This poll is sparked from dialogue between Mrs P and Abs in the thread about Morality and is it subjective.

If you would take the money, why?

If not, why?

Why not? Because it's wrong and my conscience would kill me.

7 votes but no reasons why? (Except Billy and myself)

Is it simply because you believe it is wrong to steal from the blind man?

I believe it is wrong because of my morals.

I said I wouldn't do it because I don't need money that badly. I have no idea how I would act were I/my family starving. I have never been that desperate.

1. It goes agianst my religious beliefs, I DO believe in absolutes, and in a higher power.

2. it would rip me up on the inside. he needs cash more than i do, and i have a soft spot for blind people.

Yeah, take the money. It's his own fault for standing around, blind, with a cupful of money.

A silly question, merely to "prove" a facile point about morals.

What if the blind man had ten thousand dollars in his cup? Would you take it?

Would you steal bread from a rich man if your children were starving to death?

Everyone's going to say "no," (if they are being serious) but it doesn't prove that morals are absolute. The parameters of your question are very narrow. All of us practice situational ethics, whether we admit it or not.

I realize this is the casual conversation forum. Perhaps this poll doesn't belong here. I doubt I'm the only one who will seek to debate this.

Quark, I moved it here because it did not seem like a serious debate. If it turns into one, we can move it. Otherwise, it seemed more like a game of scruples.

Don't spin my poll(because I am proving a point).

And for the sake of argument. He has $5.23 in his cup.

Please answer as stated. Mrs P stated a valid question in another thread, and I wanted to place a poll based on what she said.

Also Jaime moved this to casual conversation, I posted it in domestic policy. Which now I think should be in lifestyle category.

Nope - it is immoral to steal from someone who needs money, and I think most people will agree with this.

Kohlberg's stages seem to have come up alot in these morality discussions, but I'll link to him again anyway [link]
Most of the stages seem to go along with the idea that it is immoral.

---

Edited to add: Sleeper (and Jaime), could we turn this into a 'moral scenarios' thread, or should I start a separate topic? (I didn't want to just jump in with an off-topic post.)

No one is going to answer yes to this question.
I happen to agree that there is absolute morality, but real life comes up with situations that aren't so obvious on a daily basis.

I answered no, because it's against my morals, but I still think that morals are subjective. Had I been raised in a different environment...oh, let's say by wolves , I probably would have no problems with stealing cash from a blind man, or stealing anything else for that matter. I don't think that morals are human nature, but I do think that survival is, and the clan mentality contributes to our survival.

Morals are indeed not human nature, but morals are innate to 'civilized' humans. Civilized human beings are what I am getting at here. There is good and evil in our civilized world. Primal/feral instincts can take over; starvation or desperation to survive, but that does not make it right. I also agree nobody will say yes(except those who say yes for spite of the poll).

I will say this. If you are a person who would take the money from the blind man's cup(without any real need on your part, except to have the $5 more in your pocket), then you are a bad(evil) person.

What if you need a six-pack of Pabst Blue Ribbon?

Bad form Hugo, bad form.

But that is your opinion, based on your own idea of morality. 99% of the population might agree with you, but the person who takes the money may see absolutely nothing wrong with doing so.

I could not bring myself to steal from anyone, whatever the case. It's just a bit of personal ethics.
I am religious (Buddhist, if you must know) but long before, as an agnostic, I still followed an identical moral code.
Why?
Because, my conscience tells me that it's wrong to steal, it's wrong to kill, it's wrong to insult for the sake of defamation.

I nulled my vote - there's not enough to go on in the question. In my present circumstances, no, abslutely not. I hardly need a spare $5.23 enough to take it from someone who may - it would be completely unethical. Were I destitute and hadn't eaten in three days - and knew that the blind man was in the same place every day and generally did pretty well - yeah, sure I'd take the money - especially if he had an easy-to-grab five-dollar bill. Ethics - whatever their basis - are relative.

How does that coincide with the six stages of moral development in your link?
If there is no true right or wrong, under any circumstances, and everything is relative to individual perception and prejudice, there can be no true basis for categorizing moral development.
Why place the 'individual principles of conscience' at the top? Perhaps obedience and punishment (the first stage) should be the ultimate level.

That is your opinion based on your own moral code.

It is obvious there is no universal moral code accepted by all individuals, there are sociopaths that will not follow a culturally accepted moral code. The question should be " Are there moral codes accepted by all cultures?"

Yes, but you didn't need the beer, you wanted it.

It figures after reading all about how nobody would say yes, somebody beats me to playing the devil's advocate.

I answered yes so that there would be some representation for the percentage who would take the money, in case they are not members or do not frequent the Casual Conversation forum. Who might these people be who would take the money?

• A family walking through the streets of downtown Anywhere, USA, is waiting on a corner to cross the street. As the parents discuss different topics of mature interest, their ten year-old child notices a man on the corner. The man is wearing dark glasses with a tin full of money on the sidewalk before him. While the parents continue talking, the child walks over, takes some quarters, and rejoins his or her family at the corner, where the signal has turned to "WALK."
• Another man lives down by the river, in a box under the Jefferson Bridge. While walking two blocks from his cardboard home, he spots another man with dark glasses sitting near the corner of Maine and Market. People in suits bustle past, hardly paying any notice to the man in dark glasses. But our man from the river notices. He takes particular notice of the tin full of money situated in front of the man. As ambiguous as the man he's approaching, the man from the river moves quickly to the corner, snatches the entire tin, and continues along his way.
• On a field trip to the homeless shelter downtown, the school trouble maker spots a man in dark glasses sitting on the corner, a tin of money seated in front of him. As the class approaches -- some of the children dropping change into the tin -- the trouble maker drops in a penny while simultaneously extracting several bills and quarters. Our rebel does this as smoothly as he has stolen from the collection basket at his local church.

I wouldn't personally take the money. I have enough money that I don't feel compelled to take any amount of money from a blind man who is presumably living off the generosity of others. While it may be advantageous for me to take the money, I am at no more of a disadvantage not taking the money.

You are only kidding yourself by voting yes. You don't goto the polls for these people in elections so why are you voting for them now. This is about what YOU would do, not your hypothetical examples. Spin spin spin.

And to respond to your examples, which are hypothetical adds to my original question.

1. This is a child. Being young she is not quite able to make decisions based on morality/ethics yet. This is why 10 year olds can't vote, drive, or engage in sexual activities, be employed. They do not yet have the mental capabilities to fully discern right and wrong.

2. Your 'man down by the river'(props to the late Chris Farely). Was acting on his primal/feral instincts to take the money to survive. It does not make it right, but as I stated earlier there are instances where your need to survive will take over.

3. Smart *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** punk kid trying to be cool for his peers. Juvi awaits him in the coming years, or possibly prison.

no. if he is begging for money he needs it more that I do. now, if the blind man had ten thousand dollars in the cup, I would steal some because he obviously doesn't need it (and yes, I am serious)

So you wouldn't take the money because you feel it's wrong? I want to know Abs. In your personal situation do you not take they money because you feel it is wrong?

It doesn't really, I was just responding to sleeper's post.



The stages are in this order because of the progression of an individual's basis for morality - people can still have different ideas of what is right and wrong and be at the same stage - but the way they come to a conclusion on this is different and more considered. For example, people at stage 1 base what is good on whether they get a reward from it, but people at stage 6 decide what is good/bad by making a an individual decision based on their own conscience. It does not indicate an underlying 'good', because firstly, not everyone agrees on what is good/bad, and secondly, even at the highest level of thinking, the conscience is not an absolute guide, as people's consciences can lead them in different directions - if there was an underlying sense of morality, then everyone at level 6 would agree, which, of course, they don't.

Being at a higher stage allows an individual to make a more considered decision, but it does not indicate that there is some absolute right/wrong.

One of the problems with Marx is defining needs from wants. There have been times when I have felt a need for a beer. Of course I have never been in a situation where I had to steal to satisfy this need. I would hope if I was broke, needed a beer and encountered this blind man that I would choose to remain needy. Something tells me that if this blind man encountered a destitute alcoholic his $5 would be quickly gone.

What spin might that be, Sleeper? I answered what I would do and made a separate choice to vote in consideration of other circumstances.

There are other factors which would influence the answer to the question. Clearly we aren't going to have any persons living in boxes who venture into the site to give their opinion, but of course many of them would take the money. In regards to the third example, you say it isn't right. That doesn't mean he will feel that his actions are wrong.

I said from the start that I was playing the devil's advocate with those examples. There are those who would answer yes, and were I in any of those situations I might take the money. As Wertz said, there isn't enough to go on in the question. I answered what I would do and provided some insight into what others might do. Nothing was spun, and it still leaves you with another vote for yes regardless of mine.

Edited to add:Do you see anywhere in my post my saying I wouldn't take it because it was wrong? It has nothing to do with wrong or right for me. I don't need the money and as advantage as taking the money might be, I'm not at any disadvantage leaving the money as is.

I have a great deal of respect for the sanctity of human life. As this money is presumably all the blind man has to live on, I'm not going to take it without any need being present. Not every person has this same view of life that I do, so I'm not going to say it's because it's right or wrong. I'm leaving the money because I personally feel his life is more important than me increasing the change in my pocket.

I don't quiet see how you equate citing a number of plausible hypotheticals with "kidding oneself" - never mind "spinning". Granted, Abs was not necessarily speaking for himself (though I did notice a slight resemblance between him and the school trouble-maker), but that doesn't negate the points he was making about scenarios in which people might well snatch the cash.

Actually, I think many 10 year olds have the capacity to vote. The 10 year old in this case is not at a very high stage of moral development (even for his/her age) - but this does not apply to all 10 year olds, and may even apply to some adults (which begs the question, should voting be based on age?) - see kohlberg's stages posted above; they are often based on age, but not always.

Sorry for being pedantic!

I am just trying to understand your thinking Abs.

Besides the need to survive and a small child taking this money. It would clearly be wrong, as in bad or evil.

In our society there needs to be right and wrong. Without them there would be no basis for law at all.

If there were actually no other way to feed my children, yes, one of those ways being that I could first ask the rich man for the bread. And I would rather take it from someone who could afford to lose it. Bear in mind it would only be to keep my children from starving. Remember the Donner party-------

But I would not steal money from a blind man's cup. My conscience would bother me if I did it.

If there's no correct answer, what difference does the methodology towards arriving at the answer make? Why would a different, more considered, answer be better (rather than a waste of time) in the world of nonabsolutes?

If morals are not human nature, but they are innate to "civilized" humans, does that not make them subjective? I'm just trying to understand what conclusion you are trying to derive from the poll. It seems that the term "civilized" is rather subjective in and of itself.

It is clear to me that there are a few members around who I hope never wander by an elderly gent who is down on his luck...

Abs, I particularly wonder why you voted one way, by said you would never act the way you voted. It is almost like the devil's advocate position is one that you can't resist.

Stealing from a genuine blind man who is obviously poor is wrong, at all times, on all levels.

And legally speaking it would be wrong to steal the money. But you didn't ask about right or wrong as it pertained to law, did you? There are reasons extending beyond morality as to why it is legally wrong to steal or commit other crimes.

Amlord, while I wouldn't personally take the money, I did explain why I voted yes in the poll. In regards to my playing the devil's advocate, this is the only instance I can recall where I have done so on the site. *My recent advocacy for other objectionable behavior has been genuine.

*Assuming you're referring to my role in the bestiality debate, I explained my position there as well. While I find the practice disgusting, I do still object to the laws prohibiting it for precisely the reasons I outlined. If you are referring to another topic in which I played advocate, I apologize for the confusion.

Oh, really? If the money is the only way of purchasing a medication that will save a life that is in immediate danger?

This is an incredibly unlikely situation, of course, but not entirely impossible. My point is that all ethics must be situational. Even if 99.9999% of situations agree with an abstract moral code, that leaves the 0.0001% of situations that don't.

In the real world, there is almost no practical difference between "absolute morality" and "relative morality" when it comes to major moral decisions.

None at all that will make it any more 'correct' or 'incorrect'.



It isn't any better in the sense of 'good' and 'bad' - it is a better way of arriving at a conclusion in that it is more considered, but as pointed out above, that does not make the conclusion either 'right' or 'wrong' in the absolute, nor determine what that conclusion will be.

Also, how or where does absolute morality exist? If you did steal from the blind man's cup it wouldn't really matter at all - both you and the blind man are going to die anyway, and the human race is going to become extinct, so why would it be wrong to do so (in the sense of absolute morality)?

I know of a street musician who lets people take money from his gig bag. He's a Vietnam vet, not homeless but not well off either. All you have to do is ask.

So if you needed the five bucks, why not ASK the blind person for it?

Same for the rich person with the loaf of bread.

Otherwise, it is downright impolite to just reach in and take what you want.

Thinking about coal mines, oil wells, and natural gas extraction here. Maybe an extension to Iraq and other international intrigues. Exploitive land development. Shoot, just about everything!

The blind person is a great metaphor for Ma Nature.

Oliver,



Well, I guess why do anything at all, right or wrong? We're all going to die anyway, so why eat? Survival has something to do with it. We don't have a choice but to eat (ignoring self-inflicted starvation to make a political statement). So I question whether we have a choice but to create morality (ignoring sociopaths and psychopaths). In other words, being social beings, is creating morality out of what seems to be an amoral existence built into us? If so, why?

Let's say it is since all societies create a moral code, or set of laws if you wish. This leads to expansion of the species and dominance of the natural world, at least to some degree. But is that all it's worth?

So we come to the meaning of life, eh? Heh! Danged if I know. Why do flowers offer nectar--just to reproduce? And how did the plant ever dream up that notion? How did it know that bees and flies and hummingbirds would come to sip? How does a plant know anything at all? Is it aware how much pleasure its very existence gives to us?

Physical science tells us that life itself isn't necessary in a universe. But here it is and here is the universal urge to create morality, seemingly built into mud that got up, walked around, thought big thoughts, felt big emotions and enjoyed flowers.

Or maybe it's all just an illusion. Maybe the blind guy with the five bucks in the can is a puzzle in a video game reality. Take the fiver, ask for the fiver, ignore the fiver, or slap another buck into the can?

Does your action make a difference to yourself or anything else? You know, in a good illusion (like a video game), it sure does. So maybe there's no absolutely right/wrong action to take, only different ones that send the actor down various paths from the action taken. Or opens various doors in a roomful of doors.

So I take the fiver, right? A door opens up and down I go. Along comes some monster to take the fiver from me! Or some such outcome. Maybe I come across a guy with no legs who has ten bucks! Then maybe I slap the fiver into his can, and yet another door opens up. And there waiting for me . . . the woman of my dreams! Or maybe just a flower. Held by the woman of my dreams! Hmmm, my script is cycling

Stealing $5 from a blind, deaf, mute quadriplegic and then beating him over the head with a baseball bat is always wrong.

What if he has a bad haircut?

hmmm... in that case it might be justifiable.

The moral thing (the right thing) to do would be to ASK the blind man for the money. Explain why you need it.

There are always alternatives to any action, stealing is no different.

Your example does not make the decision you make the correct one (or the moral one). What if the blind man ALSO needed to money for a life saving medicine?

Doing this will always be wrong.

Of course, I would never steal money from the blind man, but the point I was trying to make is that there is nothing that makes stealing from the blind man wrong - the most common view is that if you were in his situation, then you wouldn't like it if you had money stolen from you, so you don't take his money, but that is just someone's (alot of people's) opinion.

The reason you eat is personal preservation, and the reason you don't steal is social preservation; there is nothing that makes *anything* you do right or wrong, other than what you or someone else thinks about them.



Why? What makes it wrong?

Also, did Hitler or his supporters think what they were doing was wrong?

edited to add:


It is a sensible thing to do. Our species is successful because of cooperation with each other - we are a very social species, and we all benefit from this, morality just prevents us from breaking society apart.

Time for a new moral dilemma. If I saw someone stealing money from a blind man's cup, I would kick his *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***. Is that wrong?

I think it would be right to question his actions or ask him to put the money back, violence might be a little extreme, but that is just my opinion.

Why? If it's not wrong to take the money then it's not wrong to beat him for it.

As I stated earlier there are sociopaths that recognize no wrong. There is no universal right and wrong that all individuals recognize. There are actions that all societies recognize as wrong. Each individual also can set his own standard of right and wrong. I believe some things are just plain wrong and if others disagree they are wrong.

Hitler was wrong, obviously people who hold to certain beliefs could decide that killing and robbing the blind man benefits society by ridding itself of the weak. They are wrong.

To argue there is no universally accepted right and wrong is not the same as arguing there is no right or wrong. If I choose to believe that a chair is actually an elephant it does not change the fact that the chair is a chair. It just means I am nuttier than a fruitcake (no gay slur intended).

Hitler is an example of why there are things that are universally wrong. Although Hitler (and his cronies) thought they were right, they were clearly wrong.

Would you excuse Hitler's behavior simply because he, himself, believed he was acting morally?

The answer is no.

I am the one with the bad haircut. I didn't learn to look at myself in the mirror until I was 42, and I still have no self image. I used to go to the barber once a year. "How do you want it cut?" "Shorter." He might ask me more questions, usually sports related, but that was the end of my responses for another year.


You're playing the Devil's Advocate, I know, but while I was going through my divorce, my first attorney went to the interim child support hearing with the wrong man's check stubs. Until another attorney got that corrected, the Friend of the Court was taking more out of my check than I had been taking home. Net result, I learned every place in town where people tossed a lot of empty returnable bottles and cans, and who the other regulars were that searched them out. I mostly found pop cans, as one woman had two dogs trained to seek out empty beer cans. Yes, you do have someone on this site that looked hard at the reality that I might be living in a cardboard box. No, I didn't feel it necessary to mug one of the dogs for an empty beer can.

There is more of a support system than a competitive system at the bottom of the food chain. At that level, we know that we'll all need food and shelter to make it through the night. At the top of the food chain, they may simply believe that safety nets are in place to ensure that everyone has those basics. As volunteers at a soup kitchen on an occasional Friday night, we're reminded that many of the people we feed that night won't eat again until Monday. Where I have most often seen theft occurring is in the workplace.

Elspeth and I had a friend who is blind. After her husband attempted suicide, he filed for divorce. I would go to her house and shovel the snow from her driveway so that someone could pick her up and take her to and from work. Neighbors would stop to tell me what a fool I was. "You know she has a son, don't you?" He was ten, and in school, and had other responsibilities. She held a garage sale, and we went to help her out. People would come to the table with their purchase, and lie about the price on the item. Elspeth would point to the tag and read it. "I thought you were supposed to be blind!" she would be told. People would walk up, pick something up, and start to walk away. Stopped, they would be absolutely incensed that a blind person would "hire guards" for a garage sale. Nothing in the ads for the garage sale had mentioned that she was blind. Yes, she was a businesswoman, who lived in a nice neighborhood, and had nice things. None of that gave anyone a license to steal, and by the end of the day I was very angry at the sort of person who felt that it was okay to steal from a garage sale simply because they thought the person sponsoring it was blind.

We were the victim's when someone stole Elspeth's purse, and we had to reconstruct everything that was in it. Quick, find two documents in your house that have your notarized signature on it.

"Would you take money from a blind man's cup?" Clearly, I had to answer NO!

"Without the fear of prosecution???!!!" That's not even realistic.

A friend of my father's growing up was a blind veteran from WWI who ran a shop selling candy and tobacco products. He wore his uniform every day with his marksmanship trophies on it. He knew his inventory very well, could get you anything you asked for, and could reach out and put it in your hand. The implied threat was enough that he was never robbed.

I'm supposed to believe that this is a blind beggar, and the police haven't asked him to move along? It's equally credible, if one is to play Devil's Advocate, that this is a policeman working undercover, and the serial number on that five dollar bill has been recorded. From personal experience, that "blind beggar" can likely give a better description of me, than I can of him.

Edited to add:
During a recent dinner with a minister friend of ours, we were discussing an item in the local news. A woman was nursing her baby with the cruise control on. She was pursued by the police for several miles while she talked to her husband on a cell phone (still nursing a baby while driving) until he gave her permission to pull over. She then handed the policeman a hand written driver's license. Her husband is a "minister" in a religious sect that feels it is the husband's role to punish a wife for wrongdoing, not the government's. When he wanted to represent her in court, he presented the judge with their hand written marriage license. Our friend, the minister said, "That guy sounds like a real fruitcake." I don't believe that he was using it as a gay slur, nor have I ever heard it used in any context other than to describe someone, frequently me or one of my friends, as "Nutty as a Fruitcake."

That is exactly what I think of in terms of the 'universal' regard for right and wrong. It isn't an individual concept, but a general societal regard for what's acceptable, derived from generations of trial and error which eventually created the best stability. There's an underlying acceptance of right and wrong which is virtually the same throughout every society, although each might differ in its enforcement or interpretation (especially when conflicts of interest arise). It is because those values work that everyone is taught them, and accept them as true. If there is truly no definition of 'good' or 'bad', there is no basis for Kolberg's six stages of moral development. Some concept of right must exist, or no one would have any reason to progress past the first stage.

In Imperialist China, they allowed babies to die of exposure on manure piles because they couldn't care for them. That doesn't indicate that their concept of right or wrong was different, and it was dandy to allow babies to die on manure piles. It indicates that, for their moral code, dying of exposure in infancy was preferable to dying slowly of starvation and inevitably causing the rest of the family to suffer or die as well. Just my opinion, of course.

Mr NonabsolutePigpen disagrees with me.