It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

This is a Test! Are you a moral person? If so, how moral?

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 



1) What would you do?

Steal it

2) Why? Are you justified?

Because life cant have a price tag put on it

3) Isn't stealing a sin? always? maybe not?

if it is a sin or not, i believe that its morally right to steal in order to give someone life, if you let them die (when you could've stolen the drug) isnt that murder?

4) Does LIFE trump everything else?

yes

5) What would the Good Samaritan do?

the good samaritan would steal the drug, leaving the 1k behind with a note saying "i promise i will give u the rest when i can"

6) What would Martin Luther King do?

i think he would've stolen it

7) Is sin really relative?

this isnt so much about sin, its about morality, you can have morality and be athiest, or buddhist, or any other religion, so no comment on this one

Have you read the Bible, in James 2:25? It says, "In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?"

Refer to number 7




posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   
1) Borrow the formula
2) No Justification needed
3) Stealing? Saving a life?
4) This situation..Yes
5) Borrow the Knowledge
6) either use the knowledge or make a political point
7) A sin would be not to steal the secret



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   
1) What would you do?
Not steal the drug. There are other ways to earn the money instead of just borrowing.

2) Why? Are you justified?
There are other ways to earn money by the sweat of your brow instead of just borrowing.

3) Isn't stealing a sin? always? maybe not?
Always

4) Does LIFE trump everything else?
Yes. But saving it by damaging someone else isn't.

5) What would the Good Samaritan do?
I have no idea nor do I care.

6) What would Martin Luther King do?
I have no idea nor do I care.

7) Is sin really relative?
If you don't want it done unto you then it's bad. Plain and simple.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unregistered
1) What would you do?
Not steal the drug. There are other ways to earn the money instead of just borrowing.


Like workin' the streets?

Bow-Chicka-Wow-Wow!



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


1) What would you do?
I'd steal it.

2) Why? Are you justified?
My wife is more important than a man's money. Am I justified? I think so.
In the end, I'd do what I could to pay him back.

3) Isn't stealing a sin? always? maybe not?
Sin isn't an issue I care to touch upon.

4) Does LIFE trump everything else?
Saving lives matters.

5) What would the Good Samaritan do?
Don't know.

6) What would Martin Luther King do?
I can't say. But if it were his wife, I bet he'd do what he could to keep her alive.

7) Is sin really relative?
See #3

My final answer is. I know it would be wrong to steal, but I wouldn't feel bad about it, since I did it to save my wife.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 

You would most likely identify me as not "moral".

But it is my opinion that you tell the world by your actions what is acceptable to be done to you. If you want to be forgiven for mistakes accidents and etc, then forgive mistakes accidents and etc. If you knowingly and intentionally lie, cheat and steal, you deserve to be lied to, cheated and stolen from. And etc. If the guy has given himself over to greed he deserves to be stolden from. IMHO.


1) What would you do?


The same.


2) Why? Are you justified?


I shall answer with song.
"Well, I don't mind stealin' bread From the mouths of decadence - But I can't feed on the powerless When my cup's already over-filled" Pearl Jam "Going Hungry"


3) Isn't stealing a sin? always? maybe not?


*shrugs*


4) Does LIFE trump everything else?


Sometimes the end does not justify the means but this time it does.


5) What would the Good Samaritan do?


Don't care.


6) What would Martin Luther King do?


Seee above.



7) Is sin really relative?


I would argue it's subjective. But I don't believe in sin either.


[edit on 23-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   
You save your dying wife and then you ask morality questions later



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   
1) What would you do?

I would at first steal the drug. Owning a formula is a monopoly - and is inherently anti competitive - this is a major flaw in the entire idea of intellectual property rights.

If someone else can create the formula independently - or even reverse engineer the original drug - then produce it as well - morally, it should be perfectly legal. Our laws are NOT moral - nor are they designed to protect the people - they are designed to protect the wealth and control of the 'lords' - that is the globalists.

No-one should have the right to own life saving medicine - it is amoral - the formula should automatically belong to the people. This is not to deny the inventor a profit - in fact he should be able to collect royalties - but those should be set by some agreed upon rules by the people.

You need to create an incentive for people to create such formula's - and being first should give them the right to charge a certain royalty - but that royalty should be set by regulations created by the people.



Isn't stealing a sin? always? maybe not?

Of course stealing isn't a sin - nothing is a sin - even killing, or torture is not a sin under the right conditions.

States sanction the execution of murderers - soldiers go to war and kill - are these sins? If we collectively we can see, and agree there is a moral justification - then nothing is a sin.


Does LIFE trump everything else?

Not at all - what trumps all is creating an environment that promotes the survival of the species - this is the highest form of morality. So individual lives are then in subordination for the greater good.

For example - people will sacrifice their life to save their family and children especially - why? Because children will outlive them - they will keep going after the parent has expired - so they project the survival of the species further into the future.


What would the Good Samaritan do?

Who cares - he is a myth, and probably an idiot.


What would Martin Luther King do?

Again - who cares. I never knew him personally - who knows or cares, the answer to the questions are clearly defined and easy to tell.


Is sin really relative?

For a start - there is no sin. That is purely a subjective description of a persons actions.

All action we take is based on our own judgements - where we can go wrong, and what is called (evil) is always selfishness - putting either our own benefit above others, and taking more than we give.



The moral or common law can simply be stated as follows;

Do no harm, cause no loss.

In the example - the loss caused by stealing would be minor - the loss caused by an unnecessary death would be greater.

Therefore to minimize the overall loss - then the theft is morally justified.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   
Absolute property rights are a work of fiction. Property rights are great system by which those who produce are rewarded for their production and therefore they continue to produce. And as a result producers will produce even more than otherwise. The fault in the reward system is when people start starving to death and people face other severe consequences as a result of the people of greatest need not getting products due to not being producers. Stealing exists only on government paper. Stealing is a paper crime.

What makes things "mine" is that I use them. What makes them mine is that I put them to use. If there is something I have stashed in a box indefinitely that someone else wants and they will use, they would be right to take it from me without my permission because they have the greater need.

In other words, while I like being rewarded for my work with the paper concept of "ownership", I also like to see a balance in the system that allows for people with greater need to have what it is they need.

Property ownership is an arbitrarily decided reward system to maximize hapiness of society, not something fundamental. If property ownership was a fundamental force of God, there would be particles like "propertrons" that physically link us to the stuff we produce. There is no such thing as a propertron as far as I know, therefore property ownership is an imaginary concept not a real one! Very useful to be sure, but also a contrived and arbitrary reward system.

The Christian Bible is wrong. The Koran is also wrong. Stealing is not necessarily a sin depending on whether or not the greater need is more important than the benefits of the reward system (property ownership) to the property owner. Most people who really believe and act like they are True(tm) Christians know deep down in their hearts they would steal the drug for the sake of their spouse for the reason that stealing is right in specific instances.

Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife?
Yes.

Why or why not?
To save his wife.

1) What would you do?
1) Take the drug and leave $300 for the druggist.

2) Why? Are you justified?
2) To save his wife. The act is justified.

3) Isn't stealing a sin? always? maybe not?
3) No. Stealing is only a sin when the item is going from a person of greater need to a person of lesser need.

4) Does LIFE trump everything else?
4) No. Happiness trumps everything else.

5) What would the Good Samaritan do?
5) The good Samaritan would take the drug and leave $300 for the druggist.

6) What would Martin Luther King do?
6) Organize a protest at the door of the drugist.

7) Is sin really relative?
7) No, sin is absolute. What is wrong for one is wrong for all. Of course sin itself is highly circumstantial. For example, stealing from the grocery store to eat is not a sin if you have a greater need for the food than the other people who can afford to pay for it.

[edit on 23-10-2009 by truthquest]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Well, let's turn it around just a little bit. Say that this evil guy (the druggist), instead of having a cure for something, announces that tomorrow he's going to use his gun to kill someone. You break into his house or store and steal the weapon the guy was going to use. Is that wrong? It's still stealing, but this time you're stealing a weapon the guy intends to use to kill someone with. You could argue that if you had the opportunity to steal the weapon, and didn't do it, you are somehow responsible if it is used to kill someone.

Basically, you're balancing different types of evil. The evil of causing or allowing someone to die, is "worse" than the evil of stealing their property. Stealing the cure to heal someone, or stealing the weapon they'd use to kill a person - that's still a "crime", so to speak, but it's a lesser crime than allowing someone to die, or killing them.

In the US, a man was supposedly brought to court accused of stealing bread for his hungry children. The judge (Judge Laguardia) had an interesting solution. He fined everyone in the courtroom, and gave that money to the "thief" so he could buy food for his kids. Sure, technically the man was guilty of theft, and by law he should have been jailed.

As for Rahav, I don't see where the Bible forbids lying, exactly. It forbids bearing false witness against someone, but that's not the same thing as forbidding lying. There are many situations where telling the truth would be considered a great sin, I'd say. For instance, directing criminals to the location of someone who's hiding from them, so that the victim gets murdered. Sure, you told the truth, but there are times when you shouldn't do that.

Most of us don't use a holy book to determine our morality. We go along with social norms. Most of us would be OK with stealing a life-saving remedy, if that were the only way to obtain it.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by okamitengu
 


santa-avatar? I think?

What do you do with Hitler?

OT




lol santa avatar! hmmm no, its shojobo, king of the mount hiei tengu, teaching minamoto no yo#sune the ways of strategy and battle. yo#sune was a hero of the gempei wars 1193ad i think.

what do i do with hitler, i join him, get close, fix his retarded mistakes, then when he has done all the dirty work, i assassinate him, blame the allies and rule in his stead.

he had awesome resources at his command, change a few key things here and there. let him be the monster in history bump him off and change the path of human civilisation.

EDIT: apparently ATS doesnt liek yoshi tsune its took the shi tsune part and ## it out.

[edit on 23-10-2009 by okamitengu]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
Read the following dilemma...


The Heinz dilemma is a frequently used example in many ethics and morality classes. One well-known version of the dilemma, used in Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development, is stated as follows:

A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.
Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?[1]
Source: en.wikipedia.org...

1) What would you do?

First of all, if I break into the laboratory and get caught, then I will have saved my wife only to have her heart broken by the fact that I am now in prison. I am quite a tough person, but that does not guarantee that I don't open my fat mouth and call someone an idiot and get beaten down by a bunch of Neo nazis. I might die in prison. Then, what is the quality of my wife's life? Alternatively, if I do not get this drug that is apparnetly, according to this dilemma, the only means by which my wife might live, then she will inevitably die. Is this my fault? Not according to the dilemma. The fault of her death rests on the disease combined with the lack of compassion on the druggist's part. I love my wife very much and do not want her to die. The druggist is adamant that I cannot pay later. This dilemma assumes that the only two possibilities are to either allow your wife to die or to steal the medicine. Because all the other possibilities are mute according to this dilemma ( and the purposes for it), I would in fact have to allow my wife to die at the fault of the druggist.

2) Why? Are you justified?

Because stealing incriminates me and my wife. It is not a crime to die because a self-involved moron decides he has the power to decide whether someone lives or dies for his/her personal gain. It is a crime and a sin however to allow the death of someone that you can prevent, especially since there is no personal gain. The druggist is refusing to make ANY money off of a drug that could have been bought at a charge that would still have made him a profit. It would seem the druggist's principles are not only retarded, but will interfere with the druggist's success in the future. I am fully justified and my wife's death is fully justified in this course because the druggist assumes full responsibility for all of the consequences. The druggist is the criminal.

3) Isn't stealing a sin? always? maybe not?

Yes, stealing is a sin. That is why the druggist is condemned.

4) Does LIFE trump everything else?

Without life, there is no perception of anything else. LIFE automatically trumps everything. Since I chose life by allowing the druggist to continue in his criminal pursuit and allowing my wife to die without guilt, then I have allowed life to take its obvious course. I have a distinct hatred for the druggist's actions, but that is because I choose the higher path.

5) What would the Good Samaritan do?

There are many things wrong with this question. Refer to the Bible for an understanding on the Samaritans. Every good person is a person that stands out amidst the group of bad people. The good person would obviously do the right thing. The druggist is clearly not a "good samaritan".

6) What would Martin Luther King do?

Take courses on pharmacology and psychology. Make public speeches until he got assassinated.

7) Is sin really relative?

Sin is relative. If it is not wrong to you, then why should it be wrong to you? Remember, you have to be honest with yourself over what right and wrong is to you. Everyone knows that murder is wrong. The main reason that everyone knows that murder is wrong is because no one wants to be murdered. Duh. Some people like to be lied to, though. Look at the world. Is it a sin to lie? To me, yes. To some, it is required and they can live with that.

Have you read the Bible, in James 2:25? It says, "In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?"

How was she 'justified'???? By LYING? hmmm???

She was absolutely justified. Imagine that the government of Jericho was the disease and the land of Jericho IS diseased. These two spies are the doctors. God is the druggist. Rahab is the Radon. It would be a crime for God to not have allowed the doctors to diagnose the problem, to not have allowed the Radon to be used in order to allow the cure to be developed that the land of Jericho might be cleansed from the disease that is the government of Jericho. The land needs to be cured and these steps are the cure. Rahab is not only justified, she is a necessity. Without Rahab, there is no cure for the land of Jericho at this particular time.

Imagine this scenario the other way around. Imagine that the two spies are the doctors, have noticed the disease of the government of Jericho and its work in the land of Jericho, have diagnosed it, and know what needs to be done. Imagine that God has discovered Rahab to be the Radon that IS REQUIRED for the mixture that will be used to cure this land of its government. Imagine that the land cries to God, "Please cure me!" And God says, "No, I require that you pay me for my services. And, I see that you have earned half of what I require. NO, you will die." Imagine that the animals that live on the land are the husband and the land the wife. I can imagine a scenario where the animals decided to tear the people of the government of Jericho to pieces because the people are a disease, but all that does is make those animals savage and the land desolate.

Not enough room.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   
(Assuming I had a wife and cared deeply for her)

1) What would you do?
Steal the damn drug and never own up to it. That doctor is just one of the examples of whats wrong with this world.
"I can save your wifes life, I determine whether she lives or dies. Pay me a huge sum of money or watch her die painfully"
That doctor would make me sick. I would almost be tempted to knock some sense into him after I had helped my wife.

2) Why? Are you justified?
Damn straight I am read answer 1.

3) Isn't stealing a sin? always? maybe not?
Sin is something invented by religion. Its an idea, a concept, and one I don't really agree with on all levels.

4) Does LIFE trump everything else?
Depends on the situation. What if I could cure my wife or I could use the drug to cure two kids from somewhere else with the same problem. 2 lives that mean nothing to me or 1 that means the world to me. Life is a tricky thing

5) What would the Good Samaritan do?
How should I know? I know nothing of samaritans and their way of thinking.

6) What would Martin Luther King do?
I did not know the man personally so I cannot speak on his behalf.

7) Is sin really relative?
Sure why not.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
1) What would you do?

Saving a life takes precedence over greed, therefore I would do as the husband did.


Originally posted by OldThinker
2) Why? Are you justified?

Yes, because on a scale of 1 to 10, such a theft at say 2 or 3 is far less than Greed which is alway a 10.


Originally posted by OldThinker
3) Isn't stealing a sin? always? maybe not?

It depends on the situation at hand. There are times when theft is the "right thing to do" and other times when it is not.


Originally posted by OldThinker
4) Does LIFE trump everything else?

The saving of life does, particularly in the scenario you offered.


Originally posted by OldThinker
5) What would the Good Samaritan do?

Most likely assist those in need however they could: example, to offer the money required if you have more than enough. Or to pass the hat around a wider circle to gain the money needed.


Originally posted by OldThinker
6) What would Martin Luther King do?

I don't know, I am not him. He cared for people, yes? Perhaps then he would have found a way to raise the money for the lady.


Originally posted by OldThinker
7) Is sin really relative?

Most christians will say no. I would think it is, since everything else in life is not black and white.


Thanks OT for another thought provoking thread.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by metamagic
......3) Isn't stealing a sin? always? maybe not?
I do not accept the concept of sin so the question is moot.

......


no sin? where'd that come from?

You're not EXPOSED to much, young man?

Come on now, pls clarify,ok?

OT


Young man? *Kiss* Why thank you for that compliment sir -- made my day. I do remember seeing Eisenhower so being called "young man" is a distinctly rare delight. As for not being exposed to much... exactly the opposite I suspect is the case with me.

The concept of sin is not universal but it does reach it's finest expression in the legalistic monotheistic religions where it seems to serve the primary purpose of ensuring control over the population by the institutionalized church or religion. It is one thing to say stealing illegal to protect the property rights of others, but it is another thing entirely to say that stealing should be illegal because it is a sin. After all these years, I find it odd to think that any religion who worships the creator and sustainer of the universe also seems convinced that this same deity is obsessed with how we wear our hair, how we have sex, what kind of clothes we wear and other matters of less that cosmic importance.

I also find it interesting to note on the basis of personal observation that concepts of sin and living one's life by the rules of the religion tend to become irrelevant to many who are on their deathbeds or have undergone a near death experience and are instead replaced by an orientation towards love and forgiveness as primary driver of behavior.

I believe that all we have is the freedom to choose. Each choice is neither good nor bad, sinful or holy -- but each choice has consequences and outcomes associated with it, and some of those consequences will hurt others while some will bless others. It seems that wisdom is the ability to make a choice based on the desired outcomes, the ones that in accordance with what we individually believe is right at that time and under those circumstances. Of course what makes it more difficult is that things are never a simple and straightforward as it seems.

To ask me if something is sinful is like asking a souther baptist about kosher. It is not part of my belief system and has no meaning for me.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Whine Flu
 


Of course. I'm no bum.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Well, what if it is a young child living on the streets, if she/he stole bread would that be right? Personally if that was me and it meant my husband living I would steel it in a heartbeat, leaving the $1,000 for the person I stole it from. First of all, the medicine man is a jacka$% for being so selfish and wanting to make so much money on it. He is the one who needs a moraltiy check.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Magantice
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Stealing is never justified in my opinion , however, to save someones life I would do it in a heartbeat. I will worry about the judgement later. Love is a driving force that will make you do things you would not ordinarily do. Because Im honest, I will admit I would do it in a heartbeat. I would however spend the rest of my life trying to repay the person I stold from.



stealing is never justified but youd do it in certain circumstances?

that means you think its justified in certain circumstances...but you also think its never justified?

theres a name for that sort of thinking



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
id steal under many circumstances...if i was hungry or someone i knew was hungry id do it in a heart beat..

if thats immoral then i guess im just that...and morality is not worth anything..



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Good grief, I haven't seen this in years. This was a question to ponder in a child development class, taken from philosophy.

Situation Ethics.

Any child less than 12 years of age will say the husband should go to jail simply because he stole. Their brains are not yet sophisticated or developed enough at that age to be able to make the rather complicated adjustment. They still see the world in black and white. Of course, any adult would steal the medication.

However, the scenario I was presented was slightly different, and a little more clear cut. It's occurs in our history. A man has the money to pay for his dying wife's medication, but she will die tonight if it is not given to her. He takes the prescription from the doctor and rushes to the pharmacy. When he arrives, the pharmacist is outside putting the key in the lock. The man explains his dilemma. The pharmacist says, "well, I'm sorry. We are closed. It's five o'clock, you'll have to come back in the morning". He then hangs the closed sign on the door then leaves. After he walks away, the man then breaks into the store.

So, see. That one is a little easier to determine. No money involved.



Here is another one, much more complicated:

There is a war in a small village. It is being invaded by an enemy who will kill them all if they are discovered. They run into the woods to hide. All is quiet, the soldiers cannot see them and appear to be retreating, when a woman's newborn baby begins to cry. It's screaming. She is trying everything she can to get the baby to stop crying. If it continues to scream they will be discovered, and consequently they will all be slaughtered.

When one soldier stops, and begins to turn in her direction, thinking he has heard something, she knows that death is certain for all of them unless she gets the baby quiet now. She puts her hands over it's mouth and suffocates it until it is quiet. Until it is dead.

The soldier turns back with his comrades, thinking it must have been an animal he heard in the woods. They leave, and the villagers are safe.

Has she done the right thing?

(I think the answer in the first scenario was rather clear-cut........
this one....not so much).

[edit on 10/23/0909 by ladyinwaiting]

[edit on 10/23/0909 by ladyinwaiting]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join