Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

A simpler moral question

Optimod
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2014 4:50:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I steal $1 from u. SMALL deal. A hacker steals $1 from a million different people. BIG deal. Cops act. But why? OK, he got MUCH more but no-one individual suffered any more than u did.
Up yours!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2014 5:03:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/1/2014 4:50:17 PM, Optimod wrote:
I steal $1 from u. SMALL deal. A hacker steals $1 from a million different people. BIG deal. Cops act. But why? OK, he got MUCH more but no-one individual suffered any more than u did.

Wouldn't the cops act in both cases?
My work here is, finally, done.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 4:10:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/1/2014 4:50:17 PM, Optimod wrote:
I steal $1 from u. SMALL deal. A hacker steals $1 from a million different people. BIG deal. Cops act. But why? OK, he got MUCH more but no-one individual suffered any more than u did.

The latter typically requires an intermediary to facilitate so many different transactions. That facilitator is usually a bank.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 11:01:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 4:10:53 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/1/2014 4:50:17 PM, Optimod wrote:
I steal $1 from u. SMALL deal. A hacker steals $1 from a million different people. BIG deal. Cops act. But why? OK, he got MUCH more but no-one individual suffered any more than u did.

The latter typically requires an intermediary to facilitate so many different transactions. That facilitator is usually a bank.

lol
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 11:04:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/1/2014 4:50:17 PM, Optimod wrote:
I steal $1 from u. SMALL deal. A hacker steals $1 from a million different people. BIG deal. Cops act. But why? OK, he got MUCH more but no-one individual suffered any more than u did.

Because it's what we call as "Utilitarianism".

(Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as
they tend to produce the reverse of happiness" "John Stuart Mill)
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 11:45:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/1/2014 4:50:17 PM, Optimod wrote:
I steal $1 from u. SMALL deal. A hacker steals $1 from a million different people. BIG deal. Cops act. But why? OK, he got MUCH more but no-one individual suffered any more than u did.

Let me ask you this:
If it is a small deal that you steal a dollar from me, then is it equally a small deal if a million different people each steal $1 from me? No one person did benefited more from my theft than the others.
My work here is, finally, done.
Optimod
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 4:14:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 11:45:08 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/1/2014 4:50:17 PM, Optimod wrote:
I steal $1 from u. SMALL deal. A hacker steals $1 from a million different people. BIG deal. Cops act. But why? OK, he got MUCH more but no-one individual suffered any more than u did.

Let me ask you this:
If it is a small deal that you steal a dollar from me, then is it equally a small deal if a million different people each steal $1 from me? No one person did benefited more from my theft than the others.

I was being provocative to get a well reasoned response. I got it - from you!
Up yours!
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 7:11:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/1/2014 4:50:17 PM, Optimod wrote:
I steal $1 from u. SMALL deal. A hacker steals $1 from a million different people. BIG deal. Cops act. But why? OK, he got MUCH more but no-one individual suffered any more than u did.

Because one million people are louder than one person, so the cops are compelled to take it more seriously. It's not about "morals", but about "noticeability".
Optimod
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 3:54:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 7:11:07 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 2/1/2014 4:50:17 PM, Optimod wrote:
I steal $1 from u. SMALL deal. A hacker steals $1 from a million different people. BIG deal. Cops act. But why? OK, he got MUCH more but no-one individual suffered any more than u did.

Because one million people are louder than one person, so the cops are compelled to take it more seriously. It's not about "morals", but about "noticeability".
Fair comment. But I was trying - inexpertly - to touch on a wider issue: society's innate tendency to undervalue the individual. Moreover, "noticeability" does, itself, raise a moral question (should we be influenced by it?). Here is an example which addresses both points. In 2004 Indonesia was hit by a tsunami which killed many people. All the news services - quite rightly - majored on this. Elsewhere, a teenage girl was raped and strangled in a country churchyard. I can't imagine that her death was any less horrendous than that of the tsunami victims (or her relatives' grief any less painful) and yet she was afforded only one or two sentences (depending on the news agency). She deserved more than a throw-away line just before the weather forecast.
Up yours!
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 4:10:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/9/2014 3:54:05 PM, Optimod wrote:
At 2/7/2014 7:11:07 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 2/1/2014 4:50:17 PM, Optimod wrote:
I steal $1 from u. SMALL deal. A hacker steals $1 from a million different people. BIG deal. Cops act. But why? OK, he got MUCH more but no-one individual suffered any more than u did.

Because one million people are louder than one person, so the cops are compelled to take it more seriously. It's not about "morals", but about "noticeability".
Fair comment. But I was trying - inexpertly - to touch on a wider issue: society's innate tendency to undervalue the individual. Moreover, "noticeability" does, itself, raise a moral question (should we be influenced by it?). Here is an example which addresses both points. In 2004 Indonesia was hit by a tsunami which killed many people. All the news services - quite rightly - majored on this. Elsewhere, a teenage girl was raped and strangled in a country churchyard. I can't imagine that her death was any less horrendous than that of the tsunami victims (or her relatives' grief any less painful) and yet she was afforded only one or two sentences (depending on the news agency). She deserved more than a throw-away line just before the weather forecast.

Life is unfair, get over it. There's no point questioning whether we "should" be influenced by noticeability, because there is no changing it. We pay attention to the things that are big, dangerous and in our faces, and ignore the things that aren't. That's just part of our psychology, and quite rightly too because otherwise we'd go extinct pretty quickly.
Optimod
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 4:03:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/9/2014 4:10:00 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 2/9/2014 3:54:05 PM, Optimod wrote:
At 2/7/2014 7:11:07 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 2/1/2014 4:50:17 PM, Optimod wrote:
I steal $1 from u. SMALL deal. A hacker steals $1 from a million different people. BIG deal. Cops act. But why? OK, he got MUCH more but no-one individual suffered any more than u did.

Because one million people are louder than one person, so the cops are compelled to take it more seriously. It's not about "morals", but about "noticeability".
Fair comment. But I was trying - inexpertly - to touch on a wider issue: society's innate tendency to undervalue the individual. Moreover, "noticeability" does, itself, raise a moral question (should we be influenced by it?). Here is an example which addresses both points. In 2004 Indonesia was hit by a tsunami which killed many people. All the news services - quite rightly - majored on this. Elsewhere, a teenage girl was raped and strangled in a country churchyard. I can't imagine that her death was any less horrendous than that of the tsunami victims (or her relatives' grief any less painful) and yet she was afforded only one or two sentences (depending on the news agency). She deserved more than a throw-away line just before the weather forecast.

Life is unfair, get over it. There's no point questioning whether we "should" be influenced by noticeability, because there is no changing it. We pay attention to the things that are big, dangerous and in our faces, and ignore the things that aren't. That's just part of our psychology, and quite rightly too because otherwise we'd go extinct pretty quickly.
Ok sir, anything you say sir! Just one question: if you had a severely disabled child who was being bullied at school (just him/her involved; no big group - just a little individual) would your advice be the same?
Up yours!
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 5:48:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 4:03:40 PM, Optimod wrote:
At 2/9/2014 4:10:00 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 2/9/2014 3:54:05 PM, Optimod wrote:
At 2/7/2014 7:11:07 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 2/1/2014 4:50:17 PM, Optimod wrote:
I steal $1 from u. SMALL deal. A hacker steals $1 from a million different people. BIG deal. Cops act. But why? OK, he got MUCH more but no-one individual suffered any more than u did.

Because one million people are louder than one person, so the cops are compelled to take it more seriously. It's not about "morals", but about "noticeability".
Fair comment. But I was trying - inexpertly - to touch on a wider issue: society's innate tendency to undervalue the individual. Moreover, "noticeability" does, itself, raise a moral question (should we be influenced by it?). Here is an example which addresses both points. In 2004 Indonesia was hit by a tsunami which killed many people. All the news services - quite rightly - majored on this. Elsewhere, a teenage girl was raped and strangled in a country churchyard. I can't imagine that her death was any less horrendous than that of the tsunami victims (or her relatives' grief any less painful) and yet she was afforded only one or two sentences (depending on the news agency). She deserved more than a throw-away line just before the weather forecast.

Life is unfair, get over it. There's no point questioning whether we "should" be influenced by noticeability, because there is no changing it. We pay attention to the things that are big, dangerous and in our faces, and ignore the things that aren't. That's just part of our psychology, and quite rightly too because otherwise we'd go extinct pretty quickly.
Ok sir, anything you say sir! Just one question: if you had a severely disabled child who was being bullied at school (just him/her involved; no big group - just a little individual) would your advice be the same?

Your analogy fails, because I have the ability to fix my child's situation. If it was a disabled child on the other side of the world that I had no connection whatsoever to, then I wouldn't give a sh*t because there's nothing I can do. What's more, your analogy has no relevance whatsoever to our discussion. A child being bullied is a simple, concrete scenario with a fairly simple solution: stop the bullying. Human perception being influenced by noticeability is not, unless of course you've discovered some radical new solution to the problem that you'd like to share with us?
Optimod
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 6:40:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 5:48:52 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 2/12/2014 4:03:40 PM, Optimod wrote:
At 2/9/2014 4:10:00 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 2/9/2014 3:54:05 PM, Optimod wrote:
At 2/7/2014 7:11:07 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 2/1/2014 4:50:17 PM, Optimod wrote:
I steal $1 from u. SMALL deal. A hacker steals $1 from a million different people. BIG deal. Cops act. But why? OK, he got MUCH more but no-one individual suffered any more than u did.

Because one million people are louder than one person, so the cops are compelled to take it more seriously. It's not about "morals", but about "noticeability".
Fair comment. But I was trying - inexpertly - to touch on a wider issue: society's innate tendency to undervalue the individual. Moreover, "noticeability" does, itself, raise a moral question (should we be influenced by it?). Here is an example which addresses both points. In 2004 Indonesia was hit by a tsunami which killed many people. All the news services - quite rightly - majored on this. Elsewhere, a teenage girl was raped and strangled in a country churchyard. I can't imagine that her death was any less horrendous than that of the tsunami victims (or her relatives' grief any less painful) and yet she was afforded only one or two sentences (depending on the news agency). She deserved more than a throw-away line just before the weather forecast.

Life is unfair, get over it. There's no point questioning whether we "should" be influenced by noticeability, because there is no changing it. We pay attention to the things that are big, dangerous and in our faces, and ignore the things that aren't. That's just part of our psychology, and quite rightly too because otherwise we'd go extinct pretty quickly.
Ok sir, anything you say sir! Just one question: if you had a severely disabled child who was being bullied at school (just him/her involved; no big group - just a little individual) would your advice be the same?

Your analogy fails, because I have the ability to fix my child's situation. If it was a disabled child on the other side of the world that I had no connection whatsoever to, then I wouldn't give a sh*t because there's nothing I can do. What's more, your analogy has no relevance whatsoever to our discussion. A child being bullied is a simple, concrete scenario with a fairly simple solution: stop the bullying. Human perception being influenced by noticeability is not, unless of course you've discovered some radical new solution to the problem that you'd like to share with us?
Actually, looking back on it, my comment was not "logic rich" was it? My only defence is that I was in the pub at the time (the DOWN-side of mobile 'phones!). You are clearly sentient but if you really couldn't care care less about the welfare of a child simply because he/she isn't in your immediate vicinity then our views are so disparate that, however much we argue, we'll never agree. Adieu!
Up yours!
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 12:52:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 6:40:27 PM, Optimod wrote:
At 2/12/2014 5:48:52 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 2/12/2014 4:03:40 PM, Optimod wrote:
At 2/9/2014 4:10:00 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 2/9/2014 3:54:05 PM, Optimod wrote:
At 2/7/2014 7:11:07 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 2/1/2014 4:50:17 PM, Optimod wrote:
I steal $1 from u. SMALL deal. A hacker steals $1 from a million different people. BIG deal. Cops act. But why? OK, he got MUCH more but no-one individual suffered any more than u did.

Because one million people are louder than one person, so the cops are compelled to take it more seriously. It's not about "morals", but about "noticeability".
Fair comment. But I was trying - inexpertly - to touch on a wider issue: society's innate tendency to undervalue the individual. Moreover, "noticeability" does, itself, raise a moral question (should we be influenced by it?). Here is an example which addresses both points. In 2004 Indonesia was hit by a tsunami which killed many people. All the news services - quite rightly - majored on this. Elsewhere, a teenage girl was raped and strangled in a country churchyard. I can't imagine that her death was any less horrendous than that of the tsunami victims (or her relatives' grief any less painful) and yet she was afforded only one or two sentences (depending on the news agency). She deserved more than a throw-away line just before the weather forecast.

Life is unfair, get over it. There's no point questioning whether we "should" be influenced by noticeability, because there is no changing it. We pay attention to the things that are big, dangerous and in our faces, and ignore the things that aren't. That's just part of our psychology, and quite rightly too because otherwise we'd go extinct pretty quickly.
Ok sir, anything you say sir! Just one question: if you had a severely disabled child who was being bullied at school (just him/her involved; no big group - just a little individual) would your advice be the same?

Your analogy fails, because I have the ability to fix my child's situation. If it was a disabled child on the other side of the world that I had no connection whatsoever to, then I wouldn't give a sh*t because there's nothing I can do. What's more, your analogy has no relevance whatsoever to our discussion. A child being bullied is a simple, concrete scenario with a fairly simple solution: stop the bullying. Human perception being influenced by noticeability is not, unless of course you've discovered some radical new solution to the problem that you'd like to share with us?
Actually, looking back on it, my comment was not "logic rich" was it? My only defence is that I was in the pub at the time (the DOWN-side of mobile 'phones!). You are clearly sentient but if you really couldn't care care less about the welfare of a child simply because he/she isn't in your immediate vicinity then our views are so disparate that, however much we argue, we'll never agree. Adieu!

Classic case of missing the point, coupled with an Argument from Emotion fallacy. Nice.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 1:02:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/1/2014 4:50:17 PM, Optimod wrote:
I steal $1 from u. SMALL deal. A hacker steals $1 from a million different people. BIG deal. Cops act. But why? OK, he got MUCH more but no-one individual suffered any more than u did.

Because one count of petty theft is not as bad as one million counts of hacking, which is a serious federal offense.

It's not all that complicated.

If I rape one person once by stalking them in person to find their location, I go to jail for one count of rape. If I go gather the addresses of 100 women via online sources and go straight to their house and rape them, that's 100 counts of rape, even if I did it to 100 different women, it's still 100 acts of rape.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 1:05:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A better question might be: What's worse, stealing $1,000,000 from one person, or $1 from one million people? (the ratio of money lost to total assets is equal in all cases here).
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Optimod
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 4:35:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 1:02:51 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/1/2014 4:50:17 PM, Optimod wrote:
I steal $1 from u. SMALL deal. A hacker steals $1 from a million different people. BIG deal. Cops act. But why? OK, he got MUCH more but no-one individual suffered any more than u did.

Because one count of petty theft is not as bad as one million counts of hacking, which is a serious federal offense.

It's not all that complicated.

If I rape one person once by stalking them in person to find their location, I go to jail for one count of rape. If I go gather the addresses of 100 women via online sources and go straight to their house and rape them, that's 100 counts of rape, even if I did it to 100 different women, it's still 100 acts of rape.
This is a VERY powerful argument but it does have a weakness. Rape is, intrinsically, a serious offence; stealing a dollar isn't. Indeed, I would argue that to rape one person is significantly more heinous than to steal $1 from a BILLION people. I didn't want to re-visit this because I'm bored with it (yes, ok - I know I raised it in the first place!) but you tempted me. It's just that I don't think you're comparing like with like.
Up yours!
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 8:47:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 4:35:24 PM, Optimod wrote:
At 2/16/2014 1:02:51 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/1/2014 4:50:17 PM, Optimod wrote:
I steal $1 from u. SMALL deal. A hacker steals $1 from a million different people. BIG deal. Cops act. But why? OK, he got MUCH more but no-one individual suffered any more than u did.

Because one count of petty theft is not as bad as one million counts of hacking, which is a serious federal offense.

It's not all that complicated.

If I rape one person once by stalking them in person to find their location, I go to jail for one count of rape. If I go gather the addresses of 100 women via online sources and go straight to their house and rape them, that's 100 counts of rape, even if I did it to 100 different women, it's still 100 acts of rape.
This is a VERY powerful argument but it does have a weakness. Rape is, intrinsically, a serious offence; stealing a dollar isn't. Indeed, I would argue that to rape one person is significantly more heinous than to steal $1 from a BILLION people. I didn't want to re-visit this because I'm bored with it (yes, ok - I know I raised it in the first place!) but you tempted me. It's just that I don't think you're comparing like with like.

Right, but were not comparing petty theft to rape. Rape was simply used as an analogy for the petty theft argument.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Optimod
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 5:55:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 8:47:54 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/26/2014 4:35:24 PM, Optimod wrote:
At 2/16/2014 1:02:51 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/1/2014 4:50:17 PM, Optimod wrote:
I steal $1 from u. SMALL deal. A hacker steals $1 from a million different people. BIG deal. Cops act. But why? OK, he got MUCH more but no-one individual suffered any more than u did.

Because one count of petty theft is not as bad as one million counts of hacking, which is a serious federal offense.

It's not all that complicated.

If I rape one person once by stalking them in person to find their location, I go to jail for one count of rape. If I go gather the addresses of 100 women via online sources and go straight to their house and rape them, that's 100 counts of rape, even if I did it to 100 different women, it's still 100 acts of rape.
This is a VERY powerful argument but it does have a weakness. Rape is, intrinsically, a serious offence; stealing a dollar isn't. Indeed, I would argue that to rape one person is significantly more heinous than to steal $1 from a BILLION people. I didn't want to re-visit this because I'm bored with it (yes, ok - I know I raised it in the first place!) but you tempted me. It's just that I don't think you're comparing like with like.

Right, but were not comparing petty theft to rape. Rape was simply used as an analogy for the petty theft argument.
I can see that I'm out of step here, without a single supporter (maybe because I'm wrong!), so I think I'll bow out gracefully. I'll just make one final comment. If I swat a fly it means nothing. If I swat 1000 flies it still means nothing (0x1m=0). If I kill someone the equation is different. As you Americans say: you do the math(s!). All I'm saying is that, regardless of the type of "offence", quantity is irrelevant - it either matters or it doesn't. But my advanced age is now catching up with me and I've tired myself out!
Up yours!