[Pillbox Joe]

Originally Posted by mkess101

I understand what you're saying (and have all along actually) but I just can't buy into it. From a purely rational standpoint what you're saying makes sense, but my belief is simply based on something I believe to be inherent in all sane, rational human beings. People can convince themselves or be brainwashed into doing things that are wrong, but still know that what they are doing is wrong, on some level at least. The human mind is so complex that it makes this discussion an almost impossible one to have. I still believe that there is a "bare minimum" for morality. Anything above that line is up for debate. Anything below it is not. Of course you would obviously argue that people will disagree where that line is drawn. And there's nothing I could say to dispute that except that humans are unique creatures which I believe allows us, once we reach a certain level of cognitive awareness, to understand where that line should be drawn. Do we fool ourselves (some of us at least, especially what we would call the "deviants" of society) into believing the line doesn't exist? You bet. But nothing can convince me it isn't there.

The whole fact that we would argue over morality proves its own subjective nature. Stealing would be wrong, but if a starving man steals food, is he comitting an amoral act? Well, yes because he is stealing which would be a good baseline for moral standard, but at the same time, he will die if he doesn't, which is another baseline standard for where stealing could be set. It's for certain that there are no true moral baselines.

[enginekid]

good and evil is the same thing as hot and cold

do you believe in hot and cold?

[Pillbox Joe]

Originally Posted by enginekid

good and evil is the same thing as hot and cold

do you believe in hot and cold?

Define hot and cold.

[logos]

Originally Posted by Pillbox Joe

The whole fact that we would argue over morality proves its own subjective nature. Stealing would be wrong, but if a starving man steals food, is he comitting an amoral act? Well, yes because he is stealing which would be a good baseline for moral standard, but at the same time, he will die if he doesn't, which is another baseline standard for where stealing could be set. It's for certain that there are no true moral baselines.

You are trying to make something complicated that just simply is not.

Stealing something that is not yours is wrong... circumstances like those you mentioned certainly mitigate the act; but the act in itself -stealing- is intrinsically wrong, and will always be.

[Pillbox Joe]

Originally Posted by logos

You are trying to make something complicated that just simply is not.

Stealing something that is not yours is wrong... circumstances like those you mentioned certainly mitigate the act; but the act in itself -stealing- is intrinsically wrong, and will always be.

so will every single person on earth agree that it is wrong? because if there are people that dont agree, then the act isn't necessarily intrinsically wrong, that would only be some people's opinion. there will also be those that dont believe in property, there are even societies on earth even today that don't even have a word for personal property. this is especially true in many primitive indonesian and new guinea societies.

[Akuma Kanji]

Originally Posted by enginekid

good and evil is the same thing as hot and cold

do you believe in hot and cold?

nothing like a nice glass of evil beer.

[enginekid]

Originally Posted by Akuma Kanji

nothing like a nice glass of evil beer.

after an hour of 'good' sex...lol

[logos]

Originally Posted by Pillbox Joe

so will every single person on earth agree that it is wrong? because if there are people that dont agree, then the act isn't necessarily intrinsically wrong, that would only be some people's opinion. there will also be those that dont believe in property, there are even societies on earth even today that don't even have a word for personal property. this is especially true in many primitive indonesian and new guinea societies.

Taking something that is not rightfully yours is an immoral act. The question as to why you took it is a separate matter. Because a thief deems it okay to steal does not refute the fact that the act is immoral.

[Pillbox Joe]

Originally Posted by logos

The question as to why you took it is a separate matter

The question of why it is taken and the definition of personal property is actually the very heart of the matter of theft and robbery. It isn't that cut and dry as "this is mine." According to cultural law it is to an extent, but in so far as morality, it isn't cut and dry like that because personal property changes in definition from person to person as well.

[logos]

Originally Posted by Pillbox Joe

The question of why it is taken and the definition of personal property is actually the very heart of the matter of theft and robbery. It isn't that cut and dry as "this is mine." According to cultural law it is to an extent, but in so far as morality, it isn't cut and dry like that because personal property changes in definition from person to person as well.

The question as to why somoene stold something has nothing to do with the question we are discussing. We are trying to ascertain whether stealing is immoral or not... and the answer is yes. Of course a thief might disagree, but universally speaking it is frowned upon. Thus there are universal principles that exist, and will always exist.