I don't have to refute the argument itself to refute how it does not apply to the discussion here.

Just because a question can be questioned does not mean that the subject does not exist.

Are you suggesting that morals do not exist? If so, then why do we turn some of them into laws?

We dont have the proof to say that any moral is 100% universally unequivocally truly moral. That is why I included "perhaps universal" as part of the definition. Morals are relative to the person or persons observing them, and they change based on new perspectives and discoveries.

I need to work on my objective and respectful approach toward you all. I keep accidentally typing things that I feel are informative, when in reality they can easily be construed as snide or rude. (For example: assuming that there is a joke when there is not)

I will try to aviod that type of situation henceforth.

In other words, just because the theory seems like it would work, doesn't mean that it will once it's put into play.

Are you suggesting that morals do not exist? — Lif3r

Sigh. For the second time, no, I am not.

I keep accidentally typing things that I feel are informative, when in reality they can easily be construed as snide or rude. (For example: assuming that there is a joke when there is not) — Lif3r

digital text communication has been problematic ever since e-mail came along, and continues. The thing that is different about e-mail, text messages, and anonymous boards such as this is speed and casualness. The psychology of writing on a screen is different than writing on paper.

When we depended on hand-written or typed messages on paper (in the ancient world of 40 years ago) we tended to exercise more reserve and we had time to proofread and reflect on what we had written before we put it into an envelope, addressed it, and dropped it in a mail box. The commitment to words and sentences written on paper is deeper than the commitment to text written on a screen.

I have found that my dry, sarcastic humor misfires more often on line than it does in person. People seem to read text on line differently than they 'read' or 'hear' communication in person. On line responses to text seems to be more literal, less subtle. So it is that a rather casual off-the-cuff comment can come across as a body slam.

Whereas you'd miss an eighteen-wheeler if it were parked right under your nose. — Sapientia

I am delighted that you can actually spell such a big word, but the really question is would you recognize one when I run you over with it? And yes I had a licenses to drive heavy goods up to 26 wheels and 55 tonnes.

One resolution would be to maintain that "good" is in some ways indefinable. This was G. E. Moore's answer, as I understand it. — Sapientia

So good could be used to describe anything, now I understand why they say "That is good shit". Because of course shit is good.
But you failed to understand that he actually said.

In other words, just because the theory seems like it would work, doesn't mean that it will once it's put into play. — Lif3r

The best laid plans in war and politics unravel at first contact with the opposition. Can you name one case were politically motivated morals have been a success?

One resolution would be to maintain that "good" is in some ways indefinable. This was G. E. Moore's answer, as I understand it. — Sapientia

What is good cannot be a matter of definition, obviously. It is a matter of general human consensus based on the sum of experience. Because it is not a matter of definition, the good cannot be precisely defined, that much is obvious: but that fact will be a stumbling block for minds that lack subtlety.

I found your avatar and would like to return it.


He's picked up a bit of sass since you kicked him out.

But the whiteness is aptly expressive of his moral and virginal purity, no?

A very welcome bit of good news. Well done, Sam. :strong: You've conclusively demonstrated that anyone in this discussion who suggested you keep the ring was just flat out wrong ethically, and given what you've written above should reconsider their position. — Baden

What are the boundaries of these ethics?

Many advised Sam to return the ring he obtained unintentionally. Presumably that advice would have been the same had Sam stolen the ring. Would that advice have been the same had Sam stolen the ring a long time ago?

Is there a moral statute of limitations on theft?

If yes, what is the time period after which a stolen item becomes rightfully the property of the thief?

If no, what are the implications of that? Are we ethically bound to return all the stolen property we are in possession of?

I am delighted that you can actually spell such a big word, but the really question is would you recognize one when I run you over with it? And yes I had a licenses to drive heavy goods up to 26 wheels and 55 tonnes. — Sir2u

*real & *licence

Good luck trying to get through my force field. And yes, I do have super powers.

Presumably that advice would have been the same had Sam stolen the ring. Would that advice have been the same had Sam stolen the ring a long time ago? — Jake

Stealing a ring is not the same as finding a ring.

But while were on the subject of theft, somebody should write a book on the ethics of theft, because clearly theft is frequently "Business conducted by other means."

We tend to look down our noses at petty thieves and honor major league thieves (like banks, corporations, etc.). Some theft is OK and some isn't. If one is starving, stealing food is OK. If one is homeless, stealing space (squatting) is OK. Some people believe that taking money away from the rich is a moral imperative, because the rich got it through some sort of swindle in the first place.

Does anybody actually buy office supplies? Isn't that what the supply room is for? There are ethical limits, however. One should not steal carpeting, lighting fixtures, plumbing, windows, doors... basic infrastructure. It's hard to get this stuff in the elevator and out the back door without some nosy person noticing.

Are we ethically bound to return all the stolen property we are in possession of? — Jake

If one has a lot of stolen property laying around, returning the goods to their rightful owner is probably not the first item on their to do list. Nor is it at the top of their list of things to worry about. Personally, I would be more worried about prosecution.

Then too it depends on from whom one stole the property. Stealing goods from a luxury retailer is one thing; stealing stuff from the local mafia boss is something else.

Would that advice have been the same had Sam stolen the ring a long time ago? — Jake

Eventually who stole what from whom becomes a moot point. Time makes ancient good uncouth and elevates many a crime to nobility. Many nations have been built on a foundation of organized theft, and once the theft becomes the narrative of Empire, westward expansion or manifest destiny... who cares? (aside from the losers...)

",,,Eventually who stole what from whom becomes a moot point...."

Said long since in another field, "Possession is nine points of the Law."

Are we ethically bound to return all the stolen property we are in possession of? — Jake

Yes, so whatever it is that is making you ask this question, go ahead and return it to the rightful owner even though it's been a few years.

...what is the time period after which a stolen item becomes rightfully the property of the thief? — Jake

Never.

Of course when the thief dies and gives the property to his kids and they to their kids and so on... you get the U.S.

Of course when the thief dies and gives the property to his kids and they to their kids and so on... you get the U.S. — Baden

And who do you think came over to do the stealing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Americans

We only wanted the beer. All that killing and thieving was just an accident. Let's face it, we were pretty pissed. Mitigating circumstances...

(Btw 'pissed' means 'drunk' not 'angry' in real language.)

you get the U.S. — Baden

You Europeans (counting the Brits as Europeans as much as they hate that) are responsible for just about everything bad that happened in the US. Everything from Plymouth Rock onward. By the time the colonies became states and got their various acts together (around 1960) we were pretty much ruined by continental influences. Vietnam? We got sucked in by helping the failed French out. Iraq? The French and the British screwed that whole area up. Israel? Look to the UK, as usual. Child abusing priests? Italian and Irish Catholics.

Americans are pretty much innocent of everything.

And lest we forget, the Brits still haven't returned the statues they swiped off the Parthenon. Last time I looked they were still in the British Museum, along with the Rosetta Stone (France swiped from Egypt, England swiped from France). A Greek delegation visited the Queen to talk about getting the stonework back and she sicced her pack of killer corgis on them and they had to beat a hasty retreat, bleeding ankles and all.

(Btw 'pissed' means 'drunk' not 'angry' in real language.) — Baden

We knew that already because half of Ireland lives in the US.

Yes, so whatever it is that is making you ask this question, go ahead and return it to the rightful owner even though it's been a few years. — Hanover

Which Indian tribe will you be giving your land to?

I'm giving it to the Neanderthals who the Indians robbed, which follows the well thought out logic of rightful land ownership resting with the distant anscestors of the first person whose foot touched the soil. It's the well established finders keepers rule for all of eternity.

We knew that already because half of Ireland lives in the US. — Bitter Crank

Actually the website says there are 33 million Irish Americans and 6.7 million Irish in Ireland. The few left behind bitch about the US only because they missed the boat.

I'm not saying I don't agree but let's get a little weird with that for a sec.

Does this mean ownership goes all the way back to the first person who realized what the Earth was?

What is good cannot be a matter of definition, obviously. It is a matter of general human consensus based on the sum of experience. — Janus

What do you think a dictionary is? It is a book containing the different uses of words, based on human consensus.
And the funny thing about it is the way it changes over time. Words that meant one thing 50 years ago might mean something different today. Words in English are mostly adapted or adopted into the language from somewhere else. There is not word in any language that does not have a definition for it would be impossible to use it. It therefore depends upon human consensus to say what a word means. Good means what ever the society, group or nation decide it means for them. There is no 100% universal definition for it.

The book called "The Accidental Dictionary" might be of interest to you.Let me know (PM) if you are interested in reading it.

*real & *licence — Sapientia

Just like always, when you cannot say anything useful you pick on peoples grammar and spelling.
And you fall for them every time. It is so much fun making mistakes just for you to find that I am actually thinking of making an official grammar nazi thread just for you to play with yourself in.. And you are not doing your job right because I left several other easter eggs for you in other posts.

Good luck trying to get through my force field. And yes, I do have super powers. — Sapientia

:lol: I think that this is mis-posted, it should have been in the joke thread. :rofl:

I made how many mistakes did I make here.

Does this mean ownership goes all the way back to the first person who realized what the Earth was? — Lif3r

That is why there are so many Irish in the USA,"cus god's green earth belongs to mankind to do wid as he sees fittin". And because the Irish and not the Israelis are god's chosen people they took over the greener grass on the other side of the pond.