The Gray Area

[Matticus]

So we have had some discussions about "Morality" and and interesting thread about "good and evil"...Robert asked if we could define the terms. I'm not sure we can but I thought it might be fun to discuss.

So if you steal bread to feed your staving family...is that wrong?

I figure folks can come up with tons of examples of this from Murder to sex for hire...what do you guys think?

[jchanic]

That's an interesting question, Matt. I'd NEVER steal bread from someone who needed it to feed their own children, but I don't think I'd have any misgivings about stealing bread from a store to feed my own kids. And I'd keep track, somehow, of what I did so that when (not if!) I got back on my feet, I'd make restitution. I think there are different degrees of good and evil.

As King put it in The Dead Zone, if you had the ability, would you go back in time and kill Hitler?

John

[Robert Gray]

That isn't a gray area. Stealing to feed your family is too easy. If you want a "gray area" consider the following:

1. Robert Gray has a wife whom he loves dearly. She needs a transplant for a major organ and her time is short.

2. Through the fickleness and cruelty of fate, Robert Gray learns that someone he knows is a match and an organ donor.

When it comes to the nature of good and evil... and mother nature... this is the real gray area. We fight to protect our own. It is our nature. Normally, Robert Gray would not kill. For our example we will assume he would not even do it to save his own life. He will, however, do it to save the life of his wife. He considers arranging an accident so the man's generosity of being an organ donor can save his beloved.

[Natjen24]

If a man attacks you, and you kill him in selfdefence. Is that murder?

Personally I think premeditated crimes done out of necessity do have to be punished, allthough not so severe as crimes out of passion or pleasure.
I mean that even when you steal a bread to feed your hungry family, you still need to learn that it's not the way to go, otherwise the line between whats right and wrong fades. It can all start with that bread and end with grand theft auto, because a family who can't afford a bread, can't afford a car either (hence the GTA). There's always an option to avoid crimes, in most cases you just have to swallow your pride and ask for help.

On the other hand.. what if you didn't provoke the situation (attacker gets killed). Or you had an accident which was your fault and people got hurt. You did commit a crime, but it wasn't premeditated. Should you be punished for that? In the first example probably not, because selfdefence is a natural instinct, the strongest survive. The second should get punished, because even when you didn't mean to, you have to pay the consequences (speaking from personal experience here).

And then there is war. Soldiers are killing others without hesitation, without consequences.
I'm reading a novel situated right now in WW2 and in it, it's said that men during war lose their right to live and their right to NOT kill a other human being. This goes against their good conscience, but martial laws states that killing a hostile isn't the same as killing a civilian, as does the prevailing moral.
So my point being, there's so much gray I don't see the black and white anymore!

[Bryan James]

This discussion requires a basic reference to the definitions of "connotation" and "denotation."

The former is a general (or singular) interpretation of a group of letters, while the latter is a sociological interpretation (i.e. set in the stone of a popular dictionary) of what those letters mean.

In other words (and that is what we are discussing, after all), ethnocentrism rules.

Words mean to you what you think they mean to you.

But...maybe a "Peace" sign in California, USA means "I hope a wormy pig sits on your face" in Kenya.

Good and Evil are the same, and I admit that I am not a subscriber to Locke's "Tabula Rasa." There's some stuff that living things know from the starting line. That's "Nature." The rest is "Nurture."

The whole N v. N thing was big when I was in (and out and in and out) of college. It was a wonderfully double-edged sword to instill critical thinking in the young minds of tomorrow. Me? Does it look like a duck? Does it swim like a duck? Does it quack like a duck? By gorry, it's a duck! When's lunch, and which Sorority do I infiltrate this weekend?

But "Good" and "Evil?" You can tell by now that I've spent more thought about this subject over the decades than I have the Sorority issue. That's because there is no answer. That is perplexing to human thought processes. One does not exist without the other...there is no Yin without a Yang.

I like this discussion, even though I've really only had it with myself at this point. It has made me think, and, as many would agree, that is an entirely unusual thing.

Conscious v. Conscience, aye...there's the rub. That, I believe, is the next layer of this discussion.

Thank You, Matticus,
BJS

[themadone06]

So if you steal bread to feed your staving family...is that wrong?



In one of my philosophy classes we discussed a scenario like this, but a little different. I believe it was would you steal from the pharmacy to save your sick wife.

Personally, I believe that there is no correct answer. Both acts are morally wrong, but I think if you asked for the loaf of bread or medicine and explain the circumstances you have put the other person in a moral dilemma. Then they should probably feel obligated to give you the item.

Personally I would steal (and much worse things for that matter) for my family. Stealing is such a petty crime anyway.

[michal]

To me, the things that are considered "immoral" today are simply the modern conception of tomorrow.

In my own parent's time it was considered immoral to live with a guy before you were married, to have premarital sex, for a woman to drink or speak her mind, to express unpatriotic opinions, to be gay and even - MY GOD - to show some skin.

As society changes so are its definitions of Right and Wrong.

I, for one, believe in personal morality and in living your life the way you believe you should, while letting others do the same.

[paulinekh]

I believe we are all capable of good or evil and it is down to the choices we make and how we decide those choices. Personally its down to what my conscience will allow but that is an ever moving baseline depending on each persons interpretation.Interpretation is then influenced by life experiences and now we are descending the spiral of chaos theory.As someone affected by violence and having contemplated both suicide and murder you dont know where your mind goes till you are there in the situation:down:

[Todash]

That isn't a gray area. Stealing to feed your family is too easy. If you want a "gray area" consider the following:

1. Robert Gray has a wife whom he loves dearly. She needs a transplant for a major organ and her time is short.

2. Through the fickleness and cruelty of fate, Robert Gray learns that someone he knows is a match and an organ donor.

When it comes to the nature of good and evil... and mother nature... this is the real gray area. We fight to protect our own. It is our nature. Normally, Robert Gray would not kill. For our example we will assume he would not even do it to save his own life. He will, however, do it to save the life of his wife. He considers arranging an accident so the man's generosity of being an organ donor can save his beloved.
I'm going to say this is not a gray area, not at all. The potential organ donor is a complete innocent, and taking his life, even to save another's, is wrong. Everyone who kills another thinks he has adequate justification.

From another angle, if you steal a loaf of bread to feed your children, you can make restitution for that. If you kill another, there is no way to make restitution.

[poisonbat]

There are a lot of wonderful people out there. If asked, I would happily help anyone who needed my assistance. But DAMN it don't STEAL it from me. When I was out at my moms last week and there is one crappy little store in town. I went there in search of disposable bowls and plastic spoons for cereal. (my mom is moving and everythingis packed) They had the bowls, but did not sell cutlery of any type. Now remember I am in the middle of the desert. There is a restaurant there and we went and ate there. I looked at the spoon, longed to take it with me, actually thought about it. But I could not do it. So, I went up to the owner of this little place and asked him. "If I leave you five dollars deposit on this, can I borrow this spoon?" He looked blankly at me, and said well, Yes. He took my five bucks and pinned it to the cork board behind the register with a note that simply said, "borrowed spoon" I am sure he never thought in a million years I would actually return it, but I did. On my way out of town I took said spoon back and told him he could keep the five bucks for being nice to another human being in time of need. My point is, for the small things in life, there are wonderful, generous people out there. Now if it was self defense, that is a whole other story. Yes I would kill someone to protect myself or my children if there was no other choice. But if escape was possible, It would be my first effort.
I have been: a battered woman, homeless, hungry, sick and drug addicted in my life and have ALWAYS found loving, warm people who helped me though these situations. Maybe I have just been lucky, but I can not see myself stealing when asking is so much better. I guess it is hard for someone to swallow their pride and ask for help, but I find it easier to live with. :bat:

[EMARX]

Live and let live is my very simplistic view on life. But given some of the hypotheticals in the earlier posts, if one is not personally embroiled in a situation can we honestly make a call one way or another.

[Matticus]

I totally agree with the above and wanted to start the discussion with a situation that could be considered a "true" gray area (imo). I think John said it best above when he drew a distinction between taking it from someone starving or a store that has plenty.

The act is still wrong obviously but the idea that it would hurt someone less is a factor in the decision to do it. If I had to, I would still know it was "wrong" in the traditional sense that stealing is wrong.

However, that wrong is worth it to save my family and it is a decision I make.

And this idea and conversation has exploded on both fronts, here and at tdt.com. Really great discussion and ideas.

[Robert Gray]

Is it really? We take the lives of innocents every day? We eat meat. We turn a blind eye to genocide because it profits us. We breath in and we breath out. Life on this planet is only purchased by the death of some other life (innocent or guilty). In this example, the woman dying is an innocent too. The husband has the power to save one of them, but not both. Technically the other man is mortal and dying also (just slower). The question is does a man, woman (or parent) have an obligation to his/her own first? Mother Nature seems to have designed us (and animals) that way. Codes of moral behavior and ethics are human constructs. This is why it is an interesting discussion and falls squarely within the "gray" area. Consider this:

If you are right and this would be clearly evil (wrong), then Mother Nature and our natural tendencies are wrong. This means the world itself is evil. Only by rising above nature and embracing an ethos can we become good. Of course this comes full circle to the notion of an assinine divine presence, the kind of God that would design us (our natural inclinations) and the world one way and make the "right" way entirely opposite.

I don't claim to have all the answers. I will say that it is a good thing they keep organ donors confidential and do not keep (at least officially) a database of information on them than people can access. If my spouse and/or my children were in danger or dire need, nothing short of putting me in the ground is going to stop me from doing anything and everything I can for them. I won't apologize for that.

[aneaglesangel]

Hmm, the way my son eats, bread wouldn't feed him, LOL! There are other alternatives. There are food pantries that will give a family food. There are friends who may loan you money. There is always an alternative to doing wrong. Now if you've tried all of that and your family is starving, what is worse, watching them starve or stealing? If it came down to it I'd steal and I wouldn't think much of it. Maybe later I'd try to make up for it, but a starving family is a big motivator to do something that is wrong. Is stealing really evil? I guess if you're stealing to put a needle in your arm, then it may be! But to feed your starving family? Nah!

Now killing someone that could never be right. Not unless it's self defense. In that case, it's not really killing, it's self defense. That's something I don't think anyone can help really. After all it's your or them. How many people would get attacked by a killer and not try to save themselves? I don't think of that as evil, I think of it as self preservation.

[SiN_kInG]

as stated previously, there is no definite answer for this. firstly, as i think someone previously alluded, morality isn't static, it shifts with the times and can be a generational thing. secondly morality is also relative. in essence, we derive our own personal meaning from the term. thus, the same act can be judged moral and immoral by two separate people. it's all down to that tricky thing called perspective. thus, we could discuss it until the end of the earth and be none the wiser. morality as a metanarrative just doesn't work, because it can never have an absolute truth, because of contextual, cultural, perosnal etc. circumstances which shape our outlook on morality and what can be justified and what can't.

i think the more productive thing to do would be to explore the varying justifications people carry out for these 'moral dilemmas'.

[Matticus]

I think we are doing that very thing right this moment.

The opinions are so interesting.

And Robert, I know the powers that be do that kind of thing but when you say "we" I think you mean governments. I certainly don't turn a blind eye to genocide for profit, I consider that wrong on every level, especially that...for money? NO way.

[poisonbat]

Is it really? We take the lives of innocents every day? We eat meat. We turn a blind eye to genocide because it profits us. We breath in and we breath out. Life on this planet is only purchased by the death of some other life (innocent or guilty). In this example, the woman dying is an innocent too. The husband has the power to save one of them, but not both. Technically the other man is mortal and dying also (just slower). The question is does a man, woman (or parent) have an obligation to his/her own first? Mother Nature seems to have designed us (and animals) that way. Codes of moral behavior and ethics are human constructs. This is why it is an interesting discussion and falls squarely within the "gray" area. Consider this:

I agree with this. You are right on all points.



I don't claim to have all the answers. I will say that it is a good thing they keep organ donors confidential and do not keep (at least officially) a database of information on them than people can access. If my spouse and/or my children were in danger or dire need, nothing short of putting me in the ground is going to stop me from doing anything and everything I can for them. I won't apologize for that.

This I am a bit confused on.... If you feel so strongly about the rights of animals, how can you look at a human life as any less important? What if the donor database was public knowledge? I am a donor, do you consider my life less important because I am? I am curious because I value ALL life. The only life I would ever give up for my loved ones is my own. :bat:

[Robert Gray]

I think we are doing that very thing right this moment.

The opinions are so interesting.

And Robert, I know the powers that be do that kind of thing but when you say "we" I think you mean governments. I certainly don't turn a blind eye to genocide for profit, I consider that wrong on every level, especially that...for money? NO way.

We do it all the time. There is blood on all our hands simply because of who we are and where we live. We might not like it. We might not condone it. But we as a nation live off the lives of others. Unless you are actively attempting to stop it, then you are as guilty as anyone else. My intention is not to point the figure or guilt anyone. I'm simply stating the obvious truth that life is purchased at a cost of the lives of others. This is also known as TANSTAFL... there is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone always pays the bill. There is a great Calvin & Hobbs strip where Calvin asks the tiger why are we all here. Hobbs responds, "to devour each other alive of course."

[Todash]

Is it really? We take the lives of innocents every day? We eat meat. We turn a blind eye to genocide because it profits us. We breath in and we breath out. Life on this planet is only purchased by the death of some other life (innocent or guilty). In this example, the woman dying is an innocent too. The husband has the power to save one of them, but not both. Technically the other man is mortal and dying also (just slower). The question is does a man, woman (or parent) have an obligation to his/her own first? Mother Nature seems to have designed us (and animals) that way. Codes of moral behavior and ethics are human constructs. This is why it is an interesting discussion and falls squarely within the "gray" area. Consider this:

If you are right and this would be clearly evil (wrong), then Mother Nature and our natural tendencies are wrong. This means the world itself is evil. Only by rising above nature and embracing an ethos can we become good. Of course this comes full circle to the notion of an assinine divine presence, the kind of God that would design us (our natural inclinations) and the world one way and make the "right" way entirely opposite.

I don't claim to have all the answers. I will say that it is a good thing they keep organ donors confidential and do not keep (at least officially) a database of information on them than people can access. If my spouse and/or my children were in danger or dire need, nothing short of putting me in the ground is going to stop me from doing anything and everything I can for them. I won't apologize for that.So you're saying that if someone handed you a big red button right now and said to you, "If you don't push this button, your wife dies, and if you do push this button, your wife lives, but 98% of the world population dies," then you would push that button?

[arista]

I think that given food pantries and some other agencies..People should not go hungry. However, I work with the elderly and they often times have to choose between eating and medications. That is wrong on a lot of levels.

[Matticus]

Unless you are actively attempting to stop it, then you are as guilty as anyone else.

I think all good people on this planet actively attempt to stop it by respecting others and living lives that don't place greed a the top of the priority list.

I understand what you are saying and I actually agree to a point. Someone always has to pay for the deeds of others and I think Hobbs had it pretty much right on. However, just because we are wired that way doesn't mean we have to surrender to it.

[Charms7]

That isn't a gray area. Stealing to feed your family is too easy. If you want a "gray area" consider the following:

1. Robert Gray has a wife whom he loves dearly. She needs a transplant for a major organ and her time is short.

2. Through the fickleness and cruelty of fate, Robert Gray learns that someone he knows is a match and an organ donor.

When it comes to the nature of good and evil... and mother nature... this is the real gray area. We fight to protect our own. It is our nature. Normally, Robert Gray would not kill. For our example we will assume he would not even do it to save his own life. He will, however, do it to save the life of his wife. He considers arranging an accident so the man's generosity of being an organ donor can save his beloved.

This was a very interesting point you brought up, Robert Gray. While I was in the hospital last year and receiving extremely poor medical care, I strongly considered the possibility that the reason for so many screw ups, er, medical mishaps, was because I not only am an organ donor but have a rare blood type. Scary stuff. A dear friend of mine advised me to change the "being an organ donor" quickly. I didn't. But that's only because I like living on the edge.

[Robert Gray]

So you're saying that if someone handed you a big red button right now and said to you, "If you don't push this button, your wife dies, and if you do push this button, your wife lives, but 98% of the world population dies," then you would push that button?

I think you are trying to weight the poll, so to speak in order to get the answer you want. Even so, I'll play along. I'm saying it is a good thing that such an extreme situation doesn't/can't come up because many people (I would argue most) would always choose their loved ones over the ideal of civilization, morality, and ethics. That is why organ donor info is kept confidential and why they don't take all your information when you become one. Consider how much faster and effective it would be to have a database of organ donor info ready. They don't do it because of the reality of human nature. Like our fellow animals on the planet, we favor our own over the rest of the species.

To answer your question on a personal level, most likely... yes. I think in the end I would push the button. I'm not saying it wouldn't hurt me. I'm not saying it wouldn't damn me. I would far prefer a scenario that allows me to sacrifice myself instead of countless others. Of course, we all want easy answers and morally simple solutions. We weigh and judge by the only means we can, our emotions and feelings. I would prefer to think I would not push the button, but I'm not so arrogant as to believe I could think straight at that point.

[Robert Gray]

This I am a bit confused on.... If you feel so strongly about the rights of animals, how can you look at a human life as any less important? What if the donor database was public knowledge? I am a donor, do you consider my life less important because I am? I am curious because I value ALL life. The only life I would ever give up for my loved ones is my own. :bat:

I never made a statement about whether or not I believe strongly in animal rights. I merely pointed out that we live because they die. I was demonstrating that life feeds on life and that everything is a value judgement that we weight in our own, personal favor. I applaud you in your ideals. I merely stand by the fact that studies of human psychology and behavior indicate that is the exception, not the rule. I simply know myself well enough to say that I value the lives of my family more than I do other people. I am intellectual and modern enough in my thinking to feel bad about it, but honest enough to admit it.

[Robert Gray]

I think all good people on this planet actively attempt to stop it by respecting others and living lives that don't place greed a the top of the priority list.

I understand what you are saying and I actually agree to a point. Someone always has to pay for the deeds of others and I think Hobbs had it pretty much right on. However, just because we are wired that way doesn't mean we have to surrender to it.

Well therein (in your last statement) lies the rub. If we are wired that way, and all evidence supports that conclusion thus far, are we "surrendering" to it or merely behaving as Mother Nature and/or God made us? I'm not advocating either position. Rather, I am defining terms. We have to peel the onion and get down to the core of things if we are to truly wrap our minds around your earlier questions of good and evil, right or wrong.

If the world (and us in it) is made one way, but it is right for us to act the opposite (not surrender as you put it) then the world is evil by nature. I, myself, am not ready to label the world as evil. I see it as beautiful (if savage) place and I'm glad to be here. Please keep it in mind that I'm not debating for the sake of debate. I consider this a very valid topic. It is easy when people spout philosophy to make broad sweeping statements of what is right or wrong. It is easy for people to say they never would harm an innocent life to protect their loved ones (or their own). It is too easy to say these things. It is always interesting to me when such debates come up because the overwhelming majority is always very prim and proper. This doesn't jive with actual studies of human behavior (or history). This means people "lie" when asked, or people don't really know themselves very well. When you deal with big issue questions like this, you never know until you are up against it.

[Todash]

I think you are trying to weight the poll, so to speak in order to get the answer you want ... No, really I wasn't. I was curious to know if you saw a difference between killing one and killing 6 billion, and then if you did, I'd have tried to figure out where your line was. You know, like, "what about 3 billion? what about a million? what about 20?" Moot point, anyway, because of your answer.


To answer your question on a personal level, most likely... yes. I think in the end I would push the button. I'm not saying it wouldn't hurt me. I'm not saying it wouldn't damn me. I would far prefer a scenario that allows me to sacrifice myself instead of countless others. Of course, we all want easy answers and morally simple solutions. We weigh and judge by the only means we can, our emotions and feelings. I would prefer to think I would not push the button, but I'm not so arrogant as to believe I could think straight at that point.Here is where I disagree with you a bit. As humans, we have the ability to override our emotions, 'weighing and judging' with thought and reasoning. We're not all id. We have the ability to make choices that cause us personal pain. Placed in the same situation, I would not save my husband, as agonizing as it would be to watch him die. I don't believe I have the right to take anyone else's life except in self-defense. And I'm not being arrogant, simply making a statement of intent.

[BlackThorn]

Morality isn't about gray area. Not if you're dealing with individual perspectives. If someone attempts to steal bread to feed his starving children, while some fatcat on the corner is making ten thousand dollars profit off of each loaf of bread... well, you'd have to be an idiot (or totally pro-greed) to sit back and let the guy starve, just because feeding him wouldn't profit you.

Look at it from a natural perspective. Nature is primarily immune to the negative effects of karma. If one hive of bees, attacks and kills a weaker neighboring hive, to insure their honey supply will survive them for the winter. It's just the natural order.

I'll admit there is gray area, but it's all about the push and pull of one conflict with another, so even if those two conflicting will never see eye to eye, and if we discard ideals such as 'morals'... I feel there is always still a 'right' and a 'wrong'. Mostly, it's based on the path of least disruption, karma wise.

If option A for you, is share your food but possibly be hungry later, and option B, is eat it all for yourself, because you're the bigger human, and let someone else go hungry... well, you really gotta break it down. Is the second individual who's also hungry, hungry because of you? Did your farm put his farm out of business? Did runoff from your plant cause contamination on his fields, reducing what he would have had, to your plenty? And also, why is it more important for you to stay healthy, than another? Did you earn yours? Did you sweat harder than the next guy for what you have?

I feel if you're the one earning it, then giving it away prematurely would be like allowing a parasite. However, if others are suffering because of the way you are earning it, you would be the parasite by not sharing.

Gray, maybe. But it wouldn't take King Solomon to weed his way through most 'moral dilemmas' we seem to have in the world these days. Jesus would tell you just as quick as I would, it's all about balance. What have you taken, what have you given? What have you earned? What have you taken from those who earned? Are you in the red, having taken more on this earth than you've given back?

And even then it comes down to strict morality searching to really figure who's in the 'right' or the 'wrong'. Sure, I let some people down when I couldn't keep up my credit card payments, but instead of let them leech onto my blood for the next year, I worried about building up my own finances, so someday I'll be back strong enough to pay these people. If I let them leech me for the next 20 years, at $50 a week, $40 of it straight to interest payments, then I'd never have a chance, and would therefore be sacrificing my own life and what that life could be, for someone who got the better of me.

Another thing it does come down to is contracts. If you agree to a deal, most often, you've signed off your right to any form of argument against the deal. Chances are, if you weren't happy, you shouldn't have agreed to whatever the deal is. If both parties walk away happy, even if one was robbed blind... (well, in that instance I bet Karma would take a little bit of a toll... ;)) [Karma has been around a lot longer than us short-timers have, I think she knows what she's doing...{love ya baby!!!}]

[Matticus]

Sure, unless you have been up against it. I'm a combat veteran and I know for a fact that you don't have to bow to our base instincts in every situation.

I do not believe that nature/god made us savage, I think it's just easier to act that way when everyone else is and you don't have to make excuses.

The had part is rising above it but we can totally agree to disagree.

[Matticus]

Placed in the same situation, I would not save my husband, as agonizing as it would be to watch him die. I don't believe I have the right to take anyone else's life except in self-defense. And I'm not being arrogant, simply making a statement of intent.

I hope these two posts don't end up back to back.

I totally agree with this statement and my wife and I have actually spoken about it in the past. It's the same old TV situation...terrorists co opt the good guy and tell him if he doesn't give over the pass codes (that will kill thousands), the bad guy will kill his wife and kid.

So you decide that the one life is worth all the others. I do not think I could do it and I sure wouldn't want it done for me. There would be no living after that imo.

I also wouldn't sacrifice even one other life to save her in the case of disease...I love her with all my heart and soul but I would not soil her that way. I understand some would, but I wouldn't and it doesn't take being in the situation to understand that about myself. It's called conviction.

[Robert Gray]

Sure, unless you have been up against it. I'm a combat veteran and I know for a fact that you don't have to bow to our base instincts in every situation.

I do not believe that nature/god made us savage, I think it's just easier to act that way when everyone else is and you don't have to make excuses.

The had part is rising above it but we can totally agree to disagree.

You are taking the discussion in a new direction, apples and oranges. If you are defining acting on basic impulses without care and day to day as evil, I doubt anyone would argue with you. That isn't human nature either. As another poster pointed out, we have the ability to temper instinct with another adaptation... reason. That has only served to make humans more dangerous, not less. It has made us apex predators. While I'm all for agreeing to disagree, I don't think we are talking about the same things. The discussion keeps veering off on tangents.

The example I gave wherein a husband must agonize over whether or not to kill another innocent to save his wife is very specific. It goes to the heart of both our nature to protect our own and our intellectual affection for them. I'm not sure why people believe our ability to reason is what would stop someone from doing such a thing. I would argue it is that ability to reason which almost ensures that we will do it. We have the ability to weigh the costs to ourselves, measure the risk, and figure out "how" to accomplish the goal. Combine that adaptation to the natural desire to protect our own and you have a fairly reliable result to the equation.

Another person tried to bring in the fantastic idea of trying to make me measure one life against billions (i.e. the Mr. Spock equation). That isn't really relevant to the discussion either. It is a tangent. The example I gave is possible, plausbile even. The notion that someone would give me a big red button and tell me to sacrifice the world or my wife is not. I played along because it could still be turned back to the discussion at hand. All this came about because we were trying to define good and evil. We aren't any closer to that. I rather like Sai King's use of the "white" and the "red" and so on. The so-called "White" is not always championed by ethical, good men, nor is the opposition always monsters. Finding the truth within a lie is tricky business. What are we defining as good and what are we defining as evil? Perhaps it would be easier if people tried simply create two columns and label behaviors as one or the other. This won't solve the problem but it might keep us to the original chartered course.

[Matticus]

I'm not sure it's relevant to assume where the conversation should go, a topic like this is very free flowing. I am actually glad it's run off the way it has because it encourages opinions from the community that are useful in understanding each other.

I answered the specific question about the wife above, I personally wouldn't do it and I'm sure she wouldn't want me to. It's one of the reasons I love her so much.

To me, the measure of a human being has nothing to do with every day life but what they would do in a situation like this. We only Stand when the s**t hits the fan and you could live your whole life waiting for that moment--it's what you do when it comes that matters. Not only for your soul but for the soul of humanity because is more people would Stand when the time comes, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

And yes, I mean the book. That kind of thing matters to me. I know who I am and I know what I would do.

[Robert Gray]

I hope these two posts don't end up back to back.

I totally agree with this statement and my wife and I have actually spoken about it in the past. It's the same old TV situation...terrorists co opt the good guy and tell him if he doesn't give over the pass codes (that will kill thousands), the bad guy will kill his wife and kid.

So you decide that the one life is worth all the others. I do not think I could do it and I sure wouldn't want it done for me. There would be no living after that imo.

I also wouldn't sacrifice even one other life to save her in the case of disease...I love her with all my heart and soul but I would not soil her that way. I understand some would, but I wouldn't and it doesn't take being in the situation to understand that about myself. It's called conviction.

For the record, I'd like to think that I would do as you state. I would like to think that I would take the same route as the TV/Movie hero (who always is rewarded by the right call in saving the family member too). I'm just pragmatic about it. Real people tend to make such calls from the heart, not the head. "Breaking Bad," the television show that Sai King applauded deals with a similiar (albeit less direct) issue. The dying high school teacher is mixing up drugs which will, no doubt, destroy lives and kill some. He is doing it to leave a nest egg for his family who would be otherwise destitute. Interesting situation there too.

I applaud your convictions. I don't doubt you have them. There are exceptions to the rules. In general, most people temper convictions at the moment of truth. I suspect this is because convictions, ethics, and morals exist in the mind. The rest of us exists in the real world.

[BlackThorn]

The example I gave wherein a husband must agonize over whether or not to kill another innocent to save his wife is very specific.

Human life is impossible to judge. What if she became the mother of a scientist that cured all cancer if she lived, or if he

This instance would be invoking the primal, which... wouldn't suffer from karma's effects either. If one animal bashes another's face, to save any one of his own, no laws are broken. On the contrary, that family might survive in the future, because it chose for and fought to be strong. If someone told me they'd kill my wife when they found her, I'd kill them, or maybe even them and 'an innocent' relative of theirs, just to prove the invoked wrath's point.

And for those that consider 'karma doesn't exist', let's picture it as direct and concrete results of actions. If you're caught stealing, you're branded a thief. If you steal from your boss till his business fails, you're out of job. Concrete and obvious negativity results, also count towards the 'concept of karma'.

[Roseasharn]

Okay, this is killing me.
1. If someone steals food to feed his starving family, the crime isn't in him STEALING. Especially assuming this person is doing the best they can to provide. Lets say this person wants to work but there are no jobs (hi, I live in the state with the highest unemployment rate in the country**waves**) I would be hard pressed to punish someone for what is the effect of poor legislature and bad welfare policy. Sorry. The crime isn't stealing to feed your family, the crime is a country, state, whatever that allows it citizens to be in a situation where they have to make that decision. And here's a hint: drug addicts and true theives don't steal to feed their families. They steal to get high or because they like to. Desperate people steal to provide for their families. I'd club a thousand baby seals to keep my daughter for starving. Drown a million baby kittens. so on and so forth. Stealing some bread is so far down in severity on the list of things I would do for my daughter, it wouldn't even be thought. Up to and including prostitution, just in case you wondered. I might not kill someone else, but then again, my daughter isn't starving and so I don't have to deal with that question now.
Things don't have value unless we assign value to them. I used to say I couldn't kill someone else even if they were trying to kill me because I didn't think my life was worth more than any other human beings life on this earth. Then I had a daughter. Guess what? The value she places on my life means I would fight tooth and nail to live in just about any situation where my life was threatened. Because I don't have value to the world at large. I am not special, I am not necessary. However, I am to her. And she is the most important thing in the world to me.
Now, my husband, well, I can't say I would kill off most of the world so that he could live. He's a grown up, he's a had a chance to live. But put my two year old up against it...well, then we might have a problem. But I'd gladly steal his prescriptions for him if he needed them to live. Jesus, do you have any idea how expensive prescriptions are for the elderly.
NOW THAT IS A CRIME.
So, there are crimes and there are CRIMES, in my moral structure.
But I'm disgusted with the idea of even remotely thinking about punishing someone who steals FOOD to feed their children. Absolutely disgusted. It makes me angry. There is enough food in the world to feed everyone if we did it right. People starving is the most ridiculous, unbelievable, horrific sin ever inflicted by the upper class and the lower class. Because it is so unnecessary. Ooo, it just gets me heated.

[Robert Gray]

This instance would be invoking the primal, which... wouldn't suffer from karma's effects either. If one animal bashes another's face, to save any one of his own, no laws are broken. On the contrary, that family might survive in the future, because it chose for and fought to be strong. If someone told me they'd kill my wife when they found her, I'd kill them, or maybe even them and 'an innocent' relative of theirs, just to prove the invoked wrath's point.

This is nearly the same position taken by the fictional Eddie Dean when he facing off with gangsters in protection of Calvin Tower. Eddie Dean meant every word too. He was/is clearly an agent of the "White" but more than willing to take actions he feels appropriate to protect his own. You are correct of course. We cannot see the outcome of our actions, positive or negative. The death of the innocent to save the wife could save the world, or the other way around. That "big picture" view is beyond the ability of human beings. We can only judge by the heart. The head just works out how we do things. For my own part, since I don't believe the world is evil, and I tend to trust Mother Nature, I'll always lean toward my heart and instincts.

Of course, there is an intellectual reason as well. In my eyes, I owe my life and fidelity to my family first. That is the convinction I was raised to honor. I suppose, were my example factual, I would honor my wife's wishes. If she didnt' want to be saved I wouldn't do it. Closer to the truth is I would do it and just make sure she never knew how that organ came to be hers. I would be damned and torn by what I did already, so there would be no reason to involve her.

I do note that a lot of people are saying the would never kill except in self defense. Nations (including our own) regularly fight wars which are about defense of a way of life, not life itself. Were the Colonists who refused to obey the rule of Britain because they were unhappy with the taxes and lack of representations murderers then? Didn't they take up arms and kill (innocents as well as guilty) in defense of something else? True pacifists who will not fight except in complete self defense (you find these among the Asian cultures) disdain such wars and bow to the incoming new governments just as they did the old. Clearly such an intellectual process is possible. Where does that conviction start and end? When we bombed Iraq into ruin killing thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians we (as a nation) were doing what? I'm not making a judgement on it. I'm asking the question. Defining self defense seems rather flexible and in uncomfortable ways.

Life is one big gray area because life always comes at a cost. Everything we do is at someone's expense (and rarely our own). We can (and should) aspire to the most noble intentions, but we must be pragmatists as well. My family means everything to me first, then my friends, then my nation, and then my species. For better or for worst that priority of my life. Statistics and studies back up that I am average, not the exception. Well... that's not entirely true. I am the exception in that I don't make any bones about it. In tests, most people state the proper but act the opposite.

[Kim L.]

I applaud your convictions. I don't doubt you have them. There are exceptions to the rules. In general, most people temper convictions at the moment of truth. I suspect this is because convictions, ethics, and morals exist in the mind. The rest of us exists in the real world.

There will always be exceptions to rules, and situations that do not fit textbook morality. But never doubt that convictions, ethic and morals exist in the real world. We bring them with us.

[BlackThorn]

Natjen24, I'm sorry, but some people were brought up with their only understanding as thievery. It is not their fault that they were raised with that to be all they know. To condemn one, one has to first honestly walk some miles in their shoes. Their world is not to the standard ours is, and to force them into ours and to abide by those rules after we created them, is a form of torture on our own part. The criminal system in the United States is a great example of this. We raised them to only know thievery, as a lifestyle. Then we jam them into our system repeatedly, with no true help with rehabilitation, so they'll just climb back into the jails again later. We're creating that quite often, they only picked the job because no other option was presented for them to live as well as that.

Hey, I could make restitution for killing an innocent. I'll go out on a killing spree afterwards, taking out people who I knew to be morally corrupt and out for the worserment of mankind... would that work? It's not good and evil there. To me, it's simple mathmatics. Say, my idea of morally corrupt, might be the guy who decides to dump the chemicals of his plant straight into the lake. Hell, another might consider this behavior and choice just fine. It is a kill or be killed world, especially in the business sector.

And maybe the guy was brought up too belie that nature deserved to serve you or die, or both at the same time. Say it was just the way it always was for your people, or your family, and it was your understanding of how one should live on this earth. Sure, I'd be taking matters into my own hands by stopping you, and taking morals into my own hands as well, but the justification would make perfect sense to me, and to the ones I really care about probably too.

But to me it's mathematics. You're not worth the life you're taking by poisoning the waters, therefore, you are outweighed, and get the hell out of my pond, or rest forever as ashes in my flower bed beside it. At least in that scenario's instance.

Wouldn't the mathematics behind the balance of consequences on all forms of matter itself explain some level or amount of moral worth, enough to sort through said 'gray area'?

What if your wife was in the process of curing cancer? Would her life be more important than the 'innocent would-be life donor's' then?

For these types of situations, I always like to break it down to a base level... What if zombie infection had already spread, and more dead walked the earth than living? Hehe, it's better than asking, "What would Jesus do?". All bets would be off after zombie outbreak. No time for moral dilly-dallying, no time for vetoing or petitioning settled on survival ideals.

Tell you what, if she's the only one who's curing the infection, then I'm sorry, unless you are pulling more weight protecting us from the zombies or with healing or technical skills, your organs are gonna become forfeit. The weakest obvious link would need to be sacrificed for the ultimate strength of the remaining chain in that instance.

[CorbinKale]

Wonderful discussion!

One thing I didn't see mentioned, maybe I missed it, was the consideration that stealing bread, in a survival situation where people would be motivated to steal bread, is the same as killing the owner of the bread.

If a person had the foresight to provide for his family by preparing for the survival situation, and the theoretical bread thief didn't, what right does the thief have to kill the prepared family by stealing their food?

I see it like this- bad times are coming, and I am making all the necessary preparations. Potential bread thieves be warned. Along with the food stocks, I have prepared elaborate measures to protect those stocks. If I kill a bread thief in a survival situation it will, morally, be self defense.

I only run into a moral dilemma when I consider whether to mount the heads on the fence posts along the road. That would be gross and time consuming, but might save the lives of bread thieves by convincing them to move along to prey on less ruthless survivors. If I don't mount their heads, and just lay in ambush, is it morally wrong? I have to consider the innocent that the dead thieves would have pillaged had I not ambushed them. If I get rid of more theives by stealth, thus saving more innocents, isn't that to the greater good?

In the end, it will probably come down to which way the prevailing winds are blowing. Severed heads ooze and smell bad.

[Bryan James]

Life doesn't have to be a zero-sum game.

One man's trash is an unknown woman's treasure.

But would I push the button mentioned above, even knowing the door would reveal the Tiger rather than the Lady? Yes. Would I agonize over my decision? Absolutely. Would I eventually find a way to rationalize my decision? Probably.

If I knew the button would do me down instead of the other two alternatives, would I press it? Well...first I'd read the fine print and then I'd tapdance on that sucker.

Thanks for the continuing discussion on this, folks. I have a short story sketched (in limbo) that may go bookish, and the main character faces a similar situation.

BJS

[Roseasharn]

Wonderful discussion!

One thing I didn't see mentioned, maybe I missed it, was the consideration that stealing bread, in a survival situation where people would be motivated to steal bread, is the same as killing the owner of the bread.



I'm not talking about apocalypse. I was more trying (and completely failing by being non-specific, obviously. :)), to illustrate that not everyone lives in developed countries. Not everyone has access to food banks and welfare. There is a huge world out there full of people. And there are some who are hungry without adequate opportunities to feed themselves and their families legally. And I don't blame them one bit for stealing to feed their families if they have to.

In an apocalypse situation...I only know that I would do what I had to do to protect my family, for as long as I could.
Like I said before, things only have value to us if we assign value to them.

[CorbinKale]

Stealing a loaf of bread, or a sack of potatoes, or a few cows, or a truck filled with groceries is still theft. It is the taking from one who has prepared for his future, by one who has failed to prepare. Those who are prepared, and can protect their preparations, will survive. Those who failed to prepare, but can manage to successfully prey on those who did, will survive.

Both choices have consequences. If you prepare, you will become a target for the masses of collectivist minded drones who think you owe them something. If you don't prepare, you will have to compete with the masses of collectivist drones.

Here is a fun question- if a bread thief is successful, is he under any obligation to share his loaf with the other hungry collectivists trying to steal it from him? :laugh: Or is he entitled to all of it, because he 'earned it'? :laugh: :laugh:

[catnoel]

Remember Pet Semetary " The soil in a man's heart is stonier". I have had situations where I have had to do the wrong thing for the right reasons. It is called survival, either for me or my loved one. Do I apologize. NO!!! I have never committed "acts" out of evil intent or maliciousness. I had to do what I had to do to live!!! Hopefully God will see what the motivtion was!!!

[ally88]

I have had situations where I have had to do the wrong thing for the right reasons. It is called survival, either for me or my loved one. Do I apologize. NO!!! I have never committed "acts" out of evil intent or maliciousness. I had to do what I had to do to live!!! Hopefully God will see what the motivtion was!!!

I agree with your sentiments here Catnoel and I'm sure we would all do whatever it takes to survive and protect the people we care about.

[Autumnlyn]

Would you tell your best friend that you saw her husband out with another woman?

This information could potentially end her marriage if you're right or your friendship if you're wrong? What would you do?

(note: I was actually placed in this situation once)

[ally88]

Would you tell your best friend that you saw her husband out with another woman?

This information could potentially end her marriage if you're right or your friendship if you're wrong? What would you do?

(note: I was actually placed in this situation once)

I was in this situation when I was younger and I lost a friend because i told her that her boyfriend had tried it on with me. We had been best friends since we were 4 and this was 14years later and she chose him over me. That was very hurtful.

A few years back a friend asked me if I had seen her husband cheating with other ladies whilst we were at work in the bar they owned. Although I had seen this I told her that her husband loved her very much and I hadn't seen anything. I may have lied but I did not want to be responsible for either ending their marriage or once again losing a good friend:sad:.