Originally posted by: bigredguy
Originally posted by: TexDotCom
Excellent point. The problem seems to be that a lot of folks don't have a problem "stealing" when it's a relatively minor thing. I guess it's sort of like "little white lies" are supposedly not that bad.
It's a big corporation so i really could care less. If it was a Mom and Pop sandwhich place, then i would not be tempted to tell half truths. Also, double meat only gets you what subway used to put on a sub for free anyways.
I'll state this everytime you post this.. Ethics ARE RELATIVE. Period, end of discussion.Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: bigredguy
Originally posted by: TexDotCom
Excellent point. The problem seems to be that a lot of folks don't have a problem "stealing" when it's a relatively minor thing. I guess it's sort of like "little white lies" are supposedly not that bad.
It's a big corporation so i really could care less. If it was a Mom and Pop sandwhich place, then i would not be tempted to tell half truths. Also, double meat only gets you what subway used to put on a sub for free anyways.
All Subways are privately owned franchises. Essentially, mom and pop stores.
And ethics are NOT relative. If they were, anyone poorer than you could justify ripping you off just as you can justify ripping off a "big corporation."
And when you rip off a big corporation, who do you think pays for it? Do you think the CEO takes a pay cut? Do you think the stock holders take a hit?
Nope. They simply raise prices and we ALL pay.
Originally posted by: SampSon
I'll state this everytime you post this.. Ethics ARE RELATIVE. Period, end of discussion.Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: bigredguy
Originally posted by: TexDotCom
Excellent point. The problem seems to be that a lot of folks don't have a problem "stealing" when it's a relatively minor thing. I guess it's sort of like "little white lies" are supposedly not that bad.
It's a big corporation so i really could care less. If it was a Mom and Pop sandwhich place, then i would not be tempted to tell half truths. Also, double meat only gets you what subway used to put on a sub for free anyways.
All Subways are privately owned franchises. Essentially, mom and pop stores.
And ethics are NOT relative. If they were, anyone poorer than you could justify ripping you off just as you can justify ripping off a "big corporation."
And when you rip off a big corporation, who do you think pays for it? Do you think the CEO takes a pay cut? Do you think the stock holders take a hit?
Nope. They simply raise prices and we ALL pay.
Mabey you think they arn't because you lack the understanding of absolute vs relative ethics. Any first year liberal arts classes would allow you to learn that.
When reviewing your posts in numerous threads it is clear that you are not a absolute moralist. You preach it, but do not practice it. I don't expect you to agree, though I also don't expect you to understand ethics beyond your opinion of them (which is relative ethics btw).
Originally posted by: Valhalla1
got about 15 bux in food... we were all pretty spaced out but I kept watching my friend, who was driving, fumbling with our collected money in his hand. the chick in the drive thru handed us the bag of food and said 'thank you have a nice day!'
my friend took the food, handed it to the front passenger, and just kinda sat there looking at the money in his hand, confused.. I quickly took charge of the situation and leaned forward and quietly said 'Go dude!'
we took off laughing our asses off at our $15 victory over the Arby's machine..
ended up throwing one of free sandwiches at a bum on the corner.
Originally posted by: Valhalla1
some friends and I road tripped it one spring break.. after a nice day of tubing the river, we got blazed in the car and went for some munchies at arby's or somewhere
got about 15 bux in food... we were all pretty spaced out but I kept watching my friend, who was driving, fumbling with our collected money in his hand. the chick in the drive thru handed us the bag of food and said 'thank you have a nice day!'
my friend took the food, handed it to the front passenger, and just kinda sat there looking at the money in his hand, confused.. I quickly took charge of the situation and leaned forward and quietly said 'Go dude!'
we took off laughing our asses off at our $15 victory over the Arby's machine..
ended up throwing one of free sandwiches at a bum on the corner.
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: Valhalla1
got about 15 bux in food... we were all pretty spaced out but I kept watching my friend, who was driving, fumbling with our collected money in his hand. the chick in the drive thru handed us the bag of food and said 'thank you have a nice day!'
my friend took the food, handed it to the front passenger, and just kinda sat there looking at the money in his hand, confused.. I quickly took charge of the situation and leaned forward and quietly said 'Go dude!'
we took off laughing our asses off at our $15 victory over the Arby's machine..
ended up throwing one of free sandwiches at a bum on the corner.
Did you run over a little kid who was crossing in front of your car?
Go ahead. Tell them you weren't paying attention because you were getting high. They'll understand.
I point it out in every thread. The most recent was the last thread about the RIAA sueing students. I will not go back and write up some deposition on each and every instance when you contradict yourself, and prove yourself to be a relative moralist. It's there all the time, regardless if you agree or not. Just because you do not agree with an outside opinion of your statements does not make them falseYou can follow me around parroting that bullsh!t all you want. It doesn't make it true.
There is no ethical justification for theft. Especially based on the relative wealth of criminal and victim.
And please, provide this evidence of my"clear" hypocrisy.
Originally posted by: SampSon
I point it out in every thread. The most recent was the last thread about the RIAA sueing students. I will not go back and write up some deposition on each and every instance when you contradict yourself, and prove yourself to be a relative moralist. It's there all the time, regardless if you agree or not. Just because you do not agree with an outside opinion of your statements does not make them falseYou can follow me around parroting that bullsh!t all you want. It doesn't make it true.
There is no ethical justification for theft. Especially based on the relative wealth of criminal and victim.
And please, provide this evidence of my"clear" hypocrisy.
I'm not parroting anything, I'm simply trying to make you understand that your opinion on ethics is what you hold up as an absolute truth. The fact that it is your opinion automatically qualifies it as relative. Regardless of what you believe, ethics are not absolute. Many more qualified and celebrated intellectuals than yourself agree on this point. Your ethics are simply an OPINION, which means they are RELATIVE. It's that simple. Ten seconds on google will tell you the same. If and when you decide to read up a bit on ethics and you find something you do not agree with, remember that both points are differing OPINIONS, which makes them relative. I'm not sure how you cannot grasp this concept at the most simple of levels.
I will agree that there is a generally accepted set of ethics in society that we hold as true. That set of ethics is formed from a group of opinions, which makes them relative.
Now I will give you the defacto justification for stealing. It is ok to steal when my, or my families life is on the line. If I am dying from hunger it is ethical for me to steal from you to continue to my life. If this situation is switched and I am the one that is being relieved of my wealth because someone else is starving, then I can easily see their ethical justification for doing it. One side thinks it's right, the other side thinks it's wrong, which makes them RELATIVE.
Another one is killing a man in self-defense. Killing a man in moral absolute terms is wrong, no matter what. So what happens when another man is trying to take your life by force? You defend yourself and kill that person. You killed in self defense therefore it is morally right.
The list of situations can go on and on further proving that ethics and morals are not absolute.
Morality is not absolute, no matter how much you want it to be. Morality is only absolute when taken in the context of religion. The late john paul II wrote a paper on this called "Veritatis Splendor". He asserts that morality is absolute, no matter the situation or outcome, and god is the one who reveals the right or wrong of an action.Killing and murder are two separate things. The distinction is glaringly obvious.
When morality becomes relative, anything is justifiable. Morals MUST be absolute, just as the law is.
Just because you think something is "right" does not make it so. In this thread the OP thought walking away without paying for his extra meat was "right." If morality is relative, he is right. If it is not, he is wrong.
Morality, while absolute, is not simplistic, as you try so vainly to characterize it as.
By the way, arguing from a consensus is the hallmark of a losing argument.
Originally posted by: SampSon
Morality is not absolute, no matter how much you want it to be. Morality is only absolute when taken in the context of religion. The late john paul II wrote a paper on this called "Veritatis Splendor". He asserts that morality is absolute, no matter the situation or outcome, and god is the one who reveals the right or wrong of an action.Killing and murder are two separate things. The distinction is glaringly obvious.
When morality becomes relative, anything is justifiable. Morals MUST be absolute, just as the law is.
Just because you think something is "right" does not make it so. In this thread the OP thought walking away without paying for his extra meat was "right." If morality is relative, he is right. If it is not, he is wrong.
Morality, while absolute, is not simplistic, as you try so vainly to characterize it as.
By the way, arguing from a consensus is the hallmark of a losing argument.
Killing = murder, in the context of absolute morals. Killing is wrong, no matter what the situation is, or so says absolute morality.
Your first statement qualifys you as a moral relativist. If you kill, you are wrong. If you can justify a situation in which killing is right, you are a moral relativist.
My post has nothing to do with the OP and his thread. It has to do with you and your lack of understanding of absolute vs relative.
Did you manage to make it through formal schooling? If I argue from the stance of concensus it's because I am more apt to believe hunderds of years history on this subject, than you and your opinions. So continue to hold your opinions as truth, you are entitled to them, no matter how wrong they are.