew. I've seen you do good work. This one, as presented, was just sophomoric flamebait and weak sauce at that. At least you stepped it up some downthread.

[Drewtheunquestioned]

The fun continues.

Re: "ALL moral views": Every last one? Really? Every kind of weakness is the same? Being a victim is the same as not succumbing to temptation? Really? I'm having a hard time seeing you actually get behind this kind of oversimplification.

I said that weakness is wrong in all moral views. Its all about irrelevance. In the judeo-christian morality, worldly things are irrelevant. In the Homeric morality, things which are life-denying are irrelevant (such as physical weakness, cowardice, ignorance, etc.). Those are two prominent moral systems and the pattern is the same, weakness is immoral. The difference is in how they define weakness. Is there a moral system you know which does not follow this?

Um, Drew, you just claimed being vicitimized=weakness=morally wrong in, in your words, "ALL moral views," that is, without any differentiation between the various ways and nuances and connotations thereof by which one can be victimized. without the Maybe you're trying to say here that people are better off, what, working through things after they've been wronged, rather than dwelling on it? Um, yeah, thanks Captain Obvious, maybe next time just say it

Your problem is that you still think I am trying to justify crime. That I'm somehow trying to make crime out to be less wrong by pointing out that being the victim of crime is also wrong. I'm not. Just bringing to light this often neglected question.

Victimization is victimization. It doesn't matter how it happens, only that it happens. The pursuit of perfect morality is an endless one, as any pursuit of perfection must be. If you think that by discussing this idea that I believe myself to be an example of it, you would be wrong. Will there ever be a time when we can discuss ideas and concepts without resorting to ad hominem and personal discrediting?

So, to consider with the original topic, do you, Drew, consider possession of an object to be as morally wrong, and therefore apparently deserving of punishment, as someone stealing said object? When should they be punished? At the time of possession? When it's stolen? Why?

You seem to be confusing morality with lawfulness. Immorality is not to be punished, for the act of punishment is in itself immoral (we punish to satisfy a desire for justice or vengeance; equivalent exchange. Yet another reason law and morality don't fit). As such, there is no need to punish either for being immoral.

The proper response to immorality is not punishment but teaching. This is why we suffer, that we might understand our own moral wrongness for suffering and seek rightness.

How is it known, and/or derived, and agreed upon? How do you get from the abstraction "moral rightness" to real world, concrete occurrences?

Morality only exists in the abstract. Just as there is no concrete occurrence of the spirit, there is no real world example of morality. Concepts are meant to be considered in abstraction, how they move from abstraction to form and then to practice are different matters.

I do find your obvious propensity for mindfuckery in lieu of actual human connection annoying, and I find it quite amusing the rhetorical contortions you will go through to try and justify being a dick, even if it's just for the sake of discussion.

This is the internet. If I want actual human connection I won't look for it here. I come here to discuss, what do you come here for?

Certainly, the prevailing morality in the world these days (as poured forth on TV and other mass-reaching media) seems to be "get some!" with a little bit of "fuck everyone else!" thrown in; even the craziest Xian fundies and Jihadists aren't stupid enough to proclaim that their ideal world is one of deprivation and restraint.

So then immorality is the norm. This does not discredit the concepts, only the practitioners. Thats something you atheists have always had a problem realizing.

Setting aside your insistence on proclaiming what the ONE TRUE MODERN MORALITY (hereafter abbreviated to OTMM) "is," you're basically reducing "morality" to that preached and practiced by the grimmest of the early Xian ascetics.

You're putting words in my mouth now. I never said it was the "one" or "true". Only that it was the most prominent. Maybe you should call it the MPMM.

And if you're saying that one should just accept harm done to them, you can argue that this may be a good practical action, but how do you derive lament for one's injury=morally wrong=potentially punishable?

I already made my self clear. Physical harm and limitations are inconsequential to the morally righteous. Pain is a physical reaction to weakness, fear a mental reaction, and suffering a spiritual reaction. To feel pain is to be physically weak, to feel fear is to be mentally weak, and to feel suffering is to be spiritually weak. Morality deals in the spiritual, and if one is morally righteous then spiritual strength is the only strength, thus any physical or even mental limitations are inconsequential. Merely obstacles to be overcome by the strength of one's spirit.

In other words, you have proclaimed yourself speaker for everyone (except yourself apparently, see below).

You see to be alone in proclaiming that my friend.

Please give a fairly detailed, but nonetheless not too long explanation of how you decided what their morals are, what they declare them as, which you refer to when you discuss "their morals," and why we should buy your assertion.

My views are acquired by my life's experience. By my experience, this is the morality put forward by most societies.

But I must challenge you to find a moral system in which my situation would be viewed differently.

In general, be-good-and-get-your-reward-in-the-next-life memes are pushed by those doing the shitting on, not the shat on.

To the morally righteous, there is no reward, only contentment. The ideal of rewards and punishments are immoral indeed, which is why they are "pushed by those doing the shitting on".

The fact that such internalization of values occurs is one of its biggest selling points; make the deprived think it's their own idea, and they're good people for it, and those evil Nobles and wealthy ones will get their just reward later.

Do I detect a hint of paranoia here? Is this argument no different than the, "you don't believe in the devil, but the devil believes in you" ideal?

I'm sorry, Drew. I've seen you do good work. This one, as presented, was just sophomoric flamebait and weak sauce at that. At least you stepped it up some downthread.

Rationalizing my questioning is much easier for you than considering it I've found. Disappointing.

[Amadameus]

Whoo boy!

said that weakness is wrong in all moral views. Its all about irrelevance. In the judeo-christian morality, worldly things are irrelevant. In the Homeric morality, things which are life-denying are irrelevant (such as physical weakness, cowardice, ignorance, etc.). Those are two prominent moral systems and the pattern is the same, weakness is immoral. The difference is in how they define weakness. Is there a moral system you know which does not follow this?

Bolded the parts I want to go over. First of all, you are hybridizing irrelevance and weakness. Irrelevance does not necessarily imply a wrong, simply a superfluous element. Weakness, definitely, is superfluous - but there are many other things that fall within the category of irrelevance without requiring immediate excision.

And yes, prominent moral systems usually prescribe that things like weaknesses and faults be eliminated - but not all, and certainly not to the fanatical degree you are using. Let's examine the faults in your original scenario:

A steals X from B.
A is at fault for coveting X and taking it from B without his permission.
B is at fault for depending on X and being harmed by X's absence.

Here, anyone with common sense can tell you that A is very much at fault. A has not only held an internal fault (coveting) but he has acted upon it and directly harmed another without attempting to make amends.

B, on the other hand, is acting as most of us do in our daily lives. Where would we be without our cell phones? Our cars, our grocery stores, our central air conditioning and our clothes? These are very basic things that we all depend upon for life. Does this make us weak? Only when held in comparison to someone who lives without them and still maintains the same life-output as we do.

That sounds strange, but it's the best way I can put it. Here's an example:
Think of people as cars. If cars D and E can attain 70mph (let's suppose this is the only requirement of a car) but car D cannot function without high-grade gasoline while car E can run on anything from kerosene to kitchen grease, is car D harmed by its dependence? Absolutely!
But both cars depend on wheels. This dependence, since it is shared, cannot be said to harm either car - it is common to all cars that they require wheels.

In exactly the same way, the dependence on daily items like a car, house, partner or job cannot be said to be a weakness unless it is taken to an extreme. These are things that all humans depend upon and if it is to be considered a 'weakness' then this is a common weakness we all have - something to be expected.

So yes, in our original scenario, person A is at fault because they have maintained a mental fault AND satisfied it by directly harming B. B is not at fault because, although he is technically dependent upon this item, it is also considered common that all society has ownership laws and people can depend on those laws to exist.
B is not at fault for depending on these laws because if something were stolen from A, A would be affected just as much as B.
(if A were not affected by the theft of his personal property, then we might begin to find fault with B - sort of like a Robin Hood scenario)



What you are doing is applying double standards and attempting to make the basic assumptions of society as 'wrong' as the harm caused by the breaking of them.

Yes, there are degrees of wrongness in everything - but also keep in mind that in our scenario, B did nothing wrong in the theft - it was only after the fact, when his life was harmed by the absence of X, that he became at fault. These two incidents, the theft of X and the want of X, are not the same.

In an extreme case such as a Robin Hood-esque sort of theft, in which A had noble intentions and B was perhaps misusing his X, I can agree with you, but extreme cases are not common nor are they normal. (I love tautologies.)

Please keep in mind that there are many philosophies and moralities, and many of them do not run so deep as yours. For example, there are quite a few conservative philosophies that hold the keeping of personal property dear to their heart. Try trespassing on a farmer's land and you'll see what I mean. Does this mean he understands all the underpinnings of a society's acceptance of property and the united agreement to respect that boundary? Probably not - but the morality exists nonetheless and it must be accounted for in your claims that "all moral systems see weakness as wrong."

So then immorality is the norm. This does not discredit the concepts, only the practitioners. Thats something you atheists have always had a problem realizing.

Why are the concepts and the practitioners kept separate? I see them as two faces of the same coin. The concept affects the practitioner, who in turn affects the concept - it's an endless loop that has explained some of the more bizarre transformations in religions. (In history, Christianity and its' predecessor Judaism have oscillated endlessly between peace-loving and warmongering. The concept changes as the practitioner requires.)

Therefore, an immoral majority - athough they hold a moral belief - are actually of an different belief than they profess. Essentially, it's a form of subconscious doublethink. Christians will speak about peace and love while they sign the papers to go to war.

To the morally righteous, there is no reward, only contentment. The ideal of rewards and punishments are immoral indeed, which is why they are "pushed by those doing the shitting on".

A very Stoic philosophy, broad but not universal. You're making true statements but you're steamrolling over the presence of minorities that disagree. For example, moral atheists like Yours Truly. Is there no reward? Is contentment not a reward? Our brains are wired to run on a reward system. I could go far into this but I'll stop here, for the sake of length.

Suffice to say that, to a moral or religious person, contentment is that point at which the reward has been abandoned and they live their life for the sake of their values. To a biologist, contentment is just another one of the brain's rewards, a carrot on a stick just like sex or fame or money.

[Drewtheunquestioned]

I see. So you merely point of the extremeness of my argument. This kind of victim immorality is so common its hardly relevant to question it, whereas the immorality of the offender is much more relevant as it has a solid action tied to it.

It is much more reasonable to question the wrongness of the action than the reaction. I can understand this. But this is not a matter of reason, but of spirit.

Of course from a purely spiritual perspective they are both in the wrong, from a purely reasonable perspective the offender is in the wrong, and from a purely material perspective the victim is in the wrong (as he had failed to protect the object and so was out-matched by the offender). But the be realistic one must take into account ALL perspectives. The weakest being material (I), reason being second in strength (II) and spirit being the strongest (III)

The victim is wrong from a material and spiritual stand point, and the offender being wrong from a reasonable and spiritual stand point.

Thus the final tally is...

Offender: (III)(II)
Victim: (III)(I)

So it would seem from a realistic perspective the offender is in the wrong, and the victim is simply less wrong.

[Amadameus]

So it would seem from a realistic perspective the offender is in the wrong, and the victim is simply less wrong.

First of all, let me emphasize something:
"The victim is wrong from A spiritual standpoint"

I can imagine plenty of philosophical/spiritual/whatever standpoints that take a position that dependence on things is not wrong whatsoever as long as a reasonable claim to the object can be established. As before, rural conservatives come to mind. They depend on their land without shame or fault, but they also have a strong connection to it. And they'll shoot your ass if you try to steal their cows.

Anyway!

Yes, the only difference is a matter of degree - but the degree is a large one, and often spiritual arguments (what you claimed was the strongest) are disregarded entirely from discussion of these matters, since spiritual beliefs vary so widely.

[Zymeth]

Hey Drew,
How can you say that the morality you speak of is the MPMM. Moral views differ even among towns ten kilometers away. To consider the point, it is immoral (not illegal) in my college to wear short skirts. But it is not immoral in another nearby college.

I said that weakness is wrong in all moral views.

Does that mean it is immoral in all views for a physically disabled person to exist?

Drew proclaims that all who are born disabled are immoral. Was that the Sin they inherited from their parents?
So who is immoral?


I am cannot run as far as an athlete. Therefor I am weak. So is it immoral for me to be so? Should I give up the time I use for programming (I would be stronger in that than almost any athlete) and train to be an athlete? Therefore I will be weak in programming. And what about my music skills. Aaaah, I don't have my on multi-national giant business firm. I am not the President of the United States of America. Darn, I am an Indian, i cannot ever be that.
I am so weak.
Damn it, I am immoral in all aspects.
I don't deserve to exist.

Thanks a lot Drew, for showing me the light.

Where the hell was the pistol??? Never mind, I shall use the rope..

[Zymeth]

Can somebody delete that repeat???
How can I do that myself??

I cant find the rope either...

Now I will have to saw my neck off with a spoon...

[Amadameus]

Darnit Drew, look what you did!
Stop driving the newbies into fits of suicidal depression already! We're running out.

[Drewtheunquestioned]

There is a clear difference between weakness and limitation. Limitations are imposed on us by circumstance, weakness is self-imposed.

If you have a disability, it is obviously a limitation, but it is only a weakness if you cannot overcome it physically, mentally, or spiritually. Lost a leg? Build a new one, find a way to get around without it, or just adapt your lifestyle to suit your limitation.


The point is that limitations are just the parameters of your reality, weaknesses are mental/spiritual diseases. You are not as fast as an olympic runner, this is obviously a limitation for you. If you cannot accept that you're not as fast as an Olympic runner, it becomes a weakness and begins eats away at you inside. Acceptance, understanding, and through questioning are the treatment. Once you overcome your weakness, you can pick and choose which limitations you want to challenge.