Joined: 20 Nov 2003
Posts: 19
| Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 7:17 am Post subject: Something for everyone to ponder | |
|
If it is wrong to steal, and stealing is taking or using something without a persons permission, then is it immoral to do something as trivial as using a persons pen without permission. Is that stealing?
Or is this all based on rationality, judgment, and the level of relationship to the person of the pen you may be borrowing? What I am getting at is, if things are absolute, then stealing is stealing, and using someone's pen without permission would be theft. If anyone reads this and doesn't mind responding, please respond to your thoughts about this. |
|
Moderator
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Posts: 127
Location: B.C. Canada
| Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 6:50 pm Post subject: | |
|
Of course, it's all stealing. If it's not yours then keep your paws off it! What is left up to judgement would be the seriousness of the crime hence the punishment.
Whatever personal loss or injury suffered by the person from whom you stole, scratched, dented or lost their beloved pen, is all up to the courts and thus far there is no precedent nor has anyone charged anyone else for loss of ink. |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 422
Location: Somewhere between here and there...
| Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 9:58 pm Post subject: | |
Ahriman, you've got way too much time on your hands. 
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Posts: 127
Location: B.C. Canada
| Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 10:53 pm Post subject: | |||
I disagree, I think an important question has been raised. It is from definition that our civil system grows. Where is the judgement line and who gets to judge where it is? Is it done democratically or are there an elite few who decide which is crime, which isn't, who gets punsihed, who doesn't? Can of worms, I think Ahriman has opened a can of worms. |
|||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 2400
Location: A little bit sideways!
| Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 11:21 pm Post subject: | |
|
How about the ballpoint pen incident in the movie "Casino"?
I wonder how that fits in on this topic. ~GoodFella 
|
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 1:41 am Post subject: | |||
Excuse me, did you tell my friend to stick that pen up his ass???? |
|||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 422
Location: Somewhere between here and there...
| Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 1:54 am Post subject: | |||||
|
|||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 2400
Location: A little bit sideways!
| Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 5:01 am Post subject: | |||||
Good pull BG, I knew you or DC would get it. ~GoodFella |
|||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 422
Location: Woosta
| Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 6:41 am Post subject: | |||
there's nothing funnier than joe pesci beating the hell out of somebody. he's so short. it's hilarious. |
|||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 6:52 am Post subject: | |||
Siggy:
Either way, what Ahriman has asked is what moral foundation should the "elite few", or the masses, use to draw their conclusions. Ahriman: A common example to demonstrate that "things" are not absolute goes a little like this: You are a German citizen sympathetic to the plight of Jewish people during the Holocaust. You have a Jewish family hiding in your cellar when the Gestapo comes knocking on your door... ... they ask, "Irgendwelche Leute in Ihrem Keller?". (<= bad translation  )
Morals are absolute: Lying is wrong, so you tell the truth; that you do have people hiding in your cellar. They execute you, the Jewish family, and probably everyone else in the immediate area. Morals are relative: Lying is acceptable under certain circumstances, so you lie; the Gestapo performs a cursory search of your home then moves on. This provides (at least) temporary salvation to your guests and yourself. Is it wrong to lie? |
|||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 395
Location: Still on The Hill (Ya Think?)
| Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:31 am Post subject: | |||||||||
Slek, I for one never thought I would ever say this. But, I must say you have made a valid point. It would now become a question of Moral`s and Ethic`s for each here to decide as to how one must conduct their own life, and at what cost, freedom is to each of us. And I will quote Siggy and yourself again on the course of such, if you will allow me to do so.
Stand for what you belive to be true, Ratchet |
|||||||||
Moderator
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Posts: 127
Location: B.C. Canada
| Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 5:09 pm Post subject: | |||
Is it lying if it is self preservation? Of course it is still lying and taking someones pen is the same as taking anything which doesn't belong to you. Is it wrong? Who said? Lying to protect ones life or protect anothers life and stealing a loaf of someone elses' bread because you're starving seems rather instinctual. Do we measure right and wrong by the degree of harm caused to others? Again, who's the judge? |
|||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 11:14 pm Post subject: | |||||
You don't "measure" it. You examine the circumstances surrounding it.
That's irrelevant to this thread. However, if you examine the structure of North American judicial systems, you'll find that they were explicity designed to accomodate relativity. edit: clarity |
|||||
Moderator
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Posts: 127
Location: B.C. Canada
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:47 am Post subject: | |||
It is subjective. And to rephrase: Do we examine the circumstances to place a degree of right or wrong based on the harm done to others? And how is it determined? By whom? |
|||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2003 1:17 am Post subject: | |||||||
Right. It's relative.
No. The result of any particular circumstance(s) is only one factor in the examination. There's also intent.
How is what determined? The harm? Or the degrees of right or wrong? Either way, that's what we're talkin' about: absolutely or relatively. |
|||||||
Moderator
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Posts: 127
Location: B.C. Canada
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2003 1:54 am Post subject: | |
What was the question? 
Whether or not taking someones' pen without permission is stealing or not, is absolute IMO Telling the gustapo you are hiding no-one when you are is lying, another absolute. Ethical and moral are relative to the circumstance and the first person, yet we have a set of criteria which set out to define ethical and moral. Stealing a pen, no-one cares, steal a car hardly anyone cares, steal a baby you have yourself a serious problem. The only absolute is that the ethical and moral bar is rising. |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2003 2:16 am Post subject: | |||||||
Absolutely right? Or absolutely wrong?
Absolutely right? Or absolutely wrong?
And what criteria would those be? |
|||||||
Moderator
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Posts: 127
Location: B.C. Canada
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2003 2:45 am Post subject: | |||||
The point was: By established civil definition, "theft", taking a pen which isn't yours would be exactly the same as taking anything else which isn't yours. Wrong or right is ethically and morally subjective, depends who you ask.
crime/punishment, civil regulation. |
|||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1416
Location: Indianapolis, IN
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2003 3:48 am Post subject: | |
|
All this defining reminds of the famous statement about the meaning of is!
MrsDD |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2003 4:14 am Post subject: | |||||||
That's incorrect. The "established civil definition" has a built in provision to accomodate many other factors. One of them is intent. This makes the definition and its application dynamic... not absolute. This is why we don't see many pen thieves in prison.
Not really. It's ethically and morally relative. There's a substantial distinction.
These examples are not criteria that define morals and ethics. They are the result of the examination of particular circumstances and their results. Regardless, your beef is with the implementation of the system, not the system itself. |
|||||||
Moderator
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Posts: 127
Location: B.C. Canada
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2003 1:19 pm Post subject: | |||||
by civil definition, take a pen... theft, take a car ... theft. Intent is a factor in civil consideration of punishment.
Wrong, the cost to prosecute crimes of the pen is prohibitive so pen thieves walk free. The act/crime is absolute The guilt is subjective The punishment is objective The moral and ethical values are relative to conditioning |
|||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 613
Location: New Frickin' Jersey
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2003 5:45 pm Post subject: | |||
[quote="siggy"]
where was this quote taken from? which dictionary? is it considered "stealing" when you take a dictionary definition from the book without giving credit to it or providing a link? |
|||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 2111
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2003 6:31 pm Post subject: | |||||
[quote="Unhappy1314"]
|
|||||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2003 9:53 pm Post subject: | |||||||
Intent is also a factor used to determine whether or not a particular act is even worthy of civil consideration. If this wasn't the case, every single act of theft, including pens, would end up in court. Cost is only a minor factor. But, because the general public bases associated decisions on the foundation of moral relativity, stealing a pen is commonly viewed as an inconsequential act; pens are inexpensive, ubiquitous, and have little impact on an individuals freedoms.
The cost to prosecute any crime is prohibitive. What makes the pen so special? I'm not suggesting that taking someones pen is not dictionary defined theft. I'm suggesting that the intent behind, and the results of, the act appropriately mitigate it... it's relative. ***
That's a good example. By dictionary (absolute) definition it certainly is. Yet under laws designed upon moral and ethical relativity (fair use) it is not. (I think siggy scored the def' from gurunet. A wonderfully useful and free (cripple-ware) program. Although it was better when it was still "Atomica", I still highly recommend it.) |
|||||||
Moderator
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Posts: 127
Location: B.C. Canada
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2003 3:49 am Post subject: | |||||||||
My response:
and/or
Retaining counsel to recoup the loss of 59 cents is asinine, hence, the conditioning that stealing a pen is not so immoral as stealing someones car. Conditioning, it's all about conditioning, what society has learned to expect and accepted limits. How do you people figure quoting a definition is stealing? |
|||||||||