Is the morality of an action influenced by victim's preference?

[DeathMagus]

I'd be rather remiss if I griped about thread variety on E&M and didn't post something that has nothing to do with gays. This topic isn't wonderful, but it's early and it popped into my head, so I thought I'd share.

"Is the morality of an action influenced by victim's preference?" This idea was inspired by my thread on rape/murder, and the principle I started thinking about was whether the morality of an action changes based on the victim's perspective on the crime.

For instance, suppose there are two men of approximately equal socio-economic status. Each of them owns a good condition, slightly used, 2005 Honda Accord. There is one key difference between the men, however. Bob absolutely loves his car. He considers it low-maintenance, a wonderful value, and usually intends to buy cars and keep them for years. He expects fully to get another 5-8 years out of his car, and couldn't be happier.

Contrast this to Nick, who found that he absolutely hates this model of car. He'd drop it and get another in a snap (since he can afford another car fairly easily - as can Bob), but cannot justify purchasing another car when this car still gets him from place to place.

So, the question is: Is it more immoral to steal Bob's car than Nick's? We won't take into account things such as insurance payoffs, etc.

Another, similar question would be: "It is generally agreed upon that murder is more immoral than theft. If someone exists who would honestly prefer death to being robbed, is it less immoral to murder them than it is to rob them?"

Please feel free to offer improvements to the questions' format and premises - I hashed out the basic scenario as I went, so there are probably a couple errors with them.

 

[stan1980]

Bravo DM on an interesting thread!

Morals, I think, are just a matter of opinion, so I shall give you my opinion. I was thinking of myself, and how I am quite clumsy with money. I never know how much is in my wallet, so say I have £100 and someone steals say £50, I likely wont even notice. Say someone else also has £100, but is more studious with their cash, I think it would be worse to steal £50 off him rather than me, as he will obviously be more upset. I think we can apply that to the car situation, and say it is worse, or more immoral if you like, to steal off the person who will miss their car most. In the eyes of the law there is no difference, and you will still get the same jail time, but I apply my morals to how much hurt it causes the victim. That's not to say I would steal off someone who wouldn't miss their possessions, as stealing goes against my moral outlook on life, but I think it is less wrong.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I would say that, from the perspective of the victim, the act is closer to being ethical if the victim doesn't care as much. But the perpetrators of a crime don't usually know the opinion of the victim of said crime, so from their perspective, the crime is just as unethical.

This assumes that both victim and perpetrator have a fully working understanding of morality or ethics. Which, it seems, isn't always the case.

 

[cantata]

Interesting thread!

I'd say that it really depends whether or not the perpetrator knows of their victim's preferences, because I can't help but feel inclined to judge people's actions based on the intentions behind them.

 

[FlamingFemme]

Interesting thread!

I'd say that it really depends whether or not the perpetrator knows of their victim's preferences, because I can't help but feel inclined to judge people's actions based on the intentions behind them.

Same here. I generally judge people's actions based on the intent, rather than the outcome. If the intent is to harm someone, regardless of whether that person wants to be harmed, I think it is just as immoral as it would be if the person didn't want to be.

 

[sidhe]

These recent topics remind me of a friend from the Olden Days. She worked in the fetish industry, and specialized in rape fantasies. Very realistic ones. Made good money, too. However, if someone didn't pay her, was it a crime? And if so, was it a case of rape, or like not paying for your meal at a restaurant? And was trying to determine this over a bottle of Jack Daniels a good idea? And, furthermore, would we have started working on the ethics of the idea were it not for Tennessee whiskey?

To address the OP: it's more ethical to steal the car of the guy who doesn't want his car. However, unless the thief knows this, his decision isn't based on a comparison of ethics, and he is thus equally unethical regardless of the car he steals.

 

[stan1980]

These recent topics remind me of a friend from the Olden Days. She worked in the fetish industry, and specialized in rape fantasies. Very realistic ones. Made good money, too. However, if someone didn't pay her, was it a crime?

If you don't pay a prostitute, it is just theft. I don't think a prostitute can withdraw her consent for sex after the deed has already been done!

 

[sidhe]

If you don't pay a prostitute, it is just theft. I don't think a prostitute can withdraw her consent for sex after the deed has already been done!

Ah, but for the sake of realism, she never voiced consent. She just requested payment beforehand. Does accepting payment equal consent?

 

[stan1980]

Ah, but for the sake of realism, she never voiced consent. She just requested payment beforehand. Does accepting payment equal consent?

If the payment is requested in advance, and the client ignores this request and precedes to rape her anyway, I don't think this is role playing anymore, so yes I would consider that rape.

 

[FlamingFemme]

If the payment is requested in advance, and the client ignores this request and precedes to rape her anyway, I don't think this is role playing anymore, so yes I would consider that rape.

Agreed.

 

[sidhe]

If the payment is requested in advance, and the client ignores this request and precedes to rape her anyway, I don't think this is role playing anymore, so yes I would consider that rape.

I said payment was agreed upon in advance, not that payment was received in advance. Does just the agreement to payment for services constitute consent to the service?

(this discussion makes much more sense after several straight whiskeys, BTW)

 

[stan1980]

I said payment was agreed upon in advance, not that payment was received in advance. Does just the agreement to payment for services constitute consent to the service?

(this discussion makes much more sense after several straight whiskeys, BTW)

Well in that case, I stand by what I originally said, which is that the agreement to pay is implied consent. If the person doesn't pay once the deed is already done, then it is simply theft.

 

[cantata]

Well in that case, I stand by what I originally said, which is that the agreement to pay is implied consent. If the person doesn't pay once the deed is already done, then it is simply theft.

Agreed.

 

[Lilymay]

In regards to the car example, the thief is morally wrong no matter how the victims feels about their cars, whether the thief knows their feelings or not, stealing is stealing. To me, it would also be morally wrong for the victims also, no matter how they feel about their cars, it was still their possession stolen.

About the "fantasy rape" I agree with the other postings, agreeing on the price is consent in itself and then not paying is simply theft.