Few things to ponder

[winkio]

what if, instead of stealing someone's possessions, you steal their family, their happiness, or their life.

Well, not to debase us if you have religious beliefs or anything of that matter, but if you look at it from an evolutionary standpoint we are all just humans, death is inevitable, and from since the time we are born, we are practically on our road to death. Every second you live your life we are getting closer to death so one could propose that we are perpetually "dying" until death actually claims us.

Happiness is a human concept, just like sadness, pleasure, pain - it's all just labels to certain emotions we feel. We determine what they are from experience. It's a really a harsh way to look at things, but if you truly think about it, what don't we label as emotions? Sure something pleasureful causes our brain to release endorphins, but ultimately it's up to us to decide good and bad. And good wouldn't exist without bad, would it?

If we delve deeper, your really getting at morality and what one believes to be morally "right" or morally "wrong". If you look past all of that, nothing really is good or bad from the get-co.

Death is inevitable, but if someone kills you, they steal years of life that would have been yours.  In that sense, it is a loss of life.  Otherwise, we would all just jump off of skyscrapers, because life is tough.

Emotions transcend humanity.  That is why animal abuse is a criminal act.

Yes, morality is what I'm getting into (and what this topic is getting into).  But your oversimplified view that everything doesn't matter is just stupid.  You don't even believe it yourself.


Anyways, back on topic.  I think the damage of theft depends upon what is stolen.  And thus, the more valuable a thing that is stolen, the more extreme of a response is warranted.

[red.yoshi]

what if, instead of stealing someone's possessions, you steal their family, their happiness, or their life.

Well, not to debase us if you have religious beliefs or anything of that matter, but if you look at it from an evolutionary standpoint we are all just humans, death is inevitable, and from since the time we are born, we are practically on our road to death. Every second you live your life we are getting closer to death so one could propose that we are perpetually "dying" until death actually claims us.

Happiness is a human concept, just like sadness, pleasure, pain - it's all just labels to certain emotions we feel. We determine what they are from experience. It's a really a harsh way to look at things, but if you truly think about it, what don't we label as emotions? Sure something pleasureful causes our brain to release endorphins, but ultimately it's up to us to decide good and bad. And good wouldn't exist without bad, would it?

If we delve deeper, your really getting at morality and what one believes to be morally "right" or morally "wrong". If you look past all of that, nothing really is good or bad from the get-co.

Death is inevitable, but if someone kills you, they steal years of life that would have been yours.  In that sense, it is a loss of life.  Otherwise, we would all just jump off of skyscrapers, because life is tough.

Emotions transcend humanity.  That is why animal abuse is a criminal act.

Yes, morality is what I'm getting into (and what this topic is getting into).  But your oversimplified view that everything doesn't matter is just stupid.  You don't even believe it yourself.


Anyways, back on topic.  I think the damage of theft depends upon what is stolen.  And thus, the more valuable a thing that is stolen, the more extreme of a response is warranted.

Biologically, we as humans have two purposes in life - to survive and to procreate. This may be why one isn't particularly taken to acts of suicide (as your example, jumping off a skyscraper.) Our first and foremost human instinct in life is to seek survival. Without the comfort of a shelter, food, warmth, etc. we as humans will do anything to fulfill these essential needs of life. I dare propose that without these needs, human emotions cease to exist, as we may fight - or even kill for a means to save our own life. I mean, isn't this what we're doing in our world today?

If your logic is that killing equals stealing, then what about all of the people killed in war? What about all of the people who go hungry and starve? What about all of the cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, or whatever have you, that are slaughtered everyday as means for nourishment? They aren't much different from us humans. If you group these critters as animals, you might as well group us "humans" in the same category. Our genetic pool doesn't vary much, and actually, we're all carbon based life forms. What is the difference between animal cruelty and slaughtering cows in a slaughter house other than your perceived notion of it?

Society also plays a big role in the scheme of things. It's socially unacceptable to walk around naked in public, to harm animals, to scream obscenities, and it's socially acceptable to feel embarrassment, shame, etc. for doing such things.

Us humans have such huge egotistical issues that it sickens me.

Your making your question completely one sided and argumentative. What I don't understand is why you propose an opinionated question, and then debate over people's opinions, arguing that you and only your view is the right view..

[winkio]

Oh, I see, you misunderstand my question.  Let me put it like this:

Thief A steals your material possessions (money).
Thief B steals your intellectual possessions (ideas, patents, art, and other stuff).
Thief C steals your emotional possessions (pride, peace of mind, self worth, etc.).

What are the differences between the thieves?  Against which one is retaliation most/least justified?  What if a thief steals from all three categories?

Also, side note to red.yoshi: the opinionated side-conversation was initiated by you.  You seem to value one-on-one arguments over open forums for discussion, so I would advise that you take that to a separate thread.

[red.yoshi]

I apologize for giving my two cents on your question at hand. However, next time, when positing a biased question, please just specify whether or not you'd only like to receive answers agreeing with what you have to say, or open minded responses, because I was a bit confused. 

I very much hate to argue, but close minded egotistical people get on my nerves as well. I apologize if I offended you in any way. Have a nice day.

[ForeverZer0]

36inc's twin? 

I'm with winkio on this one. I don't believe that anyone truly believes in the we-are-all-nothing, humans-are-only-a-collection-of-cells, nothing-really-matters, what-is-the-point bullshit.

The very fact that they felt the need to tell you this in an attempt at sounding somehow philisophical or enlightened only proves the contridiction in thier thought process.

If you believed this, then why go through the daily motions of life. Why go to school, go to work, get married, have kids. It wouldn't matter would it? To make yourself happy? According to your supposed way of thought, happiness isn't real, so why pursue it?

[Blizzard]

You could hammer it down to a few specific things and that's it. Happiness is merely the response of our minds to reward us for increasing our chances of survival and reproduction. But it's fine. I don't see a problem with this. Regardless of the reason, I'm still happy and feel good. And that's the only thing that matters.
If you look at this even more down-to-earth, the average human changes its complete material about every 7 years. Just because that "shell" has changed, doesn't mean that you're a different person.

[red.yoshi]

You could hammer it down to a few specific things and that's it. Happiness is merely the response of our minds to reward us for increasing our chances of survival and reproduction. But it's fine. I don't see a problem with this. Regardless of the reason, I'm still happy and feel good. And that's the only thing that matters.
If you look at this even more down-to-earth, the average human changes its complete material about every 7 years. Just because that "shell" has changed, doesn't mean that you're a different person.

Amen. I couldn't have said it better myself.

[winkio]

Am I the only one that is confused about how the link between emotions and survival relates at all to thieves?

[Blizzard]

Why are you confused? Which part confuses you?

Emotions are built-in and hardwired responses to certain stimuli. A few emotions can be triggered by learned stimuli (e.g. fears and phobias are in this group). Thieves could get an emotional kick out of stealing or their survival emotions could push them in that way until it becomes normal for them to steal. There are many ways in which they can be connected.

[winkio]

Okay.  Well on that note, I'd like to bring in the quirks of observation.  Because as humans, our observations are subjected to our own biases, as many people can observe the same situation and make different observation statements.  Thus thieves may observe their behavior as just and necessary for their own well being, while the victims may observe the same behavior as malicious.

[Blizzard]

Yes, exactly. If your family is hungry and you have no money, stealing doesn't seem like such a bad thing in order to provide your family with food.

[Holyrapid]

Wow, this has gotten more popular than i thought...

I also think that good and evil are just matters of perspective... I think that it's morally somewhat okay to steal food to your family who is starving, but stealing food if you're hungry even if you could buy it, and even if you couldn't if you can food the legal way, it's a criminal act.

Same goes for pretty much everything else...

I think that if it's justified (generally... i.e most of people wouldn't sentence you to prison for it?) it's acceptable, but if there is no justification, it should be treated as the crime it is.
So, say you kill a dog. Now there's two way to look at it. A). It was to protect you and/or someone else. B). It was just animal cruelty.
But, is it justified if it was just cruelty, but the dog had rabies or posed a threat in some other way?

[Blizzard]

As winkio already said, it's subjective. Just because it's actually against the law, it doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do. Against the law only means wrong in the eyes of society.

I personally consider something to be bad if you do more bad than good. If you steal from a rich guy so you can eat that day, even though it's selfish, I consider this to be a quite small act of evil. You did it to survive. If you steal for somebody else to survive, the selfish aspect is gone and that makes the deed a lot better. They are all against society's rules, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong. The lesser of two evils is also not the wrong thing to do. If you have the chance to kill a man and hence save 10 or let all 10 die, what would be the right choice? I don't know. It depends who the one man is and who the rest of the people are and what context it is about. Things in life aren't black or white, but you need to learn to recognize which draws more towards black and which draws more towards white.

[The Niche]

Wow, this has gotten more popular than i thought...

I also think that good and evil are just matters of perspective... I think that it's morally somewhat okay to steal food to your family who is starving, but stealing food if you're hungry even if you could buy it, and even if you couldn't if you can food the legal way, it's a criminal act.

Same goes for pretty much everything else...

I think that if it's justified (generally... i.e most of people wouldn't sentence you to prison for it?) it's acceptable, but if there is no justification, it should be treated as the crime it is.
So, say you kill a dog. Now there's two way to look at it. A). It was to protect you and/or someone else. B). It was just animal cruelty.
But, is it justified if it was just cruelty, but the dog had rabies or posed a threat in some other way?

It is not, though the accused will use this in their defence.

[WhiteRose]

As winkio already said, it's subjective. Just because it's actually against the law, it doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do. Against the law only means wrong in the eyes of society.

I personally consider something to be bad if you do more bad than good. If you steal from a rich guy so you can eat that day, even though it's selfish, I consider this to be a quite small act of evil. You did it to survive. If you steal for somebody else to survive, the selfish aspect is gone and that makes the deed a lot better. They are all against society's rules, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong. The lesser of two evils is also not the wrong thing to do. If you have the chance to kill a man and hence save 10 or let all 10 die, what would be the right choice? I don't know. It depends who the one man is and who the rest of the people are and what context it is about. Things in life aren't black or white, but you need to learn to recognize which draws more towards black and which draws more towards white.

Well said.

[Diokatsu]

As winkio already said, it's subjective. Just because it's actually against the law, it doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do. Against the law only means wrong in the eyes of society.

I personally consider something to be bad if you do more bad than good. If you steal from a rich guy so you can eat that day, even though it's selfish, I consider this to be a quite small act of evil. You did it to survive. If you steal for somebody else to survive, the selfish aspect is gone and that makes the deed a lot better. They are all against society's rules, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong. The lesser of two evils is also not the wrong thing to do. If you have the chance to kill a man and hence save 10 or let all 10 die, what would be the right choice? I don't know. It depends who the one man is and who the rest of the people are and what context it is about. Things in life aren't black or white, but you need to learn to recognize which draws more towards black and which draws more towards white.

Well said.

The problem people seem to have with relativism though is that people generally have different ideas on what is right and what is wrong and what level of moral responsibility each action entails. Since I don't believe in any sort of afterlife, to me it's not about any moral reason, but more or less how it will affect relationships with other people. I think even if you boil down life to purely self preservation, you can come up with ideas on "good" and "evil". Even Ayn Rand had some standards.

But that still leaves a lot of room to think. I mean, though I don't believe in moral ramifications, I think that some actions are detestable just by their very nature. I can't use logic to justify why I think the act of people copying essays off of other people is wrong, but something about it makes me angry. We could say that cheating results in less intelligence in the long run, but I don't believe that's entirely true for all people and even if it did, it honestly doesn't affect me that Todd stole Gavin's paper. But I still think the act is abhorrent and should be avoided.

I'm not trying to confront anyone, I'm just offering my observations on just how difficult it can be to act and think subjectively and still maintain acceptable societal standards.

[Blizzard]

I agree on that. Society is more like an average of everybody's subjective point view.
Though, I believe that it is possible to avoid problems by simply being ethical. If you know something is going to hurt somebody else or somebody else will lose something, you should reconsider doing that act.

[Diokatsu]

I agree on that. Society is more like an average of everybody's subjective point view.
Though, I believe that it is possible to avoid problems by simply being ethical. If you know something is going to hurt somebody else or somebody else will lose something, you should reconsider doing that act.

I agree, and if you start thinking about it, as long as you want to maintain a good social standing and help yourself in the long run, being nice is good for you. It's something you don't need to be a hard-ass religious nut to believe in. Anyone can figure that being accepting, nice, fun, friendly and overall caring is generally a good thing.

Fixed <3 Blizzard

[Blizzard]

Exactly. Society today is different that it was 50000 years ago. Back then the only way to go up was to push down somebody else. Today you can push others around you actually up and they will push you up even further. Everybody wins, lol!

It's something you don't need to be a hard-ass religious nut to believe in.

Fixed.

[red.yoshi]

From this way this thread has progressed, I think it would be appropriate to share a poem with you guys written by Walt Whitman. It's actually an excerpt from his work "Song of Myself," and it basically sums up what I see us humans as once you take away society and religion.

I think I could turn and live with animals, they are so placid and self-contain'd,
I stand and look at them long and long.

They do not sweat and wine about their condition,
They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins,
They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God,
Not one is dissatisfied, not one is demented with the mania of owning things,
Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago,
Not one is respectable or unhappy over the whole earth.