UnderGround Forums
 

PhilosophyGround >> We have no responsibility


2/23/05 11:00 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
DonnaTroy
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-Feb-05
Member Since: 09/22/2002
Posts: 4495
Yes, Fudo, I still consider wrong. The Sem Terra, as a movement, has all the rights. But stealing land, is wrong, and even worse, they are killing people to do it. Have you noticed that they only want good and productive land? To steal food in order to survive: that is the only case, in Brazilian law, where the person is considered guilty of stealing, but the attenuant is enough to nullify the punishment. I am sorry that you are living in Rio, where the moral values are going downhill - literaly.
2/24/05 10:50 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
93 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 4366
Literally? I gotta see that! -doug-
2/24/05 1:56 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
DonnaTroy
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-05
Member Since: 09/22/2002
Posts: 4498
First you need to study geography and geoeconomy from Rio to understand what I mean.
2/24/05 4:26 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 11231

doug,

"I'll think about it more though, im not really satisfied with my answer to you. "

Ok, I´ll let you think trough your answer then.

Donna,

"The Sem Terra, as a movement, has all the rights."

Actually it´s the Brazilian Governemnt that has the right to give land to them, they don´t have the right to take it.

"To steal food in order to survive: that is the only case, in Brazilian law, where the person is considered guilty of stealing, but the attenuant is enough to nullify the punishment. "

I was not talking law, but morals. Or do you always think it´s wrong to brake the law?

"I am sorry that you are living in Rio[..]"

You shouldn´t be, because I like it here. As I already said; that other people tries to cheat me sometimes, usually doesn´t bother me anylonger.

2/24/05 4:32 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
DonnaTroy
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-05
Member Since: 09/22/2002
Posts: 4504
*sighs* All the rights to manifest, like in democracy... Sorry, Fudo, but you seem to be defending the idea that to steal is right, and that to brake laws is right. There are a few mean laws that must be changed, but "do not steal" is not one of them.
2/24/05 4:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-05 08:04 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 11233

"Sorry, Fudo, but you seem to be defending the idea that to steal is right, and that to brake laws is right. "

Either you have misunderstood what I say or you mischarachtirize my position on purpose.

first of all, you didn´t answer my question; if it can be right to brake an (unjust) law? what you call a "mean law", that "must be changed".

second, it´s you that take an absolutist position, not me. I´m only arguing that it sometimes can be right to steal (while you say it can never be right), and that it sometimes can be right to brake the law. I never argued that it is always right to steal and brake the law.

2/24/05 11:03 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
DonnaTroy
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-05
Member Since: 09/22/2002
Posts: 4505
FM I´m sorry that you cannot understand that to steal is wrong. The circunstances may bring attenuants, but it remains inherently wrong. I will not abandon an absolute position on this issue, in the name of being politicaly correct. Take care, perhaps you have been spending too much time with malandros. I know many cariocas that believe this same way you are arguing. It is a cultural issue, that is not accepted at other parts of the country.
2/25/05 6:45 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 25-Feb-05 06:52 AM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 11239

"I´m sorry that you cannot understand that to steal is wrong."

Donna, I´m sorry that you cannot understand that to steal is not always wrong. maybe you have spent to much time in certain religious circles. Many religious fundamentalists believe in the way you do (unfortunatly few can give any arguments to support their position. most just assert that some things is "inherently wrong").

And I certainly don´t take my position  because I have spent time with "malandros" or because it´s politically correct.

Do you plan to ever answer my question; if it can be right to brake an unfair law?

take care you too.

Um Abraco

2/25/05 8:50 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
DonnaTroy
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 25-Feb-05
Member Since: 09/22/2002
Posts: 4506
Why should I? You didn´t answer my chocolate question either...
2/25/05 4:46 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 25-Feb-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 11240

"You didn´t answer my chocolate question either... "

C´mon.. That wasn´t  a question,  you simply assumed something that you thought I would say next. An assumption that was also wrong btw.  But you don´t need to answer any question of course.

2/26/05 9:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Andes
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 26-Feb-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 314
doug are you familiar with advaita vedanta (non-dual hindu philosophy)? an advaitist would agree with your statement. www.rameshbalsekar.com for more info on advaita
2/27/05 5:40 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
DyingBreed
16 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Feb-05
Member Since: 01/18/2003
Posts: 11310
my friend said this, and i quote: "i cannot be held responsible for my actions, because at that given moment i couldnt have chosen anything BUT what i chose. it was not in my power to choose otherwise, just which ever force was stronger. therefore, there is no right or wrong, only consequences from other people who will 'hold you accountable' " not that it has anything to do with this thread though :)
2/27/05 11:40 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Feb-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 11252

DB,

is your friend Scrapper ? sounds like something he could say..

2/27/05 5:51 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
DyingBreed
16 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Feb-05
Member Since: 01/18/2003
Posts: 11325
lol, nope. guy lives in kentucky. known him since i was 13
2/28/05 9:37 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
93 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 28-Feb-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 4369
"First you need to study geography and geoeconomy from Rio to understand what I mean. " Not really. I need to know something about morals and about what the term "literal" means to know that it can't happen. But, point taken. Andes, Nope, not familiar. I'll check out the link. Fudo, I dont know if i can generate a better answer ;) Basically, if you can choose between a bad option and a good option, it seems as though you are deserving of blame or praise once you make your descision, no? If you deserve something for what you have done, then there is a fact of the matter about what you should or should not do, based on desert-worthyness. This is moral obligation. -doug-
3/25/05 2:43 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
WoodenPupa
95 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 25-Mar-05
Member Since: 07/24/2002
Posts: 422
To paraphrase Nietzshe, "Morality at bottom is the will to obey."
3/26/05 12:06 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 26-Mar-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 11489

"You not only stole something from someone, but you also violated his freedom by supplanted your idea of significance with your own. "

I don´t think you get what I´m trying to say. To highlight my point again: What if I was very rich and someone stole something from me that I found insignificant (and/or didn´t find out about), would that be wrong?

that scenario doesn´t suffer from your critique.

3/26/05 10:38 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 26-Mar-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 11497

again, not what I said

reply to what I say instead

3/26/05 1:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 26-Mar-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 11507

"What if I was sleeping and someone molested me without my knowledge, would that be wrong? "

I think it would. I answered your question, so please answer my question now.

"Furthermore your case seems to depend on the fact that you can predetermine what someone else thinks is insignificant"

I don´t need to predetremine that, I just assume it to create my argument. this is a philosophical forum after all.

"How does the thief know what is or is not significant to the person?"

doesn´t seem relevant what he knows or not in this case. I´m asking you.

3/26/05 3:56 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 26-Mar-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 11510

"What exactly is your question, Fudo?"

If we have a person that is about to starve to death, and he steals some small amount from me, that I find insignificant, in order for him to buy some food and survive, was that an immoral act ?

"You seemed to allude to the position that the insignificance of someone's property has any bearing on whether it is okay for someone else to take it (or else why distinguish?). "

Yes, because you can argue that an act X by someone is morally wrong if I suffer from that act. But if I don´t, it takes away that part of the argument on your side.

"In reality, however, it involves a judgement that the thief is clearly not in a position to make, as it is not his property to deem significant or not. "

 and again, I´m not speaking about the thief, but about your criteria for what constitutes a morally wrong action.

3/26/05 6:07 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 26-Mar-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 11514

"But how is it determined that it is an insignificant amount? That's my problem here."

I don´t need to "determine" that, I just say it is so, to make my argument. aren´t you familiar with how you can make philosophical arguments? It doesn´t have to reflect whatever your perception of "realistic" happens to be, we are working with hypothetical cases here.

"I am of the belief that stealing is wrong in any capacity."

so it is morally right for him to starve to death instead then?

3/26/05 11:28 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 26-Mar-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 11517

"Imagining implausible scenarios doesn't seem to me to be a path toward wisdom, however."

path to wisdom? these scenarios serve a purpose; namely for us to figure out on what grounds we decide an act to be either moral or immoral. it´s about improving our knowlegde about explicit moral criteria.

wisdom.. well, I don´t know about that..

But I´ll try to explain what I´m trying to illuminate, in another way:

 

We have the scenario I described above, with the two choices I described: (1) Either steal and survive or (2) not steal and die.

your suggestion unfortunatly gives little guidance what this poor fellow should do here. since you said that "stealing is wrong in any capacity" and at the same time you say that "Of course it isn't [morally right for him to starve to death instead ]". Or with other words, whatever this guy does, he does (morally) wrong.

Usually, if an act is immoral, it is also implied it is an act you shouldn´t do. Do you agree with this or not?

Lets for a second assume you do. then this guy shouldn´t steal, but you also said that he shouldn´t starve either (which implies that he must steal). so then we have a contradiction. unless of course you think that sometimes you should do immoral acts. but then we might wonder, why the hell do we need your criteria for in the first place, if you don´t need to follow them?

Have I managed to clarify my point, do you get what I´m trying to say or do I speak in riddles still?

 

3/27/05 12:47 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Mar-05 12:48 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 11520

"You're not quite representing my position properly."

sorry man, but it´s my scenario, not yours. so I can create it however I want. I gave you two options, not three or four or something else..

If you create a hypothetical question and ask me a question, you can set your own rules.

"I also believe there is a moral duty for individuals to not let him starve."

I think so too, but that is besides the point, because I have assumed that no such option exists.

I don´t understand why this is so hard to understand?

"That someone must step into the scenario and take from one to give to the other does not necessarily follow, does it? "

you are talking about something else then my scenario.

"Is this where you play Mr. High and Mighty?"

completly unnecessary comment. stick to discussing the topic at hand please.

"Anyway, I think you're assuming that moral action has to be enforced and must end in perfect human happiness."

you think wrong.

3/27/05 1:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Mar-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 11522

"I have conformed to your rules and answered all your conditionals."

You haven´t. I gave you two options to choose from, you answered with a third that didn´t exist, i.e. someone else should save him, or with your own words:"there is a moral duty for individuals to not let him starve"

"Then don't be so impolite. =)"

Have I been impolite ? Where? (if so, my apologies)

3/27/05 1:29 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Mar-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 11525

everything is fine, thanks alot for your thoughts on this question and for your last comments.

"My way of seeing things cannot allow me to choose one or the other as more or less moral."

I don´t think it is an easy scenario either. and I´m not saying that it is generally right to steal either as someone thought earlier. but I personally think that if we view morals rigidly as a black and white-issue (always right and always wrong), morals will become more of an obstacle then something that can give us a positive guidance in difficult situations. But that is just my 2 cents.


Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.