Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
MORALITY SIMPLIFIED
Morality is simple - it is based on survival - and it depends on which law you follow. There are two sets of laws:
• 1. Law of love, and
• 2. Law of the jungle.
Under the law of love, harmless activity in support of one's "right to life" is moral / good. Harmful action is "bad". Self sacrifice is the “highest good.”
Under the law of the jungle, predators are "good", and prey are "good to eat". Prey who fight back are "bad". Sacrificing others for one’s own gain is the rule, not the exception.
Most civilized people assume that the law of love (harmless action) is moral. And defending one's person, liberty and property from predation is what mutual defense of rights (i.e. government) is all about.
So taking the property of another for one's own right to life is immoral, but lawful under the law of the jungle.
Before I answer, let me understand. You are asking this question as a moral conundrum?
Or an excersize in legalese?
I of course have my own answer to the question, and I will banter with others arguing my own belief. Using questions as a form of response is the Socratic method.
So this thread is mostly rhetoric rather than curiousity. I am interested in the positions others give, and my own opinion is not set in stone, but regarding the libertarians' "usual suspects" of responses I'm fairly certain my opinion won't change.
I would certainly steal food from someone who had more than they needed, if there was no other way to keep me and mine from starving. And if the risk of being killed while taking the food was high, I'd consider a preemptive attack on the owner.
The mind is very flexible and if you are able to convince yourself that it is the right thing to do, then stealing from the neighbor will be done for the greater good...saving my wife and little baby. That is what happens in real life when push comes to shove..
This is a question for the libertarians out there. If you were starving and your neighbor had a field of produce, would you steal food from the field or would you respect property rights and continue starving?
This is a question for the libertarians out there. If you were starving and your neighbor had a field of produce, would you steal food from the field or would you respect property rights and continue starving?
I have been homeless and starving at a couple of points in my life. I never stole food - or anything else - when I was.
It's amazing how people think that there are only 2 choices. "Starve or steal".
If my legs work, my arms work, I can walk and talk, why wouldn't I work so that I'm not starving? Why should my neighbor be forced to take care of me because I'm too lazy to get up off my backside and work?!
Work for a meal? Are you crazy?
Liberals don't think that way. Your only option is to starve or steal. Rob and kill. This is America, if you can't feed yourself, someone must pay!
Because capitalism is pure evil!
Last edited by Rocko20; 08-12-2018 at 11:10 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
