 |
| |
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:31
|
|
My electrical system has been freed of the cruel shackles of Isabel, and I am now free to inflict obscure philosospam upon the world once more, so I thought I'd give it a whirl.
A certain other thread(the mods seem to get twitchy about referring to other threads and I'm not sure why so I'll play it safe and zip me lip) got me thinking about the concept of justification by desire, which I do not believe in personally but which makes sense to others. In case you have no idea what I'm gibbering about, I'm talking about the concept that certain activities which might otherwise have been considered wrong are condoned given that the people who do them are under sufficient emotional pressure to do so. I'm not dumb enough to cite any of the examples that actually brought this idea to mind, as that would be just begging for a threadjack, but let's apply the "is it okay for a man to steal bread to feed his starving kids" cliche, which is an extreme but loosely applicable example. I would say no in this case, simply because I believe the idea of theft is repugnant in and of itself, and the fact that innocent people were helped by the proceeds of the activity does not make it right. I could understand showing mercy in sentencing or just looking the other way for the greater good, but in absolute, black-and-white terms, I call crime crime and leave it at that. Partly this is because I'm one of the few people on this board who believes in black-and-white absolutes (has anyone else ever noticed how hard it is to make personal attacks on someone who's already made them for you?  ), but aside from that, how does everyone else look at this? What should the law say, and where should it draw the line between "pardonable" and "just making excuses to dodge accountability"?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:31
|
|
The problem with such a complete black and white schema is that, well, it is NOT trully absolute: After all, you need to define Black and White right off, don't you? And when it comes to morality, well, what is black and white?
As for the bread example..IF there was absolutely no other ways by which this individual could meet the needs of his family in any other way, then I would not prosecute (even Hobbes in Leviathan gives all men the right to self-defense, and I assume warding of famine would be such a case); if there was another way this man could have met the needs, I would prosecute, though the sentance would be based on how accesble these other option's were.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
The problem with such a complete black and white schema is that, well, it is NOT trully absolute: After all, you need to define Black and White right off, don't you? And when it comes to morality, well, what is black and white? |
Black and white: either/or. The perception of the problem as one of two possibilities, A or B, with minimal shades of gray in between. "We are all flying walruses, or none of us are flying walruses. There is no chance that some of us are flying walruses and some are not." Black-and-white in itself establishes no new truths, it simply says that there is no middle ground between the values established. Socrates has already pretty much proven that for true absolute social values you need either a religion or a very very very very very long time to think them through, because for every truth there are an infinite number of falsehoods. I guess from your POV the whole argument's daft. (shrug)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SKILORD
|
 |
Live free or Die
Mar 2002
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
So why is he the Hero?
Oh, and it was NOT a crime for King John to set taxes as he pleased (with the baron's permission, but hey)..cause he was sovereign...and in a democracy, the legislature is sovereign, and able to set whatever tax rate it pleases in whatever tax scheme.Sorry to wreck this poor attempt. |
Quite simply he wasn't. It was a tragedy told, strangely enough from the point of view not of the protagonist, but of the antagonist.
-
In democracy the legislature is not sovreign, the people are sovreign, and the sole sovreigns of a nation. The Legislation is nothing but a tool of the people, it is chained to them, not sovreign of them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SKILORD
In democracy the legislature is not sovreign, the people are sovreign, and the sole sovreigns of a nation. The Legislation is nothing but a tool of the people, it is chained to them, not sovreign of them. |
No, the people are not sovereign... they are the Source of sovereignty. Only from the people can one claim sovereignty, BUT that person who gets soverignty fom the people does rule the people, if only for as long as a majority of the people care to have them rule.
quote:
Socrates has already pretty much proven that for true absolute social values you need either a religion or a very very very very very long time to think them through, because for every truth there are an infinite number of falsehoods |
How can there be an infinite number of falsehoods without an infinite number of truths as well? If things are either or, how can there be a large number oif lies? One choice is correct, one false. If you begin to state that there are many flase, what justifies saying there is only one true?
quote:
I think they are both immoral essentially because I believe in a higher principle - that all should be equal before the law. |
Being taxed at different rates has nothing to do with equality under the law.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:31
|
|
To directly answer the question originally posed, it is NEVER OK to steal bread to feed a starving child. If it is OK to do this, then stealing is not always wrong, and if stealing isn't always wrong, just how do you go about setting up the conditions for when stealing is right?
Even further, stealing is defined as "to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully". So, then, if it is ever "right" to steal, then what you are basically saying is that it is right to wrongfully seize the property of another. Obviously this is a contradiction. This leaves us with a couple of solutions:
1)Redefine "stealing", and eliminate words such as "right", "wrongfully", etc., from the definition. Problem is, this defeats the purpose.
2)Find another word for "stealing bread to feed a starving child". The problem here is that this invites all kinds of redefinitions for any activity anyone wants - after all, if it is OK to take bread that isn't yours to feed your child, then maybe it's OK to rob a candy store for your kid's sweet tooth. I understand those are different situations, but without a consistent, black and white basis, this kind of thing is wide open.
No, the only thing to do is to consider stealing wrong in all cases, in accordance with the definition of stealing. If someone steals bread to feed their starving child, then prosecute them for it if the owner of the bread wishes. But at the same time, allow the owner of the bread to refuse to press charges - if the situation is really as dire as it is made out to be, odds are the owner of the bread would let it slide. I would.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Huh? Person A is taxed at 10%. Person B is taxed at 50%. How are they not be treated differently? |
Both are taxed, first of all, and both have the right to vote to elect people who promise when in power to change the tax code, which is the only equality that matters.
You almost sound socialist: given current tax law, it is the rich that in general pay less of their income in taxes, and this means ALL taxes, including fees, levies, sales taxes, and payroll taxes, NOT only income, oh, and some of them get to incorporate themselves, and thus deduct their expenses pre-tax, if they can afford good lawyers. That ain't equal either.
So when do you join the communist party?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
They do, no tax=flat tax set at 0. |
That's a new one on me. I wasn't aware that "mainstream" communism equaled Ramo-esque Anarchism Lite.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Both are taxed, first of all, and both have the right to vote to elect people who promise when in power to change the tax code, which is the only equality that matters.
You almost sound socialist: given current tax law, it is the rich that in general pay less of their income in taxes, and this means ALL taxes, including fees, levies, sales taxes, and payroll taxes, NOT only income, oh, and some of them get to incorporate themselves, and thus deduct their expenses pre-tax, if they can afford good lawyers. That ain't equal either.
So when do you join the communist party? |
The people who end up paying the most taxes are the middle class. They rich have their shelters. The poor no taxes and all sorts of benefits. The middle class pay - and vote Democrat thinking, somehow, that that benefits them. Idiots.
Just because we live in a system where the majority can rape the minority does make rape right. I would prefer to pass a constitutional amendment banning progressive taxation and estate taxes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
How can there be an infinite number of falsehoods without an infinite number of truths as well? If things are either or, how can there be a large number oif lies? One choice is correct, one false. If you begin to state that there are many flase, what justifies saying there is only one true?
|
Simple, really. This sort of claim is made all the time, in the form of, say, the people who say all religions are a load of crap and there is no god. Which is to say: No God=true, Jesus=false, Shiva=false, Allah=false, Great Monkey King Wokkawukka=false...for every correct statement, there are legion ways you can either say something just slightly inaccurate, interpret the facts incorrectly or make invalid assumptions, or just wilfully seek ignorance and state the exact opposite, or, or, or, or, or-even the number of ways you can screw up isn't really limited to a set list. Either/or is definition on the terms of presumed truth as opposed to something else, in terms of critical thinking style.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
One of the revolutions brought about by Jesus Christ was the concept that rich people owed a duty of charity to poor people to see that they had basic essentials. Catholic charities have existed since, haven't they? There is no need for the poor to steal to feed their kids. So the premise of need is false. All the theft does is damage the baker and his family while not advancing any societal benefit.
|
Yup, Associated Catholic Charities, a United Way Agency.
I took it as the basis of the question that there WERE starving children, ie in some particular situation charity was not working. Thus that this was a philisophical question, not public policy one.
From a public policy point of view one might ask if the net number of starving children goes down when govt programs replace or supplement private charity. Or related impacts for other programs. But I think the starting question of ends justifying the means was more basic then that.
By the way, i would point out that for several hundred years of the common era, the rich stole from the poor, and lots of poor people starved, despite attempts by the catholic church to encourage charity. Across time and space the RC church varied from being seriously a voice for the poor to a happy member of the landed establishment. So the notion of poor people starving is by no means an academic one, in the history of Catholic europe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Yup, Associated Catholic Charities, a United Way Agency.
I took it as the basis of the question that there WERE starving children, ie in some particular situation charity was not working. Thus that this was a philisophical question, not public policy one.
From a public policy point of view one might ask if the net number of starving children goes down when govt programs replace or supplement private charity. Or related impacts for other programs. But I think the starting question of ends justifying the means was more basic then that.
By the way, i would point out that for several hundred years of the common era, the rich stole from the poor, and lots of poor people starved, despite attempts by the catholic church to encourage charity. Across time and space the RC church varied from being seriously a voice for the poor to a happy member of the landed establishment. So the notion of poor people starving is by no means an academic one, in the history of Catholic europe. |
Yes, the Catholic Church did get too much involved in politics and the more they did the more they strayed from their original message that championed the poor and promoted equality because all men were "created equal" in the view of the Lord.
We should be forever grateful that the basic principles of Jesus Christ were enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and in the basic concept of human rights. I can hardly imagine what the world would be like without JC.
However, his message seems to have been perverted in a subtle way by the left. Christ spoke of charity. The left speaks of theft. There is a difference.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tanelorn
|
 |
of the deep blue sea
Jun 2001
time: 07:31
|
|
If theft is the appropriation of property, I think that the term property calls for some contemplation first. For example, what makes my loaf of bread mine? Suppose I stole it, is another person justified if he steals it from me (or in fact if he actually steals it back from me) for whatever reason. What makes something mine?
Example:
In an article I read recently, a Bosnian pimp demanded compensation when the police disbanded his business and released the girls he owned. He, as a businessman had made an investment and paid for them, so in his view he owned the girls (worforce) and the profits from their labor, because the initial capital was his. The police who had up to then been in his payroll (and so had to protect the "system") stole his loaf of bread and he rightfully wanted his money back...
It is a matter of semantics aswell. Just change pimp for loaf owner, girls for loaf, police for loaf thief, children for families, society etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
do we know what Christ spoke of? Caritas is latin. The hebrew word normally translated as charity is Tzedakah, which also means justice or righteousness. There is an implication that its not only an obligation on the part of the giver, but almost a right on the part of the receiver. Look at laws in the hebrew bible on the poor. The poor are entitled to the gleanings of the field. If a poor person enters a field to glean, without asking for permission, are they theives? Apparently not.
And the jubilee year requires the cancellation of all debts - as an obligation, not as a voluntary act of love. Biblical judaism at least has the seeds of a more "leftist" social outlook. Dont know to what extent JC actually shared that, dont even know what language he actually used, do we? |
No we don't, but we think it was Aramaic. It will be interesting to hear this language (and Latin) actually spoken when Gibson's film about JC is released.
There is no doubt that the world owes much to Judaism as well as to Jesus Christ. And, I would agree that it is not theft if a poor person is exercising his rights under law to leavings of the field or of the bakery for that matter.
As to the cancellation of debts, well perhaps that was necessary in those times where the failure to pay made you a slave.
As to the example of women slaves - I think prospect of the liberation of slaves WITHOUT compensation was a major contributing factor in the South's secession.
BTW, on this issue, did anyone notice that Bush spent a significant portion of his speech today at the UN on this issue. It was amazing. Simply amazing. Bush's call for an end to slavery in the world could only come from a Republican, IMHO, in the great tradition of the party of Lincoln.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-09-2003 06:49
|