Is there an absolute morality?

[Bradskii]

But I'd argue it is wrong in ALL cases where the person does not want you to take it from them. In my mind, that constitutes objectively wrong given the factual conditions.

Therein might be the problem. What if your neighbour says he's going to shoot his wife and I steal his gun. It seems you might think that's an immoral thing to do.

 

[Kylie]

I mean someone can make a request without that request needing to be objectively correct, but it is an objective fact that they made a request. So for example: the request was "Please don't go into my house for any reason". Its an objective fact the request was made, but what the request is saying, isn't necessarily correct, its just a request. That's what I was trying to say by that, which I think agrees with what you're saying? Which is that what a statement is saying is separate from the fact that the statement was made.

In that, it seems, we are agreed.

But I'd argue it is wrong in ALL cases where the person does not want you to take it from them. In my mind, that constitutes objectively wrong given the factual conditions.

I agree, I just want to point out the factual conditions will dictate what's objectively correct. Which makes sense to me, objectivity is based on facts.

So if someone takes $20 from Jeff Bezos in order to buy medicine to save his life, he is wrong to do it?

Lol

I notice you did not actually respond to the point I made.

 

[Chriliman]

Therein might be the problem. What if your neighbour says he's going to shoot his wife and I steal his gun. It seems you might think that's an immoral thing to do.

Ok, but again, you’re changing the facts, we were talking about $20, not a gun someone wants to kill someone with. Now if you want to say they going to use the $20 to suffocate someone, then yes, the facts have changed and you should take the $20(at least temporarily, still would argue it’s wrong to steal it)

 

[Chriliman]

In that, it seems, we are agreed.



So if someone takes $20 from Jeff Bezos in order to buy medicine to save his life, he is wrong to do it?



I notice you did not actually respond to the point I made.

Seems like an extreme example, but I’d say he could at least pay him back later

 

[Kylie]

Seems like an extreme example, but I’d say he could at least pay him back later

The guy's a bazillionaire. He ain't gonna miss twenty bucks.

 

[Bradskii]

Ok, but again, you’re changing the facts, we were talking about $20, not a gun someone wants to kill someone with. Now if you want to say they going to use the $20 to suffocate someone, then yes, the facts have changed and you should take the $20(at least temporarily, still would argue it’s wrong to steal it)

Maybe you're begining to grasp it. Yes, change the objective facts and whether it is morally acceptable or not changes as well. It changes relative to the facts.

So taking $20 isn't right or wrong in itself. It's right or wrong relative to the conditions. You just explained the difference yourself...

 

[o_mlly]

Does that act cause harm in your opinion?

An act immoral in its object always harms us as such acts separate us from the love of God. Atheists would have a different definition of "harm". What's yours?

Not if you're typing that question at the same time.

My car has "speech to text" capability.

So how can morality be relative when we don't have enough information to even determine whether it's a moral or immoral act? Or even amoral.

All human acts in the concrete are moral or immoral. The human act, i.e., the act of a rational being, has an end in view. The human act is not defined merely by the physicality of the act but also by the end or the effects that that the act naturally tends to. If I am driving my car at 70 mph with an end in view to force off the road the driver who just flashed me an obscene gesture then that's one case. If I'm driving at 70 mph to get my sick spouse to the hospital then that's another.

A moral (or immoral or amoral) act is an act defined by the circumstances. Unless you know of one that isn't. I asked Chriliman the same question, but no response as yet. You can give it a go if you like.

Sure. But you're not going to like this one. Give me the circumstances that define rape to be a moral act.

 

[Chriliman]

Maybe you're begining to grasp it. Yes, change the objective facts and whether it is morally acceptable or not changes as well. It changes relative to the facts.

So taking $20 isn't right or wrong in itself. It's right or wrong relative to the conditions. You just explained the difference yourself...

well no, because I said it’s always wrong to steal it. I said take it temporarily or pay it back, so long as you prevent it from being used to kill someone. You don’t have to steal it to do that, since that’s wrong in ALL cases.

 

[Chriliman]

The guy's a bazillionaire. He ain't gonna miss twenty bucks.

True, but the guy saving his wife might feel better if he pays it back(because he technically stole it), unless B says don’t worry about, glad you saved your wife with my $20.

 

[Bradskii]

All human acts in the concrete are moral or immoral. The human act, i.e., the act of a rational being, has an end in view. The human act is not defined merely by the physicality of the act but also by the end or the effects that that the act naturally tends to. If I am driving my car at 70 mph with an end in view to force off the road the driver who just flashed me an obscene gesture then that's one case. If I'm driving at 70 mph to get my sick spouse to the hospital then that's another.

Intent is obviously one of the conditions which is relates to any act. The act is relative to the conditins so it's also relative to the intent. If I shoot at you and miss, no harm has been done. But the intent was to cause it. Therefore it was immoral. If someone steals my gun to prevent me shooting at you then the intent was to prevent harm. Therefore it was moral.

And a definition of harm? One could write a whole thesis on that. From Mills (via Stanford: Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)): 'To constitute a harm, an action must be injurious or set back important interests of particular people...' And must be non consensual. And injurious can be physical or mental. And must be differentiated from offence. It's lime pornography. We'll know it when we see it. And as in pornography, not everyone will agree.

And rape? We've been there. It's non consensual sexual intercourse. So (for the benefit of anyone who either missed or was not bored witless by the last conversation on this matter), if someone has sex with a partner where he or she has not given consent (drunk perhaps) it is technically rape. But if there was no evil intent (as per your point above) and the partner had no problem with it, it wouldn't be immoral.

 

[Bradskii]

well no, because I said it’s always wrong to steal it. I said take it temporarily or pay it back, so long as you prevent it from being used to kill someone. You don’t have to steal it to do that, since that’s wrong in ALL cases.

I'm not interested whether there is restitution. If you think that stealing someone's weapon to prevent a murder is wrong then this conversation is a waste of your time and mine.

 

[Chriliman]

I'm not interested whether there is restitution. If you think that stealing someone's weapon to prevent a murder is wrong then this conversation is a waste of your time and mine.

so you’re saying you have to steal it to prevent the crime? That’s silly

Confiscating a would be murder weapon is not the same as stealing it. Stealing is wrong in ALL cases.

 

[Astrid]

so you’re saying you have to steal it to prevent the crime? That’s silly

Confiscating a would be murder weapon is not the same as stealing it. Stealing is wrong in ALL cases.

And yet, we all find it revolting when politicians
use such weasel words.

 

[Bradskii]

so you’re saying you have to steal it to prevent the crime? That’s silly

Confiscating a would be murder weapon is not the same as stealing it. Stealing is wrong in ALL cases.

That's a neat escape clause. Stealing is always wrong. So taking something that belongs to someone else without their permission is not stealing if it prevents a crime. It's 'confiscating'.

Rather than determine if stealing is morally right ot not depending on the circumstances, we actually redefine stealing. Maybe we redefine lying as well. So if we lie to prevent a crime it's not lying. Maybe it's 'making a statement that doesn't necessarily align with the truth'.

 

[Kylie]

so you’re saying you have to steal it to prevent the crime? That’s silly

Confiscating a would be murder weapon is not the same as stealing it. Stealing is wrong in ALL cases.

"Your Honour, I didn't steal his car, I confiscated it because I believed he was going to use it in a crime."

 

[Bradskii]

"Your Honour, I didn't steal his car, I confiscated it because I believed he was going to use it in a crime."

'That's obviously a lie'
'No, your honour. It wasn't. I was simply making a statement that doesn't necessarily align with the truth'.
'Well, I won't jail you. I'm just going to 'restrict your movements for the next three years to a cell in the state penitentiary' '

 

[Moral Orel]

so you’re saying you have to steal it to prevent the crime? That’s silly

Confiscating a would be murder weapon is not the same as stealing it. Stealing is wrong in ALL cases.

I think the distinction you're looking for is that the person taking the would-be-murder-weapon isn't keeping it for themselves, which would make it stealing.

If my friend is drunk at the bar, and I take his keys despite his belief that he is ferfectly pine to drive himself, I haven't "stolen" his keys because I fully intend to return them.

To "take without permission" is an insufficient definition of "stealing".

 

[Kylie]

'That's obviously a lie'
'No, your honour. It wasn't. I was simply making a statement that doesn't necessarily align with the truth'.
'Well, I won't jail you. I'm just going to 'restrict your movements for the next three years to a cell in the state penitentiary' '

"No, I'm not escaping, I'm simply leaving this facility."

 

[Kylie]

I think the distinction you're looking for is that the person taking the would-be-murder-weapon isn't keeping it for themselves, which would make it stealing.

If my friend is drunk at the bar, and I take his keys despite his belief that he is ferfectly pine to drive himself, I haven't "stolen" his keys because I fully intend to return them.

To "take without permission" is an insufficient definition of "stealing".

So if I take your car, with the full intention of returning it next week, you won't report it as stolen?

 

[Moral Orel]

So if I take your car, with the full intention of returning it next week, you won't report it as stolen?

I'll answer yours in the hopes that you'll return the favor and answer mine.

If we're still talking about taking the car to prevent me murdering, then no.
If we're talking about just for fun, then yes.

If you are taking the car for your own personal use, even if that use is merely to place it in your garage to annoy me, then you are "keeping it for yourself" even if it's just temporary.

Now to mine. Would you say that I "stole" from the drunk man? Or is there more to "stealing" than "taking without permission"?