A moral question

Panda Hugger said:
Under the right circumstances, most people are good. As well, under another set of right circumstances, most will gleefully commit unfathomable atrocities. Underneath it all, we are animals with a thin veneer of rationality holding us back. Let us just hope we are never tested in such a way.
Click to expand...

It is incredibly likely that we as a species will.
 
Clovis said:
What is?
Click to expand...
The answer to the OP question. I'm sorry I actually had it backwards. I would not be moral to take the bread but It could be ethical.

Morality is simply knowing the difference between right and wrong.

Ethic are the principles that govern individual and groups behavior.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
The answer to the OP question. I'm sorry I actually had it backwards. I would not be moral to take the bread but It could be ethical.

Morality is simply knowing the difference between right and wrong.

Ethic are the principles that govern individual and groups behavior.
Click to expand...

But right and wrong are constructs of.individual and group behavior
 
Stealing is always considered immoral, even if done for the right reasons. I agree with Mott about the difference between morals and ethics.
 
Carlos Danger said:
Stealing is always considered immoral, even if done for the right reasons. I agree with Mott about the difference between morals and ethics.
Click to expand...
Ok. And when I asked this, for those that are curious, I didn't have a 'right' answer or a 'wrong' answer in mind. Either course of action will lead to you killing someone, directly or indirectly.
 
Oh, no, I agree with both of you. Your scenario has obviously been about survival, which always trumps both morals and ethics. My point is, even in a situation where one tribe justifies stealing from another, they do so by dehumanizing them first, because that is the usual way in which it becomes acceptable to do what is universally considered wrong. The other exception is your survival scenario.
 
Clovis said:
I'm bored (of course) and while I writing an article for GBF, a random thought popped into my head. Is it wrong to steal bread from someone if you or your family is starving?

Now most of you (myself included) would say that yes, it's moral to do so. But let's change the scenario a bit. Suppose, oh I don't know, a comet hits Earth. It's a large one, about the size of an Apollo asteroid. And like the last one that hit Earth it's an extinction level event. Over 5,500,000,000 people killed, agriculture destroyed, almost all known nations and governments collapse, the whole End of the world as we know prepper fantasy. You can replace this with a viral outbreak or nuclear war or whatever, these particulars aren't important.

Now to add to this level of fantasy, you manage to survive. It's been about a decade since said apocalypse, long enough that you and other survivors know how to survive, but not so long that you've forgotten what the world used to be like.

In this time you've joined up with a moderately sized group of other survivors, and you have a little civilization again. And part of your duty is to go out with a search party and look for things to scavange. While you and your party are out you happen upon another group, from a different little civilization. And they have something your group REALLY needs. Medicine, or fuel, or a generator. And you offer to trade with this group, but all your offers are rebuffed.

Now you and your civilzation aren't in IMMEDIATE danger of dying of from plague or sickness or whatever. But you do have a very real NEED for these items, and it's not something you can make or are likely to stumble upon any time soon, so if you don't get these thing people you know will die. Also, as the final twist, your scavanger group outnumbers these guys 2-1, and you are armed and they are not.

What do you do?
Click to expand...

when civilization breaks down, survival of the fittest takes over

so you have to ask yourself is the murder or theft necessary and if so then you have to do it. but it had better be really necessary. also, if you do take what they have, are you prepared to kill off their entire group, because you do not know if there are more of them and whether they are armed. because if you do not wipe them out, they will do their best to kill you off later. what you have described is one reason that wars are fought.

one thing that you did not mention, is did you offer to join or merge with their mini-civilization and did they say yes or no?
 
Don Quixote said:
when civilization breaks down, survival of the fittest takes over

so you have to ask yourself is the murder or theft necessary and if so then you have to do it. but it had better be really necessary. also, if you do take what they have, are you prepared to kill off their entire group, because you do not know if there are more of them and whether they are armed. because if you do not wipe them out, they will do their best to kill you off later. what you have described is one reason that wars are fought.

one thing that you did not mention, is did you offer to join or merge with their mini-civilization and did they say yes or no?
Click to expand...

It's possible. I didn't mention it because, in part, I wanted to see if people would consider it.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
STFU desh. you're one of the biggest fraidy cat bitches on this board.
Click to expand...

Easy to say, except she is exactly correct, except it is not tea party idiots, but neo-con new world order bastards (who are still in power).

To deny this reality throws your moniker into desperately questionable status.
 
Last edited:
When it comes to theft, I would be much more sympathetic to robbers that broke into houses and made off with the pantry. Instead, it's always TVs, MP3s, computers, cell phones, gaming consoles, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top