Why is it wrong to take advantage of other people?

[Mise]

Erm, If you don't actually want to discuss ethics, why did you make this thread?

 

[Nik709]

They might need or want it.....good lord, are you just arguing for the sake of arguing, by this pattern "nothing is bad", tell me then why is murder wrong?I HOPE we can at least agree that that is wrong.

No, not necessarily.

Following situation:

Someone offers me a life in prosperity instead of one of hard work for little money in exchange for the killing of a random person I have never met and would never have known. It is also guaranteed that I will not be caught.
Would it be wrong to take that offer? I have only one life...

 

[Nik709]

Erm, If you don't actually want to discuss ethics, why did you make this thread?

What gave you the impression that I wouldn't want to? Discussing them is indeed the point of this thread.

I said there is no such thing as 'basic ethics', they are relative.

 

[Ecclesiastes]

No, not necessarily.

Following situation:

Someone offers me a life in prosperity instead of one of hard work for little money in exchange for the killing of a random person I have never met and would never have known. It is also guaranteed that I will not be caught.
Would it be wrong to take that offer? I have only one life...

Then we disagree completely on what basic reality is.

 

[Xanikk999]

What gave you the impression that I wouldn't want to? Discussing them is indeed the point of this thread.

I said there is no such thing as 'basic ethics', they are relative.

Normally i would agree with this.

But as a human being most people object to random killings, lying to gain profit, stealing and what not.

And ALL human societies have rules against this, even if they break them. Killing random people was still illegal in nazi germany obviously (unless you were part of the SS).

 

[Mise]

What gave you the impression that I wouldn't want to? Discussing them is indeed the point of this thread.

I said there is no such thing as 'basic ethics', they are relative.

Exactly, you're declaring THAT there's no such thing as ethics, THAT they are relative, and then asking us to prove otherwise. I'd say the onus was on you to prove that "there is no such thing as basic ethics, they are relative."

 

[Nik709]

Then we disagree completely on what basic reality is.

But as a human being most people object to random killings, lying to gain profit, stealing and what not.

The reality I see contains random killings, lying to gain profit, stealing and what not every single day.

And in many of those cases there aren't even guarantees not to be caught.

Do you guys live in a different world?

Exactly, you're declaring THAT there's no such thing as ethics, THAT they are relative. Why?

Because they are? One person thinks killing is always wrong, the next thinks it's okay to kill murderers, again the next thinks it's okay to kill adulterous wifes. And so on.
You can't tell me you believe there are basic ethics everyone shares.

 

[Rambuchan]

Well, I never said they should realise it. That could of course have results that no longer benefit you and would defeat the point.

Think of situations where you could get away with it. You would take advantage of someone and noone would ever know.

Someone could say stealing is wrong because you could get caught and punished. Now if you assume a situation where you definetely won't get caught and punished, why would it still be wrong?

Getting away with it is irrelevant. I dislike having things I cherish stolen from me, and I do not wish that upon others. It's really as simple as that.

I said there is no such thing as 'basic ethics', they are relative.

Wouldn't you say there is some consensus that societies have reached, despite it all being relative?

 

[Ecclesiastes]

The reality I see contains random killings, lying to gain profit, stealing and what not every single day.

And in many of those cases there aren't even guarantees not to be caught.

Do you guys live in a different world?

Because they are? One person thinks killing is always wrong, the next thinks it's okay to kill murderers, again the next thinks it's okay to kill adulterous wifes. And so on.
You can't tell me you believe there are basic ethics everyone shares.

Then you misinterpretted, you think its ok to murder if you dont get caught,I dont, I highly doubt wele ever agree on much with this large of a morale gap.

 

[Xanikk999]

Well do you think those same people would object if someone killed thier family or them just because they were murderers? Yes they would and they would be called hippocrites.

In human society what i said in my last post is true. Anyone can beileve different things so the ethics of one person doesnt matter.

But in human society ethics is not relative.

 

[Nik709]

Getting away with it is irrelevant. I dislike having things I cherish stolen from me, and I do not wish that upon others. It's really as simple as that.
Wouldn't you say there is some consensus that societies have reached, despite it all being relative?

Might be, but nevertheless it is broken every single day. So quite apparently many people don't really share that consensus.

I'd also be interested to hear what you think that consensus comprises, that question also goes out to Xanikk, as a reply to his latest post.

 

[Ecclesiastes]

Might be, but nevertheless it is broken every single day. So quite apparently many people don't really share that consensus.

I'd also be interested to hear what you think that consensus comprises, that question also goes out to Xanikk, as a reply to his latest post.

How many murderers think there good people?Point is, they still think its wrong even though they do it.

 

[Nik709]

How many murderers think there good people?Point is, they still think its wrong even though they do it.

I strongly doubt that. Might be true for some, but for many it won't be a problem.

 

[Rambuchan]

Might be, but nevertheless it is broken every single day. So quite apparently many people don't really share that consensus.

I'd also be interested to hear what you think that consensus comprises, that question also goes out to Xanikk, as a reply to his latest post.

Why not start looking at the legislation that governs a nation? Isn't that an ethical consensus?

 

[Ecclesiastes]

I strongly doubt that. Might be true for some, but for many it won't be a problem.

Ive never heard of a murderer who thought he was a good person, im pretty sure many others here will concur.

 

[Xanikk999]

I strongly doubt that. Might be true for some, but for many it won't be a problem.

Ok so ethics isnt relative to every person on the planet.

But we are only going to care about the ethics of the sane people and not mass murderers or child molestors.

Do you understand now?

 

[sanabas]

2. You think you shouldn't do onto others that which you would not have them do onto you.
Reply: You can't influence their behavior. Just because you don't do it doesn't mean they will return the favor. In the same vein doing it won't automatically mean getting to the recieving end of it. Simply put, life ain't fair.

Certainly you can influence their behaviour. But you can't control their behaviour. Treating others well doesn't automatically mean you'll be treated well in return, but it does increase the likelihood of it happening.

I don't think there's an objective moral standard, but there's certainly something close to a consensus that's been reached by most social animals, because without that consensus, being a social animal is not very viable.

 

[Nik709]

Why not start looking at the legislation that governs a nation? Isn't that an ethical consensus?

It's the consensus of the majority - if the country is a working democracy. Otherwise even less than that.

And then there are different countries. With sometimes very different legislation.

Ok so ethics isnt relative to every person on the planet.

But we are only going to care about the ethics of the sane people and not mass murderers or child molestors.

Do you understand now?

I think you fail to understand something fundamental here. You talk about murder and the supposed consensus about it.

Have you considered that there isn't even a consensus about what constitutes murder? Is abortion murder? Is the death penalty murder?

There is no consensus on when to kill a person is justified. Some say never, more say in defense, also many say as retribution for what they percieve as murder, again many say as retribution for all sorts of things and some may say whenever it suits them.

 

[Xanikk999]

It's the consensus of the majority - if the country is a working democracy. Otherwise even less than that.

And then there are different countries. With sometimes very different legislation.

I think you fail to understand something fundamental here. You talk about murder and the supposed consensus about it.

Have you considered that there isn't even a consensus about what constitutes murder? Is abortion murder? Is the death penalty murder?

There is no consensus on when to kill a person is justified. Some say never, more say in defense, also many say as retribution for what they percieve as murder, again many say as retribution for all sorts of things and some may say whenever it suits them.

Abortion and the death penalty i can see. But those arent considered murder anyway technically. But there is a concensus on murder being wrong elsewise.

I dont view taking someone off life support is murder btw.

 

[Rambuchan]

It's the consensus of the majority - if the country is a working democracy. Otherwise even less than that.

And then there are different countries. With sometimes very different legislation.

Ah, you're on the nitpicking tip. Excuse me while I sit out for a while. I see your search for some kind of universal ethical consensus as quite futile.