amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
And if he does, I call up the manager and have him fired. Natural selection.GodIsGay said:
Why is it wrong to take advantage of other people?
- Thread starter Nik709
- Start date
Evil Tyrant
Eccentric Dictator
The main reason is pity. Most in the human race feel sorry for those less fortunate, and feel bad taking advantage of them. We recognise that they are fellow humans, our distant brothers.
From a practical viewpoint, it is a bad policy to piss off people, and taking advantage of them tends to do that most of the time. Humans have a tendancy to come back for vengeance, and if they see an opportunity to injure you, they will take it.
From a practical viewpoint, it is a bad policy to piss off people, and taking advantage of them tends to do that most of the time. Humans have a tendancy to come back for vengeance, and if they see an opportunity to injure you, they will take it.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
Why would it be good to make on people what you wouldn't like people to make on you ?
What is next question ? Why is it wrong to kill your neighbour ?
What is next question ? Why is it wrong to kill your neighbour ?
Only by putting our own selves aside and focusing on others can we ever be remade into new men. And the only way to complete the process is by divine means, for only a creator can change human nature.
So I don't take advantage of others for religious reasons. I have a goal, and that is to lose myself and be wholly sacrificed into a greater good, and being considerate of others is one of many steps we all take toward that goal.
So I don't take advantage of others for religious reasons. I have a goal, and that is to lose myself and be wholly sacrificed into a greater good, and being considerate of others is one of many steps we all take toward that goal.
Arcadian83
Prince
I philosophically would have to lean on reason #2 of its being morally wrong. The golden rule of "Do unto others you would have them do unto you"
You point out the exceptions while ignoring the commonplace. Most people do not murder. Most people do not lie often. Those who do are ultimately shunned by others and do poorly. Most people agree that shooting a random other fellow on the street is wrong. The few who do not, I would not recommend befriending.
About being offered the chance to shoot someone and get away with it, and accept it, consider this: Flip a coin:
If 100% accepted it: You get to shoot someone, and later in your life, you are shot. (but that's impossible, because some poor fellow has to be the first victim)
Here's another situation: You order pizza to discuss a business deal with a possible partner. You recieve the pizza and slam the door on the delivery boy and don't pay him. Is your parter going to make the deal with you, if they see you will stab them in the back as soon as you are able?
What if you can prevent them from seeing you take advantage of others?
What if you have the Ring of Gyges and can do as you please?
What if there is more than one Ring of Gyges, and someone else can destroy everything you hold dear and get away with it??
Sorry, the Ring of Gyges is a moot point because it does not exist. If you think you are special and can get away with anything, then I pity you.
If that is the only thing preventing you from being immoral, then I pity you further. I do not generally like the ideology of atheists, but you give atheists a bad name.
At least atheists can be philosophical and can see that people who can trust each other have more to gain than some sort of honor among thieves.
You point out the exceptions while ignoring the commonplace. Most people do not murder. Most people do not lie often. Those who do are ultimately shunned by others and do poorly. Most people agree that shooting a random other fellow on the street is wrong. The few who do not, I would not recommend befriending.
About being offered the chance to shoot someone and get away with it, and accept it, consider this: Flip a coin:
- Heads: You are given that offer and accept it, all goes as planned
- Tails: Some day, unexpectedly, you are shot. The perpetrator is never caught.
If 100% accepted it: You get to shoot someone, and later in your life, you are shot. (but that's impossible, because some poor fellow has to be the first victim)
Here's another situation: You order pizza to discuss a business deal with a possible partner. You recieve the pizza and slam the door on the delivery boy and don't pay him. Is your parter going to make the deal with you, if they see you will stab them in the back as soon as you are able?
What if you can prevent them from seeing you take advantage of others?
What if you have the Ring of Gyges and can do as you please?
What if there is more than one Ring of Gyges, and someone else can destroy everything you hold dear and get away with it??
Sorry, the Ring of Gyges is a moot point because it does not exist. If you think you are special and can get away with anything, then I pity you.
If that is the only thing preventing you from being immoral, then I pity you further. I do not generally like the ideology of atheists, but you give atheists a bad name.
At least atheists can be philosophical and can see that people who can trust each other have more to gain than some sort of honor among thieves.
Perfection
The Great Head.
I view it is wrong to take advantage of other people simply because it goes against my value system.
In some cases it is illegal. In others it is not. It isn't wrong, it is unkind. Selfcenteredness is the normal state of all individual organisms, selfish behavior should be expected even though it is ultimately unsatisfying. Kind acts bring us closer to feeling satisfied and whole.
Verbose
Deity
You play nice with your group, the "we" you belong to, because not doing so will mean they end up punishing you. Usually by kicking you out to fend for yourself. And people do tend to have a pretty well developed idea about what is "fair". (It's not the same in all places and times.) Within your group relationships are based on confidence and trust. Break it, and you get hurt.
Screwing "them" over has always been possible in human society. In some it has been regarded as positively a good thing. In some societies the word for "stranger" and "enemy" is the same, (In some, Finnish, the word for "sports" and "war" is the same.
)
This is where all relationships are initially based on distrust. Until the parties have proven themselves reliable, at which point it becomes possible to extend relationships and integrate.
It gets tricky when universal human moral standards are proposed that assume that humanity is the "we" of everyone. It's not necessarily the way people think about themselves and others. You can get in real trouble when trying to introduce the concept of a universal "we" to a group of people inclined to find that "stranger=enemy", and for now you're a stranger.
But really, morality and ethics are only really meaningful in relation to other people. If you belong nowhere and have no people to relate to (except trying to take advantage of them) you won't need any of that stuff.
It would be a pretty miserable life though. Short too probably, since for all those belonging in a group you would be a highly unrealiable stranger, until they found out what you're going for. Then you would likely be an enemy.
Screwing "them" over has always been possible in human society. In some it has been regarded as positively a good thing. In some societies the word for "stranger" and "enemy" is the same, (In some, Finnish, the word for "sports" and "war" is the same.
)This is where all relationships are initially based on distrust. Until the parties have proven themselves reliable, at which point it becomes possible to extend relationships and integrate.
It gets tricky when universal human moral standards are proposed that assume that humanity is the "we" of everyone. It's not necessarily the way people think about themselves and others. You can get in real trouble when trying to introduce the concept of a universal "we" to a group of people inclined to find that "stranger=enemy", and for now you're a stranger.
But really, morality and ethics are only really meaningful in relation to other people. If you belong nowhere and have no people to relate to (except trying to take advantage of them) you won't need any of that stuff.
It would be a pretty miserable life though. Short too probably, since for all those belonging in a group you would be a highly unrealiable stranger, until they found out what you're going for. Then you would likely be an enemy.
Why is it wrong to take advantage of people?
Initially no reason. You (Godisgay) are a relativist. Let me explain how relativists such as myself build a little island in the ocean of uncertainty.
It's called the social contract.
Can we agree on one thing: if you acknowledge one thing as being wrong and at the same time do it, we can call you 'in the wrong' (if we think that it's wrong too)?
That is to say, even with moral relativism, hypocrisy is wrong, because you are condemning yourself.
So now we have something to cling to. How do we get from this simple premise to a complicated system of values? We do it via a social contract, which I have explained on numerous threads.
It is, in essence, an agreement between numerous free agents and each other that, for mutual benefit, they will all consent to certain rules and duties that they decide apon as a group.
If you agree to the social contract, and become a member of society, you have imposed apon yourself a morality, in exchange for the benefits that you receive from being a member of that society: such benefits include not being murdered (because all the other members have agreed not to murder anyone).
If you then proceed to break these rules, you have condemned yourself as immoral, for you have previously accepted these rules as your morality. That is why society's laws should be kept.
As far as other instances of taking advantage of people are concerned, there are only practical reasons for not doing so.
Initially no reason. You (Godisgay) are a relativist. Let me explain how relativists such as myself build a little island in the ocean of uncertainty.
It's called the social contract.
Can we agree on one thing: if you acknowledge one thing as being wrong and at the same time do it, we can call you 'in the wrong' (if we think that it's wrong too)?
That is to say, even with moral relativism, hypocrisy is wrong, because you are condemning yourself.
So now we have something to cling to. How do we get from this simple premise to a complicated system of values? We do it via a social contract, which I have explained on numerous threads.
It is, in essence, an agreement between numerous free agents and each other that, for mutual benefit, they will all consent to certain rules and duties that they decide apon as a group.
If you agree to the social contract, and become a member of society, you have imposed apon yourself a morality, in exchange for the benefits that you receive from being a member of that society: such benefits include not being murdered (because all the other members have agreed not to murder anyone).
If you then proceed to break these rules, you have condemned yourself as immoral, for you have previously accepted these rules as your morality. That is why society's laws should be kept.
As far as other instances of taking advantage of people are concerned, there are only practical reasons for not doing so.
Yes, agreed so far.Brighteye said:
That too is true, a simple logical conclusion.
And here lies our disagreement. What if I don't agree to the social contract but still become a member of society?
Look, I don't think it is wrong to do so, so I am not in the wrong. I think it is right to take as many advantages out of life as possible.
They won't. That's the point. I would take advantage of other people's small minded 'morality'.Arcadian83 said:
I am neither an Atheist nor immoral. I act according to my morals and I believe them to be what the universe is all about.
True. But that is the only reason to be kind. Pure self-interest, the wish to feel satisfied. The other individuals themselves don't matter at all.Birdjaguar said:
In fact I think most people act like that, they just won't admit that to themselves.
Everyone needs friends, so they act nice to people to make them their friends.
Everyone needs to feel good and many people get a good feeling through the idea that they've helped someone else. And that is why they do it. If they really helped them or not doesn't matter at all as long as they believe they are good and thus feel good.
What if I don't agree to the social contract but still become a member of society?
It shouldn't be possible. I'd advocating reforming the way we manage coming of age in this country so that people actually do agree to abide by the rules and regulations.
If you don't agree to the social contract then you are not a member of society. Simple. You can't have one without the other. It's like telling my girlfriend that I want to have sex with her, but she's not allowed to have sex with me. It's a mutual thing.
It shouldn't be possible. I'd advocating reforming the way we manage coming of age in this country so that people actually do agree to abide by the rules and regulations.
If you don't agree to the social contract then you are not a member of society. Simple. You can't have one without the other. It's like telling my girlfriend that I want to have sex with her, but she's not allowed to have sex with me. It's a mutual thing.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Nik709 said:
And here lies your mistake ; assuming you can become a member of society without agreeing to the social contract.
Being a normal member of human society is not an inalienable right. It is a privilege granted upon you as a party to the social contract. By making use of that privilege, ie, by being a member of society, you are implicity considered to have agreed to be bound by the clauses of the social contract (best considered as the various rules and laws that apply wherever you may be ; but also often includes customs)
Which doesn't stop people from breaking the contract in itself, of course. That is what jails, school suspsensions, message board bans and so forth (and, for that matter, the death penalty) are for, all serving the same end : deny the privileges of the social contract to those who break its clauses. (For customs, people who wantonly break society's customs often become outcasts)
Yes, that means that technically for someone with your morals, there's nothing inherently wrong about breaking the contract if you are sure you won't be caught. (Personally, I fit in your third category ; I don't take advantage of people because I think it's wrong (which I do because I wouldn't want people to take advantage of me))..
But fortunately for sanity, society, and everyone who is not you, "perfect crimes" (ie, crimes where one is sure not to be caught) are exceedingly rare, not to say virtually inexistant. There is almost always a chance of being caught, hence why you really should respect the clauses of the social contract.
Gelion
Retired Captain
I think I'm one of these.....Nik709 said:
As to why you dont use other people..... just because some things are better left undone. Just because it helps against the cold.
Oda Nobunaga said:
There's still something wrong with it, because he has said that he agrees it's wrong when he becomes a member of society. Therefore he will be morally wrong, by his own admission, if he breaks the contract.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Brighteye said:
In your (and my, and society's) opinion.
It seems to be his opinion that if can "sign" a contract and then break it without being caught, or even without repercussion, then there's no reason not to. Which is what I was refering to.
(Personally, I believe others should respect the provisions social contract in their dealings with me (and, by extension, with anyone else), and, since I try to (not that I always suceed, but...) be intelectualy honest and practice what I preach, I try to respect the contract.)
But you jave left out an important part of the equation. When we selfishly commit acts of kindness, the reward to the recipient may be of far more value than the satisfaction we feel. The gift of being kind to someone else may outweigh some small pleasure we receive back. It isn't all taking more than is being given.Birdjaguar said:
Verbose
Deity
You don't decide that. It's the others within a society that does. Of course you can try to pull the wool over their eyes, and even get away with it, reality works like that no swift moral retribution.Nik709 said:
But if they find you out, then out you go. And I wouldn't underestimate peoples ability to sniff a sponge out, at least not in the long run, or the outrage they might feel for being taken advantage off.
JonnyB
Workaholic
Doing the right thing to avoid negative consequences, or for a positive reaction is not morality, it's just being practical.
Doing something you would not want done to yourself is immoral.
In my opinion people do bad things because their morals are value based. If you see someone as an equal then "do unto others" prevents a moral person from harming them. If one thinks they are superior or more important then they can justify their crimes. Morality is driven by Empathy.
Doing something you would not want done to yourself is immoral.
In my opinion people do bad things because their morals are value based. If you see someone as an equal then "do unto others" prevents a moral person from harming them. If one thinks they are superior or more important then they can justify their crimes. Morality is driven by Empathy.
