Subject:
|
Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Sep 1999 23:36:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1252 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> > All of these are irrelevant to the main thrust. The druggist's motivations
> > for not selling are not important.
>
> Is it important as to the moral standing of the druggist? Yes. I'd say the
> motivations CAN be influential to the situation at hand, insofar as whether or
> not the druggist is justified in selling or not selling. If he's just trying
> to make a quick buck, he's less moral than if he's trying desparately to
> support his own family.
The druggist is clearly and willfully taking action that is harmful to a human
life. If you consider that immoral, then it is immoral. His motivations do
not matter. Even if he is (under his moral code) preventing a greater evil
(for example, causing his family to starve), it is still a lesser evil. In
such ways do angels fall.
> > > In other words, what if the druggist is just being selfish? In this case,
> > > let's suppose someone else got the drug for the 4K just like Heinz wants.
> > > Now Heinz comes along (let's say the druggist has a virtually unlimited
> > > supply of the drug) and the druggist denies sale (or Hienz tried first,
> > > doesn't matter). I'd say that the druggist doesn't have the right to deny
> > > sale, based on the fact that Hienz and the other buyer 'should' be treated
> > > equally.
> >
> > Why?
>
> That's just my take on it. People 'should' treat each other equally. If
> there's two exactly similar situations, the outcomes of which you control,
> you 'should' choose the same outcome for each. Of course in reality no two
> situations are exactly alike, but again, this is the hypothetical.
Well, I agree. People 'should' be treated equally. However, people should
not be >required< to treat people equally. It's an unenforcable rule, and
unenforcable rules reduce the value of the system as a whole.
> > Allow me to draw a parallel hypothetical situation. There is a natural
> > disaster, and several people are left in a state unable to care for
> > themselves. Several other people are made aware of this. Those other people
> > chose not to send food and clothing. The first group all die of exposure and
> > starvation. Would you argue that the second group are in the wrong?
>
> The difference here is quite obviously the situation. What's the motivation
> behind not sending the clothing and food? Assumedly, sending food and clothing
> negatively affects the 2nd party in your example.
OK, reasonable assumption. Modify the situation as follows: group 2 have food
and clothing they do not need, and they will get a tax credit for everything
they send. Are they now in the wrong?
>
> > > Again, it's null and void if the druggist's situation is otherwise than him
> > > only seeking profit. But this is a life-and-death matter. Certainly it
> > > doesn't apply with the McDonald's set thing.... Unless I've been uninformed,
> > > nobody was at death's door for a Lego set. :)
> >
> > Why is profit the determining factor?
>
> Profit is what determines whether the druggist is behaving morally or not. It
> doesn't have to be profit in terms of money, per se, but profit of any sort.
> If He's seeking profit only, it makes him less moral. The idea behind that,
> to put it in more basic terms is that to try and benefit from others at their
> expense is immoral. But bear in mind, it's not black and white... if he's
> making a $1 profit, he's less immoral than seeking $3600 in profit. I'd say
> he's being too greedy, and I feel greed is immoral. You certainly don't have
> to agree with that, but I do.
Hmm. Te example of the druggist does not give us enough information to
determine if he is being greedy. And the above paragraph implies (if not
directly states) that you have no problem with the druggist sitting back and
letting Heinz's wife die, so long as he doesn't profit from it.
> > Responding to a wrong action with a wrong action does not make things better.
> > It contributes to the decline of a moral system. The correct response to a
> > wrong action is to (explain the wrongness of it to the offender, and) impose
> > and enforce penalties.
>
> Exactly my point. He shouldn't steal the drug. It'd still be wrong. As for
> enforcing penalties, now we get to the tricky part. If the druggist's actions
> are immoral, who is to judge and enforce penalty? Perhaps Hienz feels that
> he's already explained it sufficiently to the druggist (being the offender),
> and also feels that he should be in charge of enforcing a penalty-- in this
> case, stealing the drug. That's where it gets tough-- deciding an impartial
> moral judge & prosecutor. Hence, saying the 'correct' response is to explain
> and penalize is kind of tough to judge without an accepted moral standard.
> Generally the response is for both parties to accept the judgement of some
> third party who is impartial; hence the court system.
I should have explained more fully. You can't morally impose a penalty if
that penalty is not determined beforehand.(1) So in this case, you can't
punish the druggist unless it is reasonably clear that his actions are
considered wrong, and a penalty is already in place for people who choose to
cross the road.(2)
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
1:I can explain the reasoning behind that if you like, but it took me a long
time to work out. Or I can give an example: If you tell your child that you
will ground him whenever he pulls his sisters hair, you are morally justified
in grounding him for doing so. However, if you make no mention of it, and you
ground him for pulling his sisters hair, you are being arbitrary and unfair,
because he had no way of knowing that the action was wrong.
2:A samaritan reference
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
81 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
