Lies, Crimes, and Misdemeanors
1) Cheating on your spouse
Once, the lies start, all the others, come naturally. If your are not involved in a relationship, then #1 is invalid and I would insert "Denial of ones adverse actions" in its' place.
2) Kidnapping and holding a child ransom. (or children holding their parents hostage for ransom, or ex-spouses using their children to exact revenge.)
3) Driving while well over the legal limit of alcohol. (Putting others at risk)
4) Tax evasion by withholding important information. (Lying and cheating, no matter how one explains it)
5) Buying stolen goods. (Ditto)
6) Keeping $10 of extra change given by a clerk by mistake. (Ditto)
7) Smoking in elevators (inconsideration)
9) Not voting in a national election. (I vote, It's either a "Ballot or a Bullet... Malcome X)
The first eight, have to do with active transgressions by an individual. The last two are merely subjective, moral judgments.
9) Newspapers treating crime as news and making a known criminal appear heroic.
10) . Politicians, to get money for themselves, using their influence to get a law passed which they know to be against the public's interest.
Re: Your moral values.
1) Kidnapping and holding a child ransom.
2) Cheating on your spouse.
3) Politicians, to get money for themselves, using their influence to get a law passed which they know to be against the public's interest.
4) Driving while well over the legal limit of alcohol.
5) Buying stolen goods.
6) Smoking in elevators.
7) Newspapers treating crime as news and making a known criminal appear heroic.
8) Tax evasion by withholding important information.
9) Keeping $10 of extra change given by a clerk by mistake.
10) Not voting in a national election.
After reading all these responses it occurs to me, although I believe highly in moral judgement, that there are always acceptions and good reasons for doing anything. So I'll go out on a limb here and say it is impossible to rate any of these "crimes" as being worse than the other. As in the Judicial system, attenuating circumstances always come into play, and may be independant of moral judgement.
Kidnapping the child would seem the worst because there really is no rational reason for such an act. All the others, I can see logical reasons for doing, but least of all the Political and Media behavior as I truly think misleading huge numbers of people, leads to total disaster (ie holocaust....and I would stress here...the promotion of cigarettes 40 some years ago...).
Issues like drunk driving (now I am not saying I support this behavior) are used to divert our attention from real problems like polluting the environment and the distribution of wealth. There's a world of difference between the the guy who drives with a beer and the guy who swerves around on 10 drinks habitually, and likewise corporations like Arther Anderson/ Enron and some individual who failed to report the cash he made selling his organic tomatoes; or a poor person who steals when hungry.
I believe morality has to address the conditions of the behavior and the degree of the action as well as determining the intent of the defendant.
colorific, No doubt, rating of crime in different circumstances can change the priority, but stealing is stealing, no matter in what environment. Driving drunk once vs frequently makes a difference only when that "once" creates a situation that harms other people. I do not believe there are different levels of right and wrong in driving under the influence; it's always wrong. There are definitely other problems associated with driving our cars, but the question specified "drunk driving" for the sake of rating "moral" values. Otherwise, it would be an endless quetionaire.
c.i.
right; we weren't rating crime; but attempting to prioritize the morality of some actions over others. You can make a generalization and say "stealing is stealing" but it is incomplete. If a homeless person steals some apples from a fruit stand it is far different than Winona Ryder shop lifting. To say some type of behavior is wrong raises the issue of blame in order to assign guilt; and most people would agree the apple thief doesn't require the same level of guilt a compulsive shop lifter gets.
Like wise a repeat drunk driver with a serious record doesn't get the same level of blame if say: four people at a beach party, one gets hurt and the person who drank the least drives him to the hospitol. Same wrong action, though the circumstances are different, intent is different: so I maintain that though you may call the actions wrong; the level of morality is relative, disproportionate and therefore it's a little slippery trying to say "this wrong action is is less moral than that wrong action"
colorific, However, if one goes over the 10 items Craven provided for the ranking of "moral" issues, other considerations as to degree and value is different for each individual - I would presume. It's a very subjective ranking of a personal nature which takes into consideration our own exposure, education, and environment. In your example, "If a homeless person steals some apples from a fruit stand it is far different than Winona Ryder shop lifting." Craven provides different levels of 'stealing.' 1. Keep a $10 change that doesn't belong to you, 2. Cheat on your income tax return, or 3. Buying stolen goods. They are very specific. Far different from the example you provided. At least that's the way I see it. c.i.
