Quote:
Originally Posted by woj
you are right, you never said that, didn't mean to direct at you... but the vibe in this thread is that it somehow makes a difference when deciding moral issues whether the other party is rich or poor... so I threw in that analogy as a general comment, not necessarily directed at you...
I'm not sure I agree with you about the homeless guy though... I would understand it too and it makes sense, but I wouldn't say that it's "right" for him to do that...
|
no worries, I guessed as much but wasn't sure
And I agree it still isn't 'right' but his morals at that time, being in his situation, would make it ok *for him* morally. Later on he may deeply regret it, and his morals may change drastically as his personal situation does. Which is what I'm getting at with morals not only being subjective to each individual, but also not a yes/no, 1+1 =2, or whatever, 'thing'.
2 things here, in the interests of being transparent:
1. I was homeless at 16/17 years old, and was
a) too young to receive any gov't benefits
b) a single male with no dependants = zero and yes really zero, chance of any help getting housed
I had no money for food, no money for shelter. I stole from shops, I burgled houses, I stole from cars. I didn't like it, because obviously it wasn't 'right', as you correctly point out, but I was ok morally with it *at that time* because fuck, you gotta eat. And at 16/17 you don't have the life experience to know about food handouts etc. Sorted myself out by the time I was 19 and had genuine remorse at what I'd put homeowners through, despite the self-righteous cunts who give it 'you aren't sorry, you're just sorry you were caught', but that's a different thread.
So in my experience, morals are definitely subjective, whether it be age, circumstance, or just a different viewpoint
2. holy shit I've actually forgotten. I'll come back to that if I remember. Fuck, being over 40 sucks
