Well that all depends on someone's views of morals.
It's all incredibly opinionated.
Is it morally right...?
- Thread starter Imagine
- Start date
Well that all depends on someone's views of morals.
It's all incredibly opinionated.
Formerly known as lime soda
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2008
- Sythe Gold
- 11
- Messages
- 1,805
Stole the words right out of my mouth
Market Sales
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2012
- Sythe Gold
- 0
- Messages
- 131
nope stealling is wrong.
No it's not right, at all. One of the most stupid, irritating opinions that so many people in this world have is that if you're rich then you're morally obliged to give some of your wealth to others. How about no, screw you, I get up early and work for my money and I'm not giving it to you just because you don't make the same bloody effort. (I'm not rich by the way, but it's the same principle)
The Last Demon
Member
Runescape accounts don't have insurance, if you're hacked Jagex tells you to get over yourself and make it (or buy it) again.
When doing so in helping others, knowing that the money taken will be given back, yes.
Numbers don't have morals
Stealing is stealing, but morals are very relative. If said robin hood decides it's moral, the he says theft is moral as long as X and Y conditions hold
If said person losing property sees theft as immoral under any conditions, he still has the upper hand, because he has the backing of the law and judicial system. Said robin hood is still going against common morals by which the laws are defined - after all if it was possible to define morally right theft from the rich to the poor you would have to define rich, worthy poor, limits etc. and in the end you just get a second welfare system
Stealing is stealing, but morals are very relative. If said robin hood decides it's moral, the he says theft is moral as long as X and Y conditions hold
If said person losing property sees theft as immoral under any conditions, he still has the upper hand, because he has the backing of the law and judicial system. Said robin hood is still going against common morals by which the laws are defined - after all if it was possible to define morally right theft from the rich to the poor you would have to define rich, worthy poor, limits etc. and in the end you just get a second welfare system
The Last Demon
Member
Ignoring the fact that a welfare system gives money to everyone, drug addicts, abusers, etc. Robin Hood gave things to people who without debate, needed them, which makes it morally acceptable.
How can theft ever be morally right?
Not everything has insurance, either.
this is hard to answer
stealing is wrong
but his reasons are ... different
stealing is wrong
but his reasons are ... different
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2010
- Sythe Gold
- 93
- Messages
- 7,159
It comes down to what is the measurement of morality? The intentions that drives an act or the act itself? When it comes to wealth I agree with the notion of Carnegie I believe it was. Said that instead of giving all of hIs wealth to people he would instead use all of his money to create opportunity for people who need it.
No its not morally right...but when your family is starving or just you yourself is starving...then i think i would steal food. Its still morally wrong though.
But in such a system robin hood is more than a single person
Who are you to say that only the poor of that area that can be accessed by said person is worthy of goods?
Such a system would have to be effective nationwide to remain fair. In fact if you keep your robin hood to a small area that area has an inflated defenition of poor and a reduced requirement to become rich as not only is money constantly moving out of the area but the richest become less rich than their counterparts and the poor become richer - you approach equilibrium in that area.
As such you need to expand. Now how can you actually effectively determine that the people you are giving money to won't abuse it or spend it on things they shouldn't be using it on. How are you able to, in a large scale system, determine who should get it and who shouldn't in an efficient matter - remember you have the goal of reducing costs on your end. Detailed background checks take time nad money that you can't afford to take for yourself if you want to have anything left to give for others
In the end in the interesto of keeping a stable system you end up giving money to those who don't deserve it - at least to some degree - and it becomes a second welfare.
These debates on morals can really tell you a lot about a person.
When it comes to morals, it's never really black and white and whether it is morally right or not is ambiguous and thus, what a person may answer pretty much sums up how he would answer to most other questions and can be used t make basic assumptions on how he makes decisions in his daily life.
Off-topic comment, I know, but all this discussion here really raises my interests in you people here
Keep the discussion coming!
When it comes to morals, it's never really black and white and whether it is morally right or not is ambiguous and thus, what a person may answer pretty much sums up how he would answer to most other questions and can be used t make basic assumptions on how he makes decisions in his daily life.
Off-topic comment, I know, but all this discussion here really raises my interests in you people here
Keep the discussion coming!
The Last Demon
Member
How is is morally wrong if you're saving someones life?
Wealthy people have property insurance, so yes, everything does.
No it's like u scam like 100bil keep some and give the rest away? Just work for being rich
This is about real life occurances , not runescape shit.
Hey, I feel that's it's not right because people actually work hard for the
Money and the poor can't expect the money to be given to them if they do nothing at all. The rich are working their butts off overnight while most of the poor are already fast asleep. The rich decided to try their best to become successful in life, but the poor decided to just chill for their entire life. So think about... Do the poor really deserve the money that they have put no effort into getting? If I'm not wrong, you made another thread that was similar to this where two robbers threw money out of their car. Like I have mentioned in that thread, Robbin hood is simply a fairy tale character. It's NOT real. You can't compare it with real life man Therefore, I feel it's just simply wrong.
Thanks for asking
Money and the poor can't expect the money to be given to them if they do nothing at all. The rich are working their butts off overnight while most of the poor are already fast asleep. The rich decided to try their best to become successful in life, but the poor decided to just chill for their entire life. So think about... Do the poor really deserve the money that they have put no effort into getting? If I'm not wrong, you made another thread that was similar to this where two robbers threw money out of their car. Like I have mentioned in that thread, Robbin hood is simply a fairy tale character. It's NOT real. You can't compare it with real life man
Therefore, I feel it's just simply wrong.Thanks for asking
Similar threads
