one should know damn well what's "right"... there is never any moral dilemma in those situations (unless you ask 12 year olds on a pro-piracy board :1orglaugh)... there is no "but this company is huge or I don't like them for whatever reason, so I can steal from them" or some other bullshit excuse...

if there is nothing wrong with stealing from someone more wealthy than you, then by same logic it would be completely acceptable for a homeless guy to steal from you, no? after all you are much more wealthy than him?

I agree, one should know what's right - but not everything is black & white. More often than not it boils down to how one feels, and the fact is, though most of us 'feel' the same morals generally, morals aren't a 1+1=2 kind of thing. As my earlier posts were trying to show, though obviously not very well :winkwink:

so, moving on... I didn't say there was nothing wrong with stealing from someone more wealthy than me, in fact I never said there was nothing wrong with stealing at all, nor did I even hint that there was nothing wrong it. But........ it *would* be acceptable for a homeless man to steal from me, yes. I would 100%, unequivocally understand that guy's viewpoint, desperation, and so on. I wouldn't *like* it, obviously, but I'm sure the homeless guy would not feel too bad about it, and fair play to him.

Now, if it were a career criminal, I'd be far more pissed off - why? I have no idea. Well actually tht's not strictly true, but I can't be bothered to do an in-depth post about it, this post as it is, is one of my lengthier ones :upsidedow

Like I said - morals are most definitely not a this is black, that is white situation, and there are millions of shades in between :thumbsup

note to self: don't do biz with rockhard

you are right, you never said that, didn't mean to direct it 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...

Pay your debts ...

no worries, I guessed as much but wasn't sure :thumbsup

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 :helpme

ok I remembered #2 lol

2. I have my own weird sense of justice. Huge companies like british gas, thames water, Sky - these companies fuck people over all the time, so if I can fuck them over if the chance ever arises - and I mean if the example Eddy gave arose, not actively looking for an opportunity to do so - I'll have no moral dilemma whatsoever about doing so.

Now, I still know that would be 'wrong', but morally I'd be fine and sleep at nights with no worries at all. Is it an excuse? Maybe it is, but it ticks all the boxes for me, in those specific situations. Would I fuck someone (or to be more accurate, a company) just because they have more money than me? Nope not in a million years, my personal morals say that's no justification at all for such behaviour. I'll fuck over the over fuckers (whut?) though, any old time :)

A local gas station just up the street is always the first one to jack their prices whenever there's a gas hike. And they're usually the last one to come down in price when every other station in town drops.

A few weeks ago I stopped in for gas - and filled my tank. Most times I avoid the place just on principle. But it's on my way home, and at the time they were the same price as all the other stations.

I put $80 bucks worth in the tank. When I went inside to pay for it, the guy at the counter tells me he accidentally reset the pump and asked me how much I put in.

I told him $80 and paid for it.

As I walked out the door, a guy in line behind me says, "Should've just told him $20 bucks."

He was likely thinking - fuck them...big gas companies rip us off all the time.

And he'd be partially correct. But gas stations are independently owned (under contract) - and the profit margin (to the owner) on fuel is so small that most have to rely on either a store kiosk selling convenience items, a car wash...or some other service/product.

I'll admit - I'm no saint. And quite honestly I was tempted to say a very low amount to the guy at the counter. But I didn't. I'm really not sure why. Perhaps its that little voice in the back of my head that says, "You took the high road and kept it honest. You didn't sink to their level."

I believe it's all on the spirit of controversy, that's all...

Not sure. I don't tend to check who owns a copyrighted song, and if I did, I wouldn't know who legally owned it.

Kidrock used to crack me up. He wouldn't let me buy his music on Rhapsody and bitched about people downloading his songs for free, yet he put them up on Youtube.

Nope.

I don't spend much time surfing tube sites, no less surfing porn sites. When I do it's to grab content.

I'm sure I've done that once or twice.

It all comes out in the wash. I took off early yesterday, but I'll be working this morning and Sunday so whatever. I'll also be on the road for the next two weeks too.

LOL. No comment.

Yeah, I was homeless at 15/16/17 too.... I don't remember stealing to support myself.

I was homeless for 1 night when I was 16 - I slept in my stepdads car and my mum still hears about it when she pisses me off...

Now that you admit to knowing you are not being billed and are aware, sounds like theft of services to me, at the very least i would start paying asap so when they do figure it out you wont have one huge bill due.

yay you :thumbsup

yeah I can remember being so hungry I went down and stood on the corner about 2am.... luckily for me it was a crazy lady that picked me, she took me to Denys and fucked me ...

Correct. It's stealing.

As for rationalizations, it's worth pointing out that comparisons of pirating movies or whatever are not the same at all. What purported harm someone theoretically causes and nameless, faceless corporate behemoth is not the same in terms of how this situation is processed on a neurological or psychological level. The primary difference is personally entering into a contract with another individual, agreeing with that individual that if he does X, you'll pay Y, shaking hands and walking away with a contract in place. He then fulfills his end of the contract and he other party rationalizes that for no reason relating to performance or his proposer fulfillment of his obligations, that he is not going to pay... fulfilling his end of the obligation.

There is also a massive difference in terms of neurology in how we process stealing from someone we don't know and don't see and where no one will know and from someone we do know and have personal contact with.

This behavior is one that is shunned by others instinctively as we have evolved to react harshly to what evolutionists calls "free riders"... I.e. Those that unfairly take from the group, offering less or nothing in return. All successful species on the planet have successfully dealt with his problem. Ours is wired into our brains and our behavior

Believe it or not, we are born with the fundamental framework for morality hard wired into our brains. A sense of right and wrong, to help those in distress, to act fairly, to expect fairness, that those who violate these basic rules are to be shunned and punished and so on. This has been extensively tested in infants for decades now. So when someone says "hey, I've decided not to live up to my end of the deal" for no real reason, it's a very safe assumption that something is miswired in their brain and with how they are processing these scenarios and understanding their own obligations and more importantly, it is a red flag as it is a question likely asked by a narccisstic or sociopathic personality to see how normal people would react.... being that they are incapable of processing moral questions based on a personal sense of obligation, fairness and doing what's right as those concepts and emotional responses don't exist In their mental processes which guide much of our behavior.

^ for my part, it wasn't a rationalization comparing torrenting etc, but rather as an example of how it's easy to take the moral high ground in scenario A, whilst stealing in scenario B. Which pretty much everyone does, unless they have always declared every single penny to the taxman, amongst other honorable traits :)

I stand by my point of view that morals aren't a yes/no situation.

Moral intuition is a response which is both instantaneous and without conscious thought. The rest is conscious thought rationalizing the means to the desired end. In other words "I want to steal this movie ... How do I do it and feel like its acceptable"

yep, most likely.

Well,
Speaking from a standpoint of neuroscience that is exactly correct. The first thing that happens is a flash of negative or positive emotion. That does not involve conscious thinking or awareness. Conscious awareness is an "after the fact" phenomenon. Once that positive or negative emotion ties to conscious awareness, we can easily override it by rationalizing our determined course of action.

This is what underpins the "go with your gut" type expressions. Your immediate response is the most honest... Then your lying and conniving conscious mind gets involved and confuses things. :)

Surely that's what morals *are* though? Your conscious awareness of a situation, and whether to rectify it if you feel it is wrong. The rest is just nature working, no? The initial feeling of it being right or wrong that we get in itself isn't morals, it's as you say, that initial positive or negative emotion naturally occurring. Morals only come into it after the fact (even if only a split-second), and are subjective to each person - though the majority of the time most people have a fairly 'standard' moral compass to which we adhere.

Incidentally, my interest in the question is that it suggests the individual considering such a question would likely have some deficiency in their processing of morality based and unconscious reactions... ie no internal response of right or wrong and confusion/lack as to why others instantly think it's wrong when a sociopath or narccisstic personality for example, can only reason that "this is great for me.. so how can it be wrong"

Conscious awareness ONLY comes after unconscious mental processing. An analogy to your awareness of anything might be like the headline versus the article. Your unconscious mind has studied, weighed and argued to death the content of a 3000 word article, all that rises to conscious awareness is the headline.

Your FIRST response in terms of moral intuition ... Note "intuition".. not "conscious thinking". Is 100% unconscious and instantaneous. All that might rises to conscious awareness is "good" or "bad". Your conscious mind then takes over and creates a story - either based in experience and known facts, or in the absence of some or all of the facts, it will make something up.

So in my view, someone considering such a question either

1) is confused by to responses of others
2) confused by his own lack of response
Or
3) wants to steal and is searching for rationalization or a socially acceptable explanation for stealing

well yeah, I do agree with that if such a 'clear' case as the example in the OP were a genuine question. Not 1 person has said don't pay, and I don't think anyone on this board would genuinely give that as an answer to the OP.

Having the OP as a hard and fast case though of 'morals' in it's entirety is different though imo, eg I know for an absolute fact my dad wouldn't cheat the taxman out of a penny, because with his moral code, that's wrong. I'm pretty sure most people have a different moral code when it comes to that particular scenario though :upsidedow

I think I should have said this better.

Moral reasoning centers of the brain
Rational reasoning centers of the brain

These both provide the framework for social decision

Your scenario of downloading say ... a song.There is no real perception of stealing from another person, of harming another etc this decision does not engage the moral reasoning centers of the brain. It relies solely on the rational reasoning centers. I. Other words, weighing primarily risk vs reward. Basically zero risk of getting in trouble, no real perception of harming another and the immediate reward of getting what you want.

It, like any number of scenarios is a "moral dilemma" philosophically but is not in terms of how your brain makes the decision as brain scans demonstrate.

However, if I put a picture of the artist in front of you and said "this is bob, it's his song". Now there is a name, face and real person associated with the song. This starts to also engage the moral reasoning centers as we introduce a real person and a vague idea that maybe a real person is being harmed.

The number of people willing to download that song would start to decrease as moral reasoning is then introduced to a small degree into the decision to commit the act.

If we went further and Bob met the downloader, shook his hand, bought him lunch and Bob have him a nice gift, again the willingness to download would dramatically decrease... as moral reasoning increasingly takes over rational reasoning as the primary decision driver.

My point to your point is that the understanding of what is a moral decision and what isn't is easily misunderstood in terms of how the brain actually processes the decision.

Also, it's important to note that in the case of the USA for example, mental disorders such as narcissistic personality disorders, antisocial personality disorders, sociopathy and psychopathy are exploding. Well over 6-7% of the population have a severe deficit or even complete inability to even processing a moral question in a healthy manner. That format mean that they don't appear normal as these people have a lifetime of experience in faking a socially acceptable emotional response. I would guess this is largely due to the fact that this untrue emphasizes me me me and the individual where "fuck everyone else" is really a very small and even logical step to take.

We are born with the framework for morality hard wired into our brains. From there, environment, experience and disorders/disease come into to shape things further and individual values tend to slightly differ. HOWEVER, that is not the same as someone being genuinely confused as to why stealing from another man they personally entered into a contract with and who has faithfully fulfilled their end of the deal is wrong. That is indicative of a problem with that person.

Or... "I am waiting for the billing to start."

At the heart of this contrived dilemma is simple truth. People do what they want to do. End of story. If a person wanted to lay for the services they are aware they are stealing, they would.

I called two companies this week to get payments started because I didn't want to wait for them.

Just saying?

Last time I did that the guy was a complete fucking dick he was instantly like "Pay me right now or I am going to sue you".

Sounds legit

May it was meant to be an Oral Question thread?

If the guy never asked for money I'd think he was banging my girl. Pay him before he tries to bang your girl. He might be trimming bush as well as your lawn. :1orglaugh

been screwed so many times by companies I would welcome the gift

Eventually they'll want to be paid, so would you rather do it now, or when the bill is racked up to a large amount?

Well... if after six months they haven't billed, I probably won't realize it, so the question might be moot.

But if I did notice, I'd probably say... hey, where ya been lol...

:D

Oh he was a dick. A year later he emailed me telling me I owed interest on the back payment. I told him to fuck off.

So here is how this played out...

This was for my kid's braces, for which they should bill me $150 a month. It's been four months now and we've never seen a single bill. I went down and spoke to the staff there and the woman that handles the billing issues... Was let go on Friday - Turns out I wasn't the only one who noticed they weren't getting billed.

They told me there was no charge for the first four months and gave me a small discount on the entire cost.

Winning.

Maybe he did a bad job and he knew it and so didn't want to collect? There are some people like that who take a lot of pride in their work. Then again if that were the case the right thing would have been to tell you father.

Are you really banned?