10 replies to this topic

[MaidenOfMercy]

I tried posting this on another site and the conversation sucked so I'm posting it here. Why? Because it interests me! Does there really need to be another reason?

The question I'm basically asking is this: Should what is considered right and moral apply uniformly to everyone, or should people that naturally have a more difficult time with such things be given lenience?

As an example: Uniform would mean that if a person who is well off in life, let's say, robbed someone, and then if a person less well off in life robbed someone, both would be equally wrong/entitled to an equal punishment.

Or: Is it more correct to say that the person with a lower quality of life (for whatever reason) should receive a lighter moral hit/punishment because they have more circumstances not necessarily under their control that guide them towards such a decision, whereas the person that's better off may not have such a reason.

I suppose you can add other choices if you want, but then you're probably wrong.

And I'm not just talking about money here, so even though when people say 'quality of life' they usually think of money, I literally just mean quality of life as a whole. A rich person can still have bad times and poor person can live decently.

Edited by MaidenOfMercy, 20 September 2009 - 09:40 PM.

[jcrdude]

Strangely enough, we enter a dichotomy on this topic. I'm going to be using robbery as my moral baseline throughout my opinion.

I find that typically, the poor go through a more direct means of robbery. Meanwhile, the more well-off tend to take money in a more indirect route, but usually end up with a larger sum. Because of the direct nature of the poor man's crime, he is much more likely to get in legal trouble for what he did, but when a well-off person's money taking scheme is exposed, there tends to be a lot more social backlash, but because of the indirect nature of the theft, these are a little harder to catch legally.

Such is the dichotomy that I have noticed. I thought I had more to say, but for some reason I can't get my thoughts straight right now.

[Tetiel]

I say no. If the person has the mental capacity to understand that robbing someone is wrong and they do it anyways without a gun to their head, they should be rehabilitated just the same as everyone else. Otherwise, we would be excusing the robbery and in my view almost encouraging it. I don't think we should treat anyone differently in the eyes of the law because that's unfair. There are some circumstantial reasons why someone would rob a person, but I don't think there's too much of an excuse in the western world where even America takes relatively good care of their poor. We have food banks, food stamps, welfare, etc. Why in the hell would you rob someone who is already paying for your living expenses?

I think the only reason why a richer man's crime should be punished more is because generally if someone's involved in white collar crime, they steal a lot more than someone just mugging people on the street.

[redlion]

I'm in a Bioethics class. The first thing we talked about is how Cultural relativism and individual relativism (morality based on your situation) cannot be defended against ethics. Cultural or individual relativism implies that we cannot judge others for their beliefs - which is obviously not true.

Morality is universal: individual morals vary.

[MaidenOfMercy]

Since some other people have had time to respond I guess I'll give my opinion. Personally I think that consideration should be given to consideration of quality of life. I mean like if we're talking a heaven or hell scenario, I'd give people that had a hard time some free points before putting them to the pitch fork forever.

I know that maybe logic or some sort of thing might say that an action is just as bad regardless of why someone did it, but I think why someone did something is very important. I would like to think we'll be judged by what we did with what we had instead of something that gets blanketed over everyone regardless of how easy or hard it was for them to follow.

My two cents.

[Ives]

I tried posting this on another site and the conversation sucked so I'm posting it here. Why? Because it interests me! Does there really need to be another reason?

The question I'm basically asking is this: Should what is considered right and moral apply uniformly to everyone, or should people that naturally have a more difficult time with such things be given lenience?

As an example: Uniform would mean that if a person who is well off in life, let's say, robbed someone, and then if a person less well off in life robbed someone, both would be equally wrong/entitled to an equal punishment.

Or: Is it more correct to say that the person with a lower quality of life (for whatever reason) should receive a lighter moral hit/punishment because they have more circumstances not necessarily under their control that guide them towards such a decision, whereas the person that's better off may not have such a reason.

I suppose you can add other choices if you want, but then you're probably wrong.

And I'm not just talking about money here, so even though when people say 'quality of life' they usually think of money, I literally just mean quality of life as a whole. A rich person can still have bad times and poor person can live decently.

there's cultural morality and basic morality. basic morality you will find in any society. cultural morality isn't really a basic morality, it just comes with the package. arbitrary rules do get a bad rap, though some can cause more harm than loss.

[Cyo]

Why should the rich man be punished more severely because he is rich? It's not his fault the other guy is poor.

[Mr. Hobo]

Why should the rich man be punished more severely because he is rich? It's not his fault the other guy is poor.

Lol. Yes it is. Rich man gets rich by exploiting the poor man

[Tetiel]

Lol. Yes it is. Rich man gets rich by exploiting the poor man

Okay let's put it this way. Why should the hardworking middle class be punished because a poor person decides to break into their home and steal their TV and sell it for crack money?

[outsidedream86]

I think there's a continuum between absolute morality, moral universalism, and relative morality. The first would say, stealing is always wrong no matter what. The second would say, stealing is wrong but doing so to feed your starving baby is more understandable than stealing a plasma tv so you can watch football in style. The third would say, stealing is wrong in the US but Bob is from France where stealing is morally acceptable so we should just let him go about his business.

At least, that's my limited understanding of the differences. Typically Christianity/Islam/Judaism falls into the first category, court systems fall into the second category, and college students fall into the third category (Seriously. Learned about it in one of my psychology/sociology courses in undergrad).

[Ives]

Well, property is a relatively new concept to humanity - I base universal morality on hunter gatherer societies. If you notice how humans operate in this sort of natural state, there are no property rights being enforced. The general code is not to murder, not to compromise children, etc. Very basic. Now, that's not written rule in primitive societies. It just doesn't happen, really. Their emotions are closer to animals - angry if threatened, etc.