We only think stealing is wrong because we're not thieves.

FreeDuck wrote:

acceptable/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ak-sep-tuh-buhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-adjective
1. capable or worthy of being accepted.
2. pleasing to the receiver; satisfactory; agreeable; welcome.
3. meeting only minimum requirements; barely adequate: an acceptable performance.
4. capable of being endured; tolerable; bearable: acceptable levels of radiation.

Which of those four definitions were you using when you said, "I wager that a thief accepts that stealing is wrong but finds it acceptable to be wrong."?

Acceptable according to what standards? I assumed that you meant moral standards, but you're implying that you did not.

Quote:

I imagine if they were tortured they would think that was wrong...

I'm not sure about this. We're both speculating about the beliefs of criminals... I'm not sure who is right, or how to tell.

Quote:

Quote:
I still think that if you truly believed that the action was wrong, you wouldn't have done it.

I couldn't disagree more. Very few of us are motivate by a desire to be "right" or "moral". It is always a weighing of morality vs. needs, wants, desires, self-preservation, you name it.

I think that morality is posterior to needs, wants, desires, etc. To put it very simply, I think that it is wrong to kill because I don't want people to kill. If I had a strong urge to kills someone, I think that my moral belief would change.

stuh505 wrote:

Some people even derive pleasure from doing things that they consider to be morally wrong.

Can you give me some examples?

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

I still think that if you truly believed that the action was wrong, you wouldn't have done it.

I'm with FreeDuck and everyone else on this one. It just doesn't line up with what I've observed, in myself as well as in others (to the extent that we can "observe" what's going on in the minds of others, which may be a sketchy tactic on which to build an argument). One of the problems is that this statement assumes morality is the only thing one considers when deciding whether to take an action, or that morality always overrides all other considerations. In the cases I mentioned, this notion frankly assumes a certain minimum of material comfort and social standing. But choices are often complex things; the attempt to abstract them into black or white scenarios is bound to miss something.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
acceptable/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ak-sep-tuh-buhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-adjective
1. capable or worthy of being accepted.
2. pleasing to the receiver; satisfactory; agreeable; welcome.
3. meeting only minimum requirements; barely adequate: an acceptable performance.
4. capable of being endured; tolerable; bearable: acceptable levels of radiation.

Which of those four definitions were you using when you said, "I wager that a thief accepts that stealing is wrong but finds it acceptable to be wrong."?

Any of the four would suffice, but numbers 2 and 4 are pretty explicit.

Quote:

Acceptable according to what standards? I assumed that you meant moral standards, but you're implying that you did not.

Not implying, I specifically said I was not. A person may believe that stealing is wrong, but decide that it is acceptable because the outcome is acceptable -- they never get caught, they get caught but not punished, they get punished but the gain outweighs the punishment, etc...

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
I still think that if you truly believed that the action was wrong, you wouldn't have done it.

I couldn't disagree more. Very few of us are motivate by a desire to be "right" or "moral". It is always a weighing of morality vs. needs, wants, desires, self-preservation, you name it.

I think that morality is posterior to needs, wants, desires, etc. To put it very simply, I think that it is wrong to kill because I don't want people to kill. If I had a strong urge to kills someone, I think that my moral belief would change.

Maybe your moral beliefs as regards yourself. If you had a strong urge to kill, would your moral belief as to whether it was wrong to kill also apply to others? When the urge to kill passed, would your new belief that killing isn't wrong remain, or would it change back to "killing is wrong"?

I think that what you're talking about is temporarily rationalizing away one's moral beliefs in order to commit an act that one believes is wrong, or being overcome by impulse instead of actual thought. It's wrong to steal, but it's ok to steal from the rich, or when you're hungry, or if you don't get caught, or if you really want something and you don't have the money to buy it, etc... I'm so angry I'm going to pop you in the mouth to shut you up, which feels really good until I calm down. That type of thing.

(That last one was an example. I'm not actually angry or wanting to pop you in the mouth, in case that wasn't obvious.)

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

stuh505 wrote:
Some people even derive pleasure from doing things that they consider to be morally wrong.

Can you give me some examples?

Sure.

The most obvious example is with sex. Why do people like to do it in unconventional ways? Why is it a turn on for some people to do it in public, to do it with an animal, with a group, or S&M, a schoolgirl/teacher costume, a kinky little kids getup? It's because they find it morally objectionable. It turns them on to be "bad."

In another example, some people use it as a way to distinguish themself and feel important. If they are truly bad, and have no morals, then in some way they can consider themself a special / unique kind of person.

Of course, they do still have morals, but they wish that they did not. You might look at such a person and say "they have no morals," but I believe you'd be wrong...and that if you looked closer, you'd see that there is a mix of guilt and glee when they perform an immoral action -- guilt for having done it, and pride/glee for having the willpower to overcome the morals which they wish they did not have.

It is similar to when an addict deprives himself of drugs -- he may feel physical withdrawl mixed with an emotional pride for overcoming his addiction.

0 Replies

I agree with this concept entirely. The same goes with religion (and the lack of it).

0 Replies

Good example with drugs. A heroin addict may shoot his mixture, but only afterwards will he have the peace of mind to contemplate his own objections to what he does. It is a classical example how many junkies find the greatest resolve to kick their habit right after taking a dose.
So with drugs it's all about who's in control. The person or the influences he's under.

0 Replies

Agrote said:

Quote:

"I think that morality is posterior to needs, wants, desires, etc. To put it very simply, I think that it is wrong to kill because I don't want people to kill. If I had a strong urge to kills someone, I think that my moral belief would change."

I agree with this statement, but only for myself- I can't generalize or know how anyone else comes to terms with doing things that they believe are immoral or wrong.

I've never stolen, because I've never wanted to, however if my family was hungry, I might believe it was expedient, if not acceptable, to steal. And I don't think I'd believe I was doing anything wrong. Keeping my family or myself alive would take precedence over mans' laws at that point.
But on at least one occaision, when I wanted to do something that I had initially believed was wrong, over a period of time, I was able to rationalize the reasons for why it might not be wrong in the larger scheme of things until I came to the point that I didn't believe it was wrong for me to do it- and that was purely because I wanted to do it-there was no real need involved.
Maybe that's what pedophiles or kleptomaniacs feel- such strong desire that it supercedes or sublimates anyone elses imposed morality or legality.
But I only believe they need to rationalize their behavior if they have a conscience. If they don't have a conscience - it's free sailing.

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

I've never stolen, because I've never wanted to, however if my family was hungry, I might believe it was expedient, if not acceptable, to steal. And I don't think I'd believe I was doing anything wrong. Keeping my family or myself alive would take precedence over mans' laws at that point.
But on at least one occaision, when I wanted to do something that I had initially believed was wrong, over a period of time, I was able to rationalize the reasons for why it might not be wrong in the larger scheme of things until I came to the point that I didn't believe it was wrong for me to do it- and that was purely because I wanted to do it-there was no real need involved.
Maybe that's what pedophiles or kleptomaniacs feel- such strong desire that it supercedes or sublimates anyone elses imposed morality or legality.
But I only believe they need to rationalize their behavior if they have a conscience. If they don't have a conscience - it's free sailing.

Yes, I agree with all of that.

0 Replies

We only think stealing is wrong because we're not thieves.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know