Why is it wrong to take advantage of other people?

[Nik709]

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.

I fail to see how you can say there would be a legislative consensus when there are people who think the laws in the Netherlands are too restrictive as well as those who think the Sharia is too permissive...

 

[tomsnowman123]

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.

Your missing something here though. It's not purely about the person doing the killing, it's also about the person being killed. You may have a murderer who believes that they are justified, but the person who was killed? Not so much...

 

[Atlas14]

Outside of society it is not wrong at all. But if you choose to abide by state/federal/ and local laws, then you are a member of society and thus it is deemed wrong to take advantage of other people because it is in the best interest of society as a whole to not need to spend so many resources on replenishing what other people steal, cheat, or wrongfully take from them.

 

[Nik709]

Your missing something here though. It's not purely about the person doing the killing, it's also about the person being killed. You may have a murderer who believes that they are justified, but the person who was killed? Not so much...

So? Does that mean you say all killing is murder and thus wrong?

If so, what does it matter in this context? Obviously others have different ethics.

 

[Nik709]

Outside of society it is not wrong at all. But if you choose to abide by state/federal/ and local laws, then you are a member of society and thus it is deemed wrong to take advantage of other people because it is in the best interest of society as a whole to not need to spend so many resources on replenishing what other people steal, cheat, or wrongfully take from them.

Yeah, but why would I care? My benefit comes before society's and it's not as my personal deeds will destroy or uphold it either way.

 

[Atlas14]

Yeah, but why would I care? My benefit comes before society's and it's not as my personal deeds will destroy or uphold it either way.

Because the just man does not knowingly take advantage of other people to benefit himself, and the just man in the end is more succesful than the unjust man. The reason is all it takes is you being labeled as a thief or something and there goes your reputation and perhaps you are put in jail or lose a job or other consequences. Following a just path is more honest and people are more apt to trust you and place their faith in you, in turn giving you a little more "power" whether you know it or not.

 

[Nik709]

Because the just man does not knowingly take advantage of other people to benefit himself, and the just man in the end is more succesful than the unjust man. The reason is all it takes is you being labeled as a thief or something and there goes your reputation and perhaps you are put in jail or lose a job or other consequences. Following a just path is more honest and people are more apt to trust you and place their faith in you, in turn giving you a little more "power" whether you know it or not.

You're running in circles. The assumption is that you get away with it and the question is why you consider it to be just.

 

[tomsnowman123]

So? Does that mean you say all killing is murder and thus wrong?

If so, what does it matter in this context? Obviously others have different ethics.

Earlier on your argument was that a murderer may feel his killing is justified. This is ignoring the victim.

To me, yes, all killing is wrong. I do recognize that other people have different ethics, however. We follow the majority rule here in my country, as such, it is deemed that murder is wrong, and you will be punished for doing so.

To me, you may be drifting to far into the "relativiy" zone. If everything is relative, then why do we even bother? Why care? Why don't I just tie you up and force a grenade down your throat? Humans have a sense of morality, and a history of portraying things as either good or evil. If we loose this, then there is nothing to stop this world from being a planet of pure murder, stealing, etc. The whole "it's all relative" argument doesn't really get us anywhere.

 

[Atlas14]

You're running in circles. The assumption is that you get away with it and the question is why you consider it to be just.

How often are people able to successfully and single handedly take advantage of others successfully without ever getting caught or had consequences regarding their selfish action?

 

[Nik709]

To me, you may be drifting to far into the "relativiy" zone. If everything is relative, then why do we even bother? Why care? Why don't I just tie you up and force a grenade down your throat?

You begin to understand my point.

Humans have a sense of morality, and a history of portraying things as either good or evil. If we loose this, then there is nothing to stop this world from being a planet of pure murder, stealing, etc. The whole "it's all relative" argument doesn't really get us anywhere.

Not 'us'. I am only an individual. You may be right that if everyone would see it that way society would collapse, in fact that is very likely. But that is not going to happen, the majority will always clinge to some sort of ethical or moral code.

So if I consider my own morals and ethics I only have to consider their results if I adapt them myself and not what would happen if everyone would do so.

And if I can benefit from taking advantage of others, and therefore indirectly also take advantage of the many people who would never do so, what would be lost for me?

 

[Nik709]

How often are people able to successfully and single handedly take advantage of others successfully without ever getting caught or had consequences regarding their selfish action?

Many times. It can be indirectly, for example through an unfair distribution of wealth.

 

[tomsnowman123]

And if I can benefit from taking advantage of others, and therefore indirectly also take advantage of the many people who would never do so, what would be lost for me?

Well, if you don't have a guilt trip over it, than nothing, except for the fact that I find it hard to believe that you could constantly get away with it.

 

[Atlas14]

Many times. It can be indirectly, for example through an unfair distribution of wealth.

Is this done single-handedly though? No. You're asking us as individuals, so im answering as an individual which means "i" am the only one in question.

 

[Nik709]

Well, if you don't have a guilt trip over it, than nothing, except for the fact that I find it hard to believe that you could constantly get away with it.

Okay, but essentially you would agree that the basic view makes sense for me?

 

[Nik709]

Is this done single-handedly though? No. You're asking us as individuals, so im answering as an individual which means "i" am the only one in question.

Well, someone's morals and ethics are the basis of his views, including his political views.

And these views are individual. I for once reject social security and any sort of redistribution of wealth that doesn't benefit me personally. That is a direct conclusion from the idea discussed in this thread.

I am not pro-Capitalist or pro-Socialist or whatever but simply pro-me.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Okay, but essentially you would agree that the basic view makes sense for me?

For you, yes. Just don't expect a lot of people to be the same.

 

[Atlas14]

Well, someone's morals and ethics are the basis of his views, including his political views.

And these views are individual. I for once reject social security and any sort of redistribution of wealth that doesn't benefit me personally. That is a direct conclusion from the idea discussed in this thread.

I am not pro-Capitalist or pro-Socialist or whatever but simply pro-me.

Social Security wouldn't benefit you at some point in time?

 

[Nik709]

Social Security wouldn't benefit you at some point in time?

Unlikely. If it will I will swiftly switch over to supporting it. But I would never support it out of principle.

 

[Atlas14]

Unlikely. If it will I will swiftly switch over to supporting it. But I would never support it out of principle.

I don't support social security either, but it definately would benefit you in some way, unless you are filty rich, which explains your lame selfish points of view...

 

[Nik709]

I don't support social security either, but it definately would benefit you in some way, unless you are filty rich, which explains your lame selfish points of view...

I am not filthy rich, but there is nothing wrong with being that.