Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

PURPLE

0 (0%)

ALERT

0 (0%)

(I need suggestions is what I'm saying.)

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

[anzki4]

You only get caught if you do it where someone sees you, or you leave something on the crime scene (for example finger prints.)

You are in a remote location = no witnesses. Wear gloves and don't leave any stuff on the crime scene. Voilá, you are one wallet richer.

Except people have that fear of capture, even a fear of damnation, fear of being stabbed in a retribution killing, engrained into them by society and if there is no need for that wallet, if they are not so desperate for money then there is very little need, not enough need to overcome that fear.

Sure, but if person does not have that fear (say, the person is mentally sick and has no feelings) would it make his act moral, because it only brings benefit to him?

[Leafsnail]

You only get caught if you do it where someone sees you, or you leave something on the crime scene (for example finger prints.)

You are in a remote location = no witnesses. Wear gloves and don't leave any stuff on the crime scene. Voilá, you are one wallet richer.

Ah yes, obviously fingerprints are the only possible evidence of a crime.  Police have literally no other ways of investigating.  Especially if you have an extremely incriminating piece of evidence on your person following the crime (such as, I dunno, the victim's wallet).

"Don't leave any stuff at the crime scene" is easier said than done when you're leaving a body and a whole load of blood behind.

Anyway, the point is that in most reasonable circumstances, there are serious disincentives to committing crimes.  I'd like to think that most people would not commit murder for gain even if there were no possible repurcussions from it (although are you ruling out guilt as well?  That wouldn't really make much sense since you're talking about people rather than logic-robots) though.

[lemon10]

You only get caught if you do it where someone sees you, or you leave something on the crime scene (for example finger prints.)

You are in a remote location = no witnesses. Wear gloves and don't leave any stuff on the crime scene. Voilá, you are one wallet richer.

Ah yes, obviously fingerprints are the only possible evidence of a crime.  Police have literally no other ways of investigating.  Especially if you have an extremely incriminating piece of evidence on your person following the crime (such as, I dunno, the victim's wallet).

"Don't leave any stuff at the crime scene" is easier said than done when you're leaving a body and a whole load of blood behind.

Anyway, the point is that in most reasonable circumstances, there are serious disincentives to committing crimes.  I'd like to think that most people would not commit murder for gain even if there were no possible repurcussions from it (although are you ruling out guilt as well?  That wouldn't really make much sense since you're talking about people rather than logic-robots) though.

I think that most people WOULD commit murder for gain if the gain was high enough, sure most people wouldn't kill a person for a hundred or a thousand dollars, but I suspect a large portion of the worlds population would kill someone for a 100 million dollars if they knew they wouldn't be caught.

[anzki4]

You only get caught if you do it where someone sees you, or you leave something on the crime scene (for example finger prints.)

You are in a remote location = no witnesses. Wear gloves and don't leave any stuff on the crime scene. Voilá, you are one wallet richer.

Ah yes, obviously fingerprints are the only possible evidence of a crime.  Police have literally no other ways of investigating.  Especially if you have an extremely incriminating piece of evidence on your person following the crime (such as, I dunno, the victim's wallet).

You know, it says for example finger prints. (It accidentally was "ie.", but I changed it.)

Anyways I'm going to explain this step by step:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

1. Person A kills person B with silenced pistol (that is illegal = unregistered) in a remote location with no other people around. He is wearing gloves and has never touched the gun with bare hands.
2. Person A takes person B's wallet ( still wearing these gloves) and takes all cash from it. Then he drops the pistol to the ground and leaves.
3. Person A returns to his home, which is very far from this remote location he has performed the murder in. He is mentally unwell, so he doesn't feel guilty for what he has done.

[MorleyDev]

Similar situations occur world-wide where a person commits acts that go against laws and "morality", but since they believe they won't be caught, and have no empathy towards their victims, they have no cause for guilt. I believe we usually refer to such situations as "crimes"?

[anzki4]

Similar situations occur world-wide where a person believes they won't be caught, and has no empathy towards their victims, so has no cause for guilt. I believe we usually refer to such situations as "crimes"?

Okay, okay enough of this evasion.

If you work calmly and you are 100 % sure you don't get caught (doesn't matter if it is realistic or not), is it morally good act or not?

Spoiler: This implies so (click to show/hide)

So ethics and morals are merely another form of selfishness?

I'm simplify my answer: Yes.

[MorleyDev]

Well no, it's an act which flies in the face of social norms and opinions of what should and shouldn't be done. It breaks the social contract that defines general morals and ethics. I'm saying the basis for our concepts of morals and ethics is selfishness and self-preservation, not every selfish act is moral and ethical.

They may claim it to be "the right thing", but that's usually an attempt to justify it to others in a desperate and incredibly pathetic plea for absolution.

[anzki4]

Well no, it's an act which flies in the face of social norms and opinions of what should and shouldn't be done. It breaks the social contract that defines general morals and ethics.

They may claim it to be "the right thing", but that's usually an attempt to justify it to others in a desperate and incredibly pathetic plea for absolution.

But you said earlier that morality is just a form of selfishness, meaning that it is just looking for most beneficial action to yourself.

[MorleyDev]

I said it was a simplified answer. Morals is the resulting social contract from all of us looking for the most beneficial act for ourselves at the same time, and the resulting conflicts therein. Society is a cold war.

[anzki4]

I said it was a simplified answer. Morals is the resulting social contract from all of us looking for the most beneficial act for ourselves at the same time, and the resulting conflicts therein.

= Morals are not just form of selfishness(?).

Thats all I wanted to hear, because:
Morals are just looking for most beneficial act for myself => murdering people for their wallets if there is no chance that I'm caught is morally right.

[SalmonGod]

Enlightened Self-Interest

[MorleyDev]

I'd say they're more a result of selfishness. A form of it, but not the only form. There are other ways to be selfish that aren't called morals. I'm not sure when I said it all selfish acts were moral? I certainly didn't mean that... "A" form is not the same as "The" form.

I am of the opinion that almost (if not all) moral acts are ultimately and fundamentally selfish, but that doesn't make all selfish acts moral, and definitely doesn't make moral acts immoral just by being selfish. All eagles are birds but not all birds are eagles.

And as such, if a more beneficial form of selfishness is available (which is probably an uncommon event for most people, but this "need to take water or diiieeee" situation clearly is such an event) Morality is rapidly discarded. But since it guarantees a lot of protection for the self, it's best to discard it in a way that it can be picked up again later. That would be just sensible.

Yes, Enlightened Self-Interest.

[anzki4]

I'd say they're more a result of selfishness. A form of it, but not the only form. There are other ways to be selfish that aren't called morals. I'm not sure when I said it all selfish acts were moral? I certainly didn't mean that... "A" form is not the same as "The" form.

Here:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

So ethics and morals are merely another form of selfishness?

I'm simplify my answer: Yes.

But you already clarified it, so I see no need for further debate about it.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Take the water?

Take all of the water.
    - 14 (43.8%)
Take some of the water.
    - 17 (53.1%)
Take none of the water.
    - 1 (3.1%)

Total Members Voted: 32

Next Dilemma: For The Greater Good?

The year is 2050. You are the head of a United Nations-funded effort to eradicate the Ebola virus, a vaccine for which was formally introduced to the world market in 2020, after the disease became far more aggressive in its spread five years earlier with the mutation of Ebola Reston into a strain that could effect humans. Reston-H, as the new strain was called by the media, quickly spread across the entire planet, killing a hundred million people every year worldwide. Since the beginnings of the eradication movement then, the world has been Ebola-free for two decades.....well, almost. In a single, very traditionalist area of Central Africa, the Ebola virus has never been successfully removed due to high resistance from the local population of 20,000,000 to be immunized. They are paranoid of your group's presence, and believe that you are out to sterilize or kill them with "your so-called cure". Because of their stubbornness, Reston-H has broken out into other areas of the world three times in the last ten years despite your best efforts to keep it contained. However, you have been approached by a military figure from a neighboring region. He wishes to conquer this region for his own purposes, but is more than aware of the threat that Reston-H poses to his troops should they try to hold the region indefinitely. This Leader is infamous for his human rights abuses in the areas his military controls, an authoritarian police state risen from the ashes of governments destroyed by Reston-H in Africa. The region where Reston-H continues to exist is a relatively stable and humanitarian democratic state, if not a very trusting one. The Leader's offer is as such: He invades the region with immunized troops and occupies all of it, allowing you and your people to forcefully immunize the entire population. He plans to kill off anyone who has already been infected as to hasten the process. You get to remove Ebola Reston-H from the world for good, he gets to add this region to his nation to do with as he pleases.

Take the deal?

[Darvi]

So kill the infectees, or let them live?