Sam SamAugust 26, 2018 at 13:3410825 views252 comments
I recently bought a box of model railroad stuff at a yard sale, and when I got home, I found a diamond ring in there. What are your thoughts on the ethics of me keeping or returning the ring?
Comments (252)
unenlightenedAugust 26, 2018 at 13:45#2080990 likes
This is not a deep question. Obviously the decent thing to do is to offer to return the ring. And as far as I know, there is no legal obligation to do so. What more is to be said?
Contact the one who sold you the model railroad is the obvious choice.
But consider; are you wealthy enough that you can have a good life without the worth of the ring. Are the seller wealthy enough to have a good life without the worth of the ring? Does the ring have emotional value to you? Does the ring have emotional value to the seller?
If you were poor and the seller wealthy, it's in some ways morally wrong to keep the ring, but it's also not. If you were poor and kept the ring and the seller doesn't need it's worth but it has an emotional value, it's in my view more morally wrong to keep it.
The basic question is about our value of owning things and the emotional attachment to our things.
But because you don't know if the seller is wealthy enough and you do not know if the ring has emotional value, there is only one rational and decent choice and that is to contact the previous owner.
You cannot make a subjective and personal choice on what the truth is in order to make a moral judgement, you need the truth in order to make it. Sometimes that demands you to sacrifice something for the good of how humanity as a whole should function morally, like if the seller didn't even know that there was a ring there and didn't own it to begin with, it's your loss and the sellers gain, but such an outcome puts the moral choice on the seller while you have done what should be considered the better moral choice.
Another thought - sentimental value and monetary value often differ. I have a 45 RPM record given to me by my late brother. It is not valuable money-wise but means a lot to me.
Deleted UserAugust 26, 2018 at 18:11#2081550 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
This was most likely unintended. If the ring, forget the diamond, were worth anything close to the cost of the most expensive non-ring object in the box, it's likely to have been an error. Who gives up such things and fails to wink at the buyer saying, "Oh, there's a little surprise in there that you are sure to be grateful to have?"
Men almost never wear diamond rings...women do. Women lose diamond rings off their fingers all the time. Seriously. The come off reaching into laundry machines, handling items in stores, reaching into grocery bags... How could a diamond ring end up in a box of items you purchased for much less than the value of the ring, diamond included this time?
As the person just above has said, treat people with dignity (one of Kant's principles if not stated quite that way). Kant also talked of the Good Will. How should you be oriented to people in a way you wouldn't like them to be oriented to YOU?
I have never forgotten the occasion when, just prior to my first year of university, I dropped a wad of money bills from my pants pocket. Desperately, I went to the store's lost and found desk an hour later and found, to my sober and grateful relief, that a well-intentioned person demonstrated concretely what Good Will really means.
Sam, that changes things somewhat. For me, though, it would be little. I would still offer the small courtesy, if that is all it turns out to be, of asking if the ring was an intended part of the box's contents. It's the right thing to do. Thing is, you won't know unless you actually determine that it's the right thing...by having asked. If he/she insists it's part of the deal, you can enjoy it any way you wish materially or spiritually secure that it is truly yours.
If someone asked you if the ring they had found in a box of junk you just sold to them is yours, what would you say?
If you were hard pressed for money you might say yes even if you had no idea who the ring belonged to.
The person you bought the box from might not have known it was there when he found it at another yard sale.
Is the ring really valuable, if it is the a local jeweler might recognize it. If not, is it worth the trouble to find the owner. Not all diamonds are not all valuable, and some things that look like diamonds are not.
If you are going to return it, at least make sure it goes to the rightful owner. They should be able to give a proper description of it and maybe even draw it for you. A photo of someone wearing it it would be better. You could just tell them that you found a little box containing something without mentioning its possible monetary value. Maybe show them a picture of the box. If they can prove it is their ring, give it to them.
If they have no idea what is in the box or who it belongs to, then I doubt anyone would complain about you turning it into the police or even keeping it.
There is a local buying and selling farcebook page where I live, people often post photos of things lost and found on it, maybe there is one where you live.
I recently bought a box of model railroad stuff at a yard sale, and when I got home, I found a diamond ring in there. What are your thoughts on the ethics of me keeping or returning the ring?
Why do you ask? My thoughts on the ethics of it would reach the same conclusion as most others, but that wouldn't stop me from keeping the ring in order to sell if I found out that it was worth a significant sum of money. What would stop me is if I thought I'd get myself in some kind of trouble.
What makes you think most others see it that way? You may be right, I am just curious how you reached that conclusion.
Because I know people well enough to accurately predict how they would judge a matter such as this, in simple ethical terms. And likely so do you. There's not much to be curious about in that, unless it is lead somewhere deeper. If you or I were an extraterrestrial who had just discovered the people of Earth, then maybe you or I would lack this ability.
I have asked many people I know what they think - it is about 50-50 keep/return
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 26, 2018 at 23:29#2082350 likes
Reply to Sam Sam Sam, that is my ring. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I was looking at railroad parts for my son, it's his hobby. I know it is my ring because I left the house after putting it on, went to the sale and returned home. I am not sure how my ring got into a box because it actually fell off my finger as I have recently lost weight and it is so loose I was afraid it might fall off and it did. I am enclosing a picture of my ring, that I believe is now in your possession and I would really like to arrange picking it up at your earliest convenience. The ring is an heirloom of my Great Grandmother's, it was her wedding ring and it was passed down to me.
I contacted my home owners insurance company because I have a rider on my policy and they will reimburse me up to $5k for the loss but I have to file a claim and they are asking if I have retraced my steps in trying to find it. The reimbursement from my insurance company would cover the replacement of the actual stone and setting but nothing will replace the years of my Great Grandmother wearing it in a successful marriage of 50 years to my Gramps.
Please compare this photo with the ring you have in your possession just to confirm my recollection:
Wishing for a quick return of a beloved piece of jewelry
I have never forgotten the occasion when, just prior to my first year of university, I dropped a wad of money bills from my pants pocket. Desperately, I went to the store's lost and found desk an hour later and found, to my sober and grateful relief, that a well-intentioned person demonstrated concretely what Good Will really means.
gloaming, your experience helps me to restore my faith in humanity. I sometimes wonder if all the good I try to give the world is ever received the way it was intended. I don't usually stick around to see the outcome of my random acts of kindness or those moral/ethical dilemmas that aren't really a challenge for me, I just do what I would want someone to do for me, if the tables will were turned and have to believe that will be enough.
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 26, 2018 at 23:50#2082460 likes
I am not sure if I should take your post seriously. Anyway, it was in small box inside another small box, so it did not fall off a finger.
I do wish you to consider my post seriously but only if you wish for this is a hypothetical and I was just wanting to add another layer that is a possibility and was curious how you would handle it if you had the ring still or if you had sold it.
Asking for a picture would settle it right quick.
As I stated, I am not sure how my ring wound up in a box, contained within a box of railroad parts but I can tell you that I am quite sure my ring fell off my finger while digging through a box of railroad parts earlier.
Could you please post a picture of the ring you have in your possession?
I have asked many people I know what they think - it is about 50-50 keep/return.
In more casual terms of what you should or would do, that would be closer to what I would predict. But, sticking to explicit ethical terminology, if you think that most people would say that the decent thing to do would be to keep it, then you can quite easily be demonstrated to be mistaken through polling. I think that the replies here will be fairly representative of the replies you'll get in general.
You must be in pretty bad company. If it wasn't intended for you as part of the transaction, to keep it would be to steal it. There's no ethical ambiguity here.
On a similar note, someone I know lost their phone recently. It was on so we could trace it, but before we could get to it, some thief picked it up and stole it. Maybe he's on an internet forum somewhere now trying to find justification for his action...
but that wouldn't stop me from keeping the ring in order to sell if I found out that it was worth a significant sum of money. What would stop me is if I thought I'd get myself in some kind of trouble.
? If someone walking in front of you dropped their wallet and no-one but you saw (so there was no issue of you getting into trouble), would you pick it up, check there was a significant amount of cash in it and then pocket it if there was?
? If someone walking in front of you dropped their wallet and no-one but you saw (so there was no issue of you getting into trouble), would you pick it up, check there was a significant amount of cash in it and then pocket it if there was?
It could go either way. Maybe I would do something nice on an impulse. But most likely I wouldn't be a mug and would pocket the wonga.
You better hope it's not me and I look around mate! Seriously though, I expected you to have a bit more of a social conscience on that one considering your general political views. It's not being a mug not to steal someone's wallet ffs. I mean, really... *Shakes Sapientia vigorously to remove the evil spirits *
You better hope it's not me and I look around mate!
I'd just use my invisibility cloak.
Sure, you can call it stealing, which it technically is, but it's not quite the same as stealing it off of his person. He lost it, that's on him. If it's up for grabs, then I'd rather it be me that ends up a couple hundred quid better off than the next guy who comes along and takes it for himself. It pays to look after number one.
The harsh truth is that sometimes doing the "right thing" means being a mug. It comes at a cost. But I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, and I'd have that money.
I've lost valuables before. We all have. It's just one of those things. I'd be mad at myself instead of being a hypocrite and blaming the other person for doing what I would've done - what many people would do.
I'd have to be pretty desperate to think myself a mug for not stealing someone's wallet. Maybe if I was homeless and starving, I'd have a greater responsibility to look after myself. But I'm just another spoiled westerner reaping the benefits of being born in a highly developed country. The harsh truth is that having some moral self-respect is much more important than having an extra bit of unnecessary cash on hand. It also undermines calls for a fairer tax system, which I would think being a lefty you support. Wouldn't those who don't benefit directly from that be right in thinking themselves "mugs" to agree with it? I know what it is, you've turned into a Tory...
Christ, if everything is about short-sighted self-interest, let's just continue selling arms to Saudi Arabia so they can bomb school buses. After all, we'd be mugs not to take the money. This is BS Sap.
That wouldn't be in my interest, and neither would handing back the wallet. But not everything is about self-interest, and I draw the line at some things. Selling arms to Saudi Arabia, who have used those arms to bomb school children on a bus, is on a whole 'nother scale.
That could make a good story: Boy steals ring; boy goes on quest with ring; quest reveals boy shouldn't have stolen ring as halfway through quest booby-trapped ring explodes blowing boy's hand off. Boy learns valuable lesson and owner of ring gets revenge. Happy ending all round. :100:
Reply to Sapientia I once tried to keep a purse (wallet, keys, phone, etc.) I found on campus. It had $110 bucks in it. I wanted to keep the money, but I felt too guilty about converting a find into a theft. Finally I turned it in (it took a week to get to that point).
On the one hand, I felt that I did the right thing. On the other hand, I really wanted the money. I felt... inadequate for not having enough nerve to just ditch the purse and keep the money. That was 18 years ago. I am still stewing over the decision.
Delaying a week probably cost the woman at least $100 in screwing around getting keys replaced, new IDs, credit cards, license, worrying about what somebody was doing with her stuff (performing black magic in her purse, laying a curse on her ...)
Reply to unenlightened Strictly speaking Sam Sam has a contract for model train parts, not for a ring so there's also a legal obligation to return it as it is otherwise theft. The other party, if it would discover its mistake, would have a claim as well. The only reason you probably think there's no legal obligation is because there's nobody who knows what happened that has an interest in starting proceedings to recover the ring.
unenlightenedAugust 27, 2018 at 09:41#2083800 likes
Reply to Benkei I'd say that's arguable. Is there a contract for model train parts, or for a box of junk? Was there a label? It's part of the game to find something that the seller doesn't know the value of, the ming vase in the box of ugly ornaments.
Reply to Benkei How do we know the diamond wasn't part of the set, part of a scene depicting the shipment of diamonds mined by children?
If not that, but a mistake, why did the missus remove her ring other than to commit adultery with another model train enthusiast, a crime punishable by stoning?
Abusers of children, adulterers, just horrible people. Keep the ring. Don't associate with low lifes like this.
I recently bought a box of model railroad stuff at a yard sale, and when I got home, I found a diamond ring in there. What are your thoughts on the ethics of me keeping or returning the ring?
I truly thought this was a hypothetical question, where in which I was playing the part of the woman who did lose her ring and was coming forward searching for it. I don't know what the legal obligation is to posting a Found flyer or in a local newspaper, like you do have to do if you find a dog, for the first 7 days before you can claim it legally yours.
There is some Karma/energy that is passed through what some call "blood money" which is money obtained at the expense of another. I was working at an Irish Bar when I found a Horseshoe shaped man's ring with 8 diamonds in it on the floor. I talked to the bartender because we were a local watering hole and with as many regulars as we had, chances are if we put a sign up on the bar that we found this ring and ask for a description that would surely find it's owner. A week later no one claimed it and they gave it to me. Woo Hoo! I stopped at the jeweler on the way home and played with setting the 8 diamonds in a lady's setting. Designed, submitted for the changes, opened up my first line of credit for all of $150 to pay for the new setting. WOW! This doing the right thing was really coming true as I was approved!
I wore that ring, pawned it for cash I needed, $40 and within 60 days I had it back on my hand. I must have pawned that ring at least 5 times and got it back 6 times. Money got easier and I no longer needed to pawn it but loved the ring dearly. It was within 2 years that the ring went missing from my life. I looked everywhere for it as it was a one of a kind but it never turned up.
Do you suppose that the original Horseshoe ring I found already had 'pawn' like energies in it? Was it only to be mine for a while? Did the person who found my ring look for me or just pocket it like some have suggested? Or, as I have my gut suspicion, is it sitting in some Pawn shop's safe waiting to be picked up by it's current possessor? I doubt I will ever know.
:clap: From where I am sitting I think the choice you are making is a fair and well reasoned out. :up:
Ps. About how to upload an image? @Baden can direct you in that, I still use an outside source of https://postimages.org and it works for me.
I actually don't view the OP as an ethical dilemma. An ethical dilemma is where you have two possible responses to an ethical question and you can't figure out which is the most ethical. For example, I have a boat that is sinking and I have to throw one person overboard to save everyone else, who do I choose? Am I allowed to choose?, and questions like that.
The question of the OP is a character dilemma, as in, am I of ethical character high enough to do the right thing and return what isn't mine. An ethical dilemma asks the question "what is the right thing to do," not "should I do the right thing,"
I wore that ring, pawned it for cash I needed, $40 and within 60 days I had it back on my hand. I must have pawned that ring at least 5 times and got it back 6 times.
You paid $150 to modify the ring and you could only pawn it for $40 and you did this 5 times? From my math, you paid $150 for the ring and extracted $200 out of it, all of which was repaid along with the usurious rates charged by pawn brokers, meaning that ring resulted in substantial losses to you. You'd have been better off never to have come across that cursed ring. My guess is that you didn't lose the ring but Satan reclaimed it and passed it on to someone more evil than you.
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 27, 2018 at 13:49#2084260 likes
My view on karma changed when my brother died of cancer last year - made it much harder for me to believe in karma.
I am so sorry to learn of your loss. Loss of a Grandparent is expected overtime, as our parents will one day pass as well but a sibling? Huggsss to you Sam Sam~ That is an unfathomable loss for me. I am not sure what to say, other than I don't know how you have made it this far but whatever has gotten you to today is working so keep on, keeping on. :hearts:
You'd have been better off never to have come across that cursed ring. My guess is that you didn't lose the ring but Satan reclaimed it and passed it on to someone more evil than you.
If you knew what I was pawning it for, you would be convinced that it was a piece of Satan and if that is the case? I am damn happy that I am rid of it. :halo:
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff thanks - I really appreciate that. I miss him so much, but I am starting to get to the point where I can enjoy the good memories.
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 27, 2018 at 13:56#2084300 likes
thanks - I really appreciate that. I miss him so much, but I am starting to get to the point where I can enjoy the good memories.
You are a strong person and somehow, I think your brother is watching over you and helping guide you.
He may have even guided you here to The Philosophy Forum!
Welcome Sam Sam~ We are happy to have you with us~
Reply to Hanover "How do we know..." you asked earlier. Exactly. I counter with, "Should you know, and if you agree that you should, how would you determine the answer?"
Ans- By asking. This has been the advice of many responders so far.
Reply to Hanover "... An ethical dilemma is where you have two possible responses to an ethical question and you can't figure out which is the most ethical..."
Somewhat true, but incomplete. An ethical dilemma must have at least two permissible options from which to choose. We haven't established if all the options here are permissible. To the point, IS IT okay to just keep the ring? That's what we're attempting to establish.
The other components of an ethical dilemma are that the correct, or best, option is not immediately obvious without some analysis/calculus, and that the option of not acting at all is illegitimate; one of he permissible choices must be undertaken.
I agree with you, however; this doesn't constitute an ethical dilemma. A box of 'railroad' junk sold in a driveway yard sale would not include a boxed diamond ring let alone a loose one, any more than a used car would include a well-maintained and loaded pistol in its glovebox. No way, no how.
Reply to gloaming Correct! Contacting the last people who were responsible for the box and it's contents becomes the current box holder's obligation in order to hopefully return the ring to it's owner.
There are multiple possibilities here in regards to who actually owns the ring, how it got there, and whether or not the person you contact in regards to it will tell you the truth.
But! The person who has found the ring has a choice to make about whether to be honest about an unusual situation to the previous representative of the box. Once the current holder has been honest, their responsibility to their fellow human has been met, and any deceit after the fact is not their responsibility.
There are many benefits to honesty. Karma is not dogmatic in my opinion, but rather reference to the cause and effect of maintaining civility in society.
VagabondSpectreAugust 27, 2018 at 18:16#2085150 likes
Reply to Sam Sam Seems like it was hidden there by someone intending to use it as an engagement ring.
How dusty was the exterior box?
Maybe there's an interesting story behind it... Someone spent a good deal of their income on a diamond ring intending to ask someone to marry them, but for whatever reason they never got around to it (or maybe they did and were rejected?). How could they have forgot about it? Did something happen to them?
If it's a relatively new or clean box, then it stands to reason that someone may still have intended to use it as an engagement ring, in which case it seems like keeping it would be to steal more than just three months salary, you would be stealing love itself dammit!
Reply to Lif3r "...and any deceit after the fact is not their responsibility..."
Deceit is intentional, so one who engages in it is always going to be responsible for it. Kant would have waved us away from any deceit since it is uttering falsehood, i.e.- lying.
I think what you mean is that, once one does the right thing (inquiring), one is then only obligated insofar as her conscience dictates. If the seller makes a reasonable case that the ring was not meant to be included, the right thing would be to return it expecting nothing more than gratitude. If the person doesn't respond (you can ensure emails are opened at the recipient's end) after 72 hours, I would say my obligation to do the right thing has been completed; the ring becomes my rightful property.
Sam Sam, that estimated value seems low to me. I paid $1400 43 years ago for my wife's engagement ring, a solitary brilliant cut of the same quality and 0.6 weight. When we last had the ring appraised by a qualified gemologist in 1986, its value had risen to $3K. I know the market varies, but I think the ring you describe is probably insurable, for replacement, near USD$3000. I could be wrong...
You are doing the right things. Your conscience will be a good guide that you can trust. Your instincts will tell you if and when you can safely pocket the ring and do with it as you please.
"I think what you mean is that, once one does the right thing (inquiring), one is then only obligated insofar as her conscience dictates" Reply to gloaming
Yes. Kind of and...
" If the person doesn't respond (you can ensure emails are opened at the recipient's end) after 72 hours, I would say my obligation to do the right thing has been completed; the ring becomes my rightful property" Reply to gloaming
No. If the other person does not reply it could be for a number of reasons, and at that point only your guardianship of the ring is your role, not your ownership of the ring. The possibility of a reply remains, and regardless of how much time passes, the ring does not belong to you because you did not exchange for it under contract.
We'll have to disagree. In my code, and being pragmatic as well as ethical, responsibility lies only in a reasonable attempt to determine the veracity of the inclusivity of the sale. Just as the accidental inclusion is not the buyer's responsibility, neither is it his responsibility to chase down an unreachable seller interminably, or to safequard the ring for as long.
In ethics, even in Kantian terms, no one is obliged to conduct himself any more than is convenient, provided the act is done in Good Will, and that it passes the tests of ends and universalizability. We would not expect our hapless buyer to pass guardianship, as you put it, on to his son, and his son to his son, in perpetuity. In fact, it would cease to be convenient even on his deathbed. If he passed guardianship onto a trusted agent, say a lawyer or to the police, one would require payment to locate the 'rightful' owner and the other would not have much of an incentive to act except to place the item in a lost-and-found holder. I can tell you which of these would be convenient, but I'm not sure they would be satisfactory.
That's £700, man. I mean, £700 is not £10,000, but still, I would keep it. I can't be the only one. Out of sight, out of mind. I wouldn't be haunted or racked with guilt.
Reply to gloaming I would say it is not convenient to contact the previous holder in the first place, but that it is still necessary in terms of honesty to do so.
Consider if ten years away, you wear the ring and someone says "hey, that ring belongs to my grandmother." They give you precise details that would lead you to conclude that they are being factual. Do you give it to them, or do you say "well I'm sorry, but I've already had it for 10 years, so it is mine."
Of course this probability is rare, but the possibility remains, and so does your responsibility of returning it to the family that *did* obtain the ring by means of contract, because they sacrificed their energy (work, money) to acquire it fairly and you have not.
In other words I would say
"Finders keepers, unless you find the loser."
And also I would say
"Exhausting your ability to find the loser is a respectful responsibility."
And
"Keeping the posibility of the loser rediscovering the object is a respectful responsibility."
Again, we disagree. I would not find it inconvenient to do the right thing...a pragmatic, a reasonable, attempt to ascertain the legitimate title to an article whose ownership is ambiguous. A message left on an answering machine, a text message if possible, or an email....these things take but seconds, and would be among perhaps twenty similar exchanges about which we would not give a second thought on any one day.
I would not have the ring after ten years. I would not wear it, and probably would either give it away or sell it for cash and use its value for something more valuable to me. I would do so without compunction, having made that reasonable attempt to feel more secure in my decision-making.
Let's continue the scenario you present:
"Did you by any chance find a diamond ring in that box you bought from us years ago?"
"I did! I sent you a text message, left a message on your phone, and sent you an email. I tried to call you about three days later, but your phone went to the answering service. So, I eventually decided just to keep the ring." I would shrug, express sympathy, but no regrets. I was reasonable in my attempt to make contact and to wait a period before I considered the matter closed.
What each person must do is what his/her conscience dictates. I would freely take what I thought were responsible steps to determine ownership, but then I would assume, at my convenience, when the item becomes truly mine. For me, three days is plenty, along with those three different attempts at contact.
I was on a Catholic forum once and asked this question in another form.
I asked, if my father stole a neighbor's car and then gave the car to me in his will, do I have a moral obligation to return the car. Everyone said yes.
So then I asked, what if it was my grandfather who stole the car. Everyone said yes again.
So then I asked, what if it was my great-grandfather? Now everyone is getting impatient, and tell me that receiving stolen property is wrong, Wrong, WRONG, period. Ok, they're being consistent.
And then I was naughty and asked...
Should we give North America back to the Indians?
The thread somehow magically died at that point. What a surprise! :smile:
Should we give North America back to the Indians? Reply to Jake
It's a good question. I interpreted it as "Should the next generation be responsible for the previous generation's mistakes?"
And I would say yes, we are under obligation to amend the circumstance because if it was stolen it was taken without consent, and thus removes the opportunity that the object, in this case America, possesses from one society and gives it to another by force instead of an equal exchange.
At this point there are too many Americans, and we can't all leave in order to allow the Natives to start from scratch because it is a near impossible move to make. However amends of this magnitude have to come with comprimise. Reverting back to square one is too complicated in this regards to justify it's possibility as a route of action, so instead of giving them the entire country, the country allots them afirmative action.
"I did! I sent you a text message, left a message on your phone, and sent you an email. I tried to call you about three days later, but your phone went to the answering service. So, I eventually decided just to keep the ring." I would shrug, express sympathy, but no regrets. I was reasonable in my attempt to make contact and to wait a period before I considered the matter closed. Reply to gloaming
This doesn't equalize the exchange.
At this point you still have acquired energy (work,money) without giving the same amount of energy (work, money) back to them.
Reply to Lif3r "...Reverting back to square one is too complicated in this regards to justify it's possibility as a route of action, so instead of giving them the entire country, the country allots them afirmative action. .."
Reply to Lif3r "This doesn't equalize the exchange.
At this point you still have acquired energy (work,money) without giving the same amount of energy (work, money) back to them. "
I am not under any obligation to 'equalize' the exchange. It was deemed by both parties to be equal, even if accidentally, when it was concluded. Both parties left, each with a misapprehension. One was potentially salutary, the other not. In Good Will, I offer to return an item that is apparently, or possibly, unintended for sale. If the person never contacts me, even with several earnest attempts to for me to contact him, at some point I can let the matter go.
BTW, to whom would be cede the nation and all of its states and infrastructure? The greater numbers of non-aboriginals are irrelevant, just as, to follow your logic, the passage of time is irrelevant for the possession of the ring...or its 'guardianship.' So, we should give it, the nation, back. But, to whom? To which congregation of supremacy, and at what point in time should we fix the supremacy? At which point in time should we accept the ownership of any one congregation...or tribe...or organization...or culture? There were many, and they quarreled and raided constantly.
Reply to gloaming
In my opinion you are obligated to equal the exchange otherwise it's theft.
And granting the entire nation and it's infrastructure to any group other than the group who currently retains it would be near impossible. This is why we compromise by alloting the representatives of that ancestry a "leg up" in opportunity.
Now I'm not even saying that affirmative action is the end of balancing the exchange, but it is an example of an attempt to.
Follow Up Question - If I am able to reach the seller I will return it and ask nothing in return. But, if he offers me a reward, is it proper for me to accept it?
What entitlement does a descendent have over an ancestor's property and what grants someone superior rights just because they stood on the property first?
Follow Up Question - If I am able to reach the seller I will return it and ask nothing in return. But, if he offers me a reward, is it proper for me to accept it?
I hope that you did not give the seller too much info, maybe they would like it back even if it is not theirs.
If they offer you a reward, accept it. If it costs you anything above a minimal amount to return it, ask if they could refund it for you. If they get uppity about that then you will know you made a mistake going to the trouble of returning it.
Personally I would probably put it away for a while and see if they come looking for it. It is just as easy for them to try and reach you or anyone else that might have bought from them to see if you found anything extra in the box.
Can't smoke that stuff. Makes me (more) paranoid than I already am. Heh.
Never tried it myself, I used to prefer cigar when I smoked.
Actually the film that came to mind when I read the OP was The Priceless Pocket. A man had a pair of trousers that gave him money every time he put his hand in the pocket. The government eventually bought the pants of him because they could not prove he was doing anything illegal. He bought a nice new suit and started pulling money from the pocket.
Put it on your bucket list of things to do before you die. I don't know, but I think of it as a healthy habit (cancer prevention). Don't smoke it for that goal though. Wish it was as popular as beer or alcohol, many lives would be saved if it we're a substitute good in that regards.
Put it on your bucket list of things to do before you die.
The freaking thing is sooooooooo loooooong I will need a couple of life times already. But I guess I could put it together with #4587 "Go to Political Conference". Might make for an interesting day.
Don't smoke it for that goal though. Wish it was as popular as beer or alcohol, many lives would be saved if it we're a substitute good in that regards.
Soon to be on your Liquor store shelves....okay soon is relative but it is already a product that is in a aluminum beer shaped bottle with not a lick of Hops in it but a bit of Hemp instead.
Reply to Sir2u I disagree that it would be as easy for him to reach me as it would be for me to reach him. First, he may not have noticed it is missing. Second, he had many people come to his sale (about 10 in the brief time I was there) so even if he knew it was gone, he probably wouldn't know who bought it. And even if he knew who bought it, he probably would not know their name or any other info.
Very leading edge studies prove your assertion to be true. Nicely stated. :up:
Yeah, it's certainly a healthier habit than alcoholism, say.
Since it's legal where I reside, I might as well ask, how are laws coming along for legalization in AZ?
Personally, if I could I would grow it indoors and reap the benefits of 1:1 THC to CBD. I've heard the CBD potentiates the positive effects on cancer prevention by something like 10-fold.
I hope that you did not give the seller too much info, maybe they would like it back even if it is not theirs.
Why are you entertaining the remote possibility that an unrelated person hid a diamond ring in someone else's train set?Quoting Sir2u
If they offer you a reward, accept it. If it costs you anything above a minimal amount to return it, ask if they could refund it for you. If they get uppity about that then you will know you made a mistake going to the trouble of returning it.
Under what theory do we now demand payment for doing what is ethical?
And suppose they are uppity? Are they then not deserving of ethical treatment?Quoting Sir2u
Personally I would probably put it away for a while and see if they come looking for it. It is just as easy for them to try and reach you or anyone else that might have bought from them to see if you found anything extra in the box.
This idea seems consistent with the theme of trying to find some rationalization for keeping what is not yours. It also shows some hostility towards the person, as if they're not really worthy of the ring, but the rules require it's return, so you'll do it, but you're going to be as difficult as possible.
Under what theory do we now demand payment for doing what is ethical?
Is it unethical of me to not pay to fix a mistake another person made? If it costs me then it's charity, and charity is a choice, not an ethical obligation.
Is it unethical of me to not pay to fix a mistake another person made? If it costs me then it's charity, and charity is a choice, not an ethical obligation.
We've not broken down every fact in our hypothetical, but my assumption was that the return of the ring would result in a de minimis expense to you. If you truly do have some real expense in returning it, I think it'd be fine to ask for reimbursement. In @Sir2u's post, he wasn't referencing reimbursement, but "reward," meaning a special something for being a good guy. I don't see where that would be warranted. I do think you are obligated to make all reasonable efforts to return the ring and cannot ethically impose additional obligations on the person who lost the ring because he owes you something for being the wonderful person you are.
But, yeah, if it costs you $2.50 in postage to mail the ring back, you can rightly ask for that money.
Deleted UserAugust 28, 2018 at 13:45#2087160 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Reply to Bitter Crank Yes - I call it the circle of junk. My wife has bought small appliances (blenders, etc.) at yard sales because they were better than what we had. Then she sold the old ones at our yard sale.
Reply to Maw Several people have said the answer is obvious. But at the same time, the responses vary widely. Does that mean it is obvious to some and not to others?
Reply to Sir2u Good point. I have seen ads in the yard sale section of the newspaper asking please return my golf clubs (or whatever) I did not mean to sell them. But again, he likely does not know it is gone.
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 28, 2018 at 14:22#2087250 likes
Several people have said the answer is obvious. But at the same time, the responses vary widely. Does that mean it is obvious to some and not to others?
That is the beauty of Philosophy and the bane of it's existence all rolled into one. You might get 'thinkers' to all agree that there is a cup on the table but ask them if it is a red cup and good golly, you would think we were trying to define the meaning of life.
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 28, 2018 at 14:53#2087280 likes
Since it's legal where I reside, I might as well ask, how are laws coming along for legalization in AZ?
Posty, we are a few years away to full legalization if we are to do it at a state level, unless the Federal law changes. The proposal to "legalize like wine" failed but it looks like the Governor of the Cannabis industry is going to be held by the ATF once it goes legal on the Federal level. Here in AZ, we are dealing with a politician who is questioning what exactly we the voters meant, when we voted for the Medical Cannabis program, in that they are questioning whether extracts and concentrates were what we had in mind. Well, my dear politicians, RSO and CBD oil is a life saver and was one of the reasons we enacted the law. Yazy Rad, a young girl with debilitating seizures and CBD oil changed her life and we didn't want to continue for families, to have to make the choice to have safe access to the necessary medicine or move out of state.
It's a hill but one worth climbing.
Perhaps they wish to know why they feel inclined to go about it whichever way. Perhaps the question is not "what to do" but "why to do it this way or that way"
Ethics would be simple indeed if we we able to mechanically follow ethical rules. We are not able. On the one hand we have ethical rules which are reasonably clear and on the other hand we have desires (emotions) which are often at least as strong as our commitment to ethical behavior.
Probably most people (just guessing) are able to keep their urges/wishes/desires under control--but not always. When the "not always" moment arrives we breach the barriers.
Having breached the barriers that keep us ethical, the next question is "how much do we regret it". If we don't regret it much or at all, we're more likely to behave improperly in the future. If we behave that way long enough, our practical use of "proper" and "improper" will have changed.
Why are you entertaining the remote possibility that an unrelated person hid a diamond ring in someone else's train set?
Nowhere on this thread has it been stated that anyone hid a box containing a ring in a train set box. That it was found there does not imply even remotely that it was.
The box could have been bought from another yard sale for a kid that did not even bother to take it out of the box.
Maybe the owner throw the thing in to get rid of it because he/she broke up with the other party.
Maybe one of the kids stole it from granny and hid it there till they could sell it, then forgot.
There are dozens of possibilities, why do you think it was hidden there?
Under what theory do we now demand payment for doing what is ethical?
Why would I need a theory? Common sense says that I do not have to spend money on returning anything to people that cannot look after their own stuff.
But I think Michael says it nicely.
Is it unethical of me to not pay to fix a mistake another person made? If it costs me then it's charity, and charity is a choice, not an ethical obligation.
And suppose they are uppity? Are they then not deserving of ethical treatment?
At least they should be nice about the ethical treatment one gives them. How could it be morally correct of them to think that others should pay for their screw ups? I know I would probably pay all the expenses and a reasonable reward to the person that returned the ring I had stole 30 years ago.
This idea seems consistent with the theme of trying to find some rationalization for keeping what is not yours. It also shows some hostility towards the person, as if they're not really worthy of the ring, but the rules require it's return, so you'll do it, but you're going to be as difficult as possible.
If I wanted to keep it I would, moral or not, I doubt that I would waste my time rationalizing or making excuses bout it though. If I was going to steal it I would just do it. And it is not really up to me to make things easy for them to recover their property, that is their job. But again I would not waste my time nor energy helping some one that is not polite.
In Sir2u's post, he wasn't referencing reimbursement, but "reward," meaning a special something for being a good guy. I don't see where that would be warranted.
If you had read the thread you would have known that I was responding to
Follow Up Question - If I am able to reach the seller I will return it and ask nothing in return. But, if he offers me a reward, is it proper for me to accept it?
Good point. I have seen ads in the yard sale section of the newspaper asking please return my golf clubs (or whatever) I did not mean to sell them. But again, he likely does not know it is gone.
Because the yard sale ad was on Facebook, I was able to message the seller. About 36 hours later I heard back. We conversed by Facebook messenger, and as expected he did not know it was in the box he sold me. He said he would like it back, and I said I would gladly return it.
This evening he came and picked it up. He was very grateful, saying, “Someone of your integrity is a dying breed.”
Here is the ring’s backstory (he gave me permission to share this). The ring was given to his daughter by a boyfriend when she was 16 (she is 31 now). She did not marry that guy (he was glad about that.) Years later when the daughter needed money, he bought it from her. He plans on selling it, and he asked me for some advice on the best way to do that. (I suggested he post it for sale locally and offer any potential buyer that he will meet them at the jeweler of their choice to have it appraised.)
I did not ask for anything in return. But, in one of his Facebook messages he asked if I had seen anything else at his yard sale that interested me. I said yes, a laptop I looked at (it was marked $40.) He said he still had it and would like to give it to me. I accepted his offer.
I am glad the ring is back where it belongs, and I am happy to have an interesting story I will remember for a long time.
(PS – If I were to grade myself on my ethics in this situation, I would give myself a B-)
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.
Deleted UserAugust 29, 2018 at 02:35#2088330 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Yay. I think the only thing we didn't mention here is to ask the person to describe the ring prior to it's return in order to help relieve doubt of ownership.
I still grade an A for what it's worth, because regardless it was a respectable thing to do and again once you make the effort any deciet after the fact is out of your hands. I think that his willingness to offer a reward is a positive testament to his honesty in a way.
creativesoulAugust 29, 2018 at 03:05#2088390 likes
Nice!
Thanks for the follow up Sam Sam...
Being honest is remarkably important in more ways than many have imagined. Morality is best understood as a human condition. We are interdependent social creatures, and despite the fact that many folk today couldn't care less about others in their community, we could have never gotten where we are today if everyone were like that all along.
If I were to grade myself on my ethics in this situation, I would give myself a B-)
Because you got quite a bit of assistance during the exam?
Here is your next more difficult moral challenge?
On the way back from reclaiming a ring that somebody found in a train set at a yard sale, I ran over the neighbor's dog. It was a quick but messy kill. I threw the dog body into a ravine (the usual and customary method of disposing of dead bodies). Now I am perplexed.
A. Should I pretend it never happened?
B. Should I inform my neighbor I ran over her yappy dog.
C. Should I offer to compensate my neighbor for the loss of this dearly loved but exquisitely annoying dog?
D. Should I retrieve the corpse and leave it on her front step so that she would at least be able to give it a dog funeral.
E. Should I run over the neighbor so that she can not annoy me further by getting another, larger, louder, yappier dog?
For the sake of simplicity, I have decided to ignore reality and just forget about it. If she ever mentions it, I'll just say, "Oh, what dog was that? I didn't know you had a dog."
I understand where you're coming from, but I do not think that all ethical rules are on equal ground. Some aren't hard to follow. The right ones, implemented properly, wouldn't be.
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.
I will reconsider my position if you can guarantee me that I'll be rewarded with a free laptop or something similar with every lost item I return. :grin:
Surely, the warm and fuzzy feeling evinced from expressing true love and kindness (as opposed to the fakey manipulative kind) and witnessing its effect on others beats any pleasure that could be squeezed from a $40 laptop?
Sam Sam, I think you are too hard on yourself with the B-. That you thought to seek advice from people about it suggests that you were feeling guilty about even considering keeping (quiet about) it. You have a decent mind, a hounding and loyal conscience, and you listened to it. Then, you considered the advice, somewhat varied, offered to you. You then took convenient and reasonable steps to determine (for yourself) that the seller had no legitimate or moral claim to the non-toy train item. When you could no longer accept that the seller had no interest in the ring, you offered to return it.
It was always the decent thing to do. So, as others have suggested, you should give yourself full credit for being positively oriented to other people, at least for this instance and in the way you handled it.
the economic activity involved in buying the ring was in no way morally different to you keeping it. Reply to Martin Krumins
Is this a joke? I'm not very good at joking. :(
Martin KruminsAugust 29, 2018 at 16:36#2090100 likes
Reply to Lif3r the diamond was the result of capatilist activity, if ownership was derived from a sharing economy then there would be a moral obligation. taking the ring is no different from any acts leading up to him having it. If you think any different, please dont just say some vague thing then add a smiley. tell me the point where the economic activity created a moral obligation.
Reply to Martin Krumins If you are offended I appologize Martin; I meant no offense. If you read up you will see that I missed a joke earlier. As you can see, my ability to decipher them is below average. This is why I made a frowning face; at my own problem, not at yours or your lack there of.
These questions struck my curiousity:
Is one responsible for the morality revolving an object prior to their purchase of the object?
If so, to what extent?
Is it to the extent that we are trusting the seller when they say that they have sourced the ring ethically? Are we morally obligated to do more research in regards to it's ethical sourcing? Or are you saying flat out that at no point in time is capitalism considered ethical at all?
Deleted UserAugust 29, 2018 at 17:13#2090200 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Martin KruminsAugust 29, 2018 at 17:44#2090310 likes
Reply to Lif3r i thought you were calling me a joke. anyway, there is no moral obligation to check if its ethically sourced, because in a capitalist society all activity is immoral. theres nothing wrong with it persay but just that morality has nothing to do with it. in a sharing economy all actions are moral hense the term share. but, if the owner was to have saved his money working for a non-profit its slightly different. but not exactly because for him to afford anything more than his basic needs, such as a diamond ring he would have to have been paid a wage that provided him with extra. which is a wage based on capitalist economics. if he worked in a non-profit that paid his exact wages and the guy starved himself over the course of 10 years in order to afford the ring, he would still be behaving immorally, because the ring would have to be of moral equivalency, meaning that he would have to reimburse the community for which the diamond came from (how can you evaluate that?). but hey why does that community have ownership over a crystal that took so long to create? what about the future community? there is no way to morally assess capitalistic activity, therefore it is immoral. and so the guy has no moral obligation within that system. he may only have a legal obligation, which in this case he does not. Although he does not have a contract for the ring and so does not own it, he can sell the ring legally and keep the money because contract is not based on morality, it works technically for the benefit of ease of enforcement. buyer beware! because the buyer would not have ownership either so if the train guy found him and could evidence ownership hed have to give the ring back and have no easy legal recourse to the money he lost.
Martin KruminsAugust 29, 2018 at 17:51#2090330 likes
there is no way to morally assess capitalistic activity, therefore it is immoral. Reply to Martin Krumins
I disagree. A Google search will refute this claim, as does our current conversation.
This statement does not prove that capitalism is immoral.
To my understanding capitalism has both moral and immoral implications based on how the individual utilizes it. Is it perfectly moral? No. Is it comparatively more moral than communism? I would argue yes. Something does not have to be 100% perfectly moral for it to not have implications of moral principles.
Deleted UserAugust 29, 2018 at 18:17#2090420 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Keep a ring gotten by unethical or immoral means? How would that dignify you in a way it doesn't dignify the capitalist who extracts it and brings it to market for her own purposes? How would it improve the people from whom it was 'taken in capitalism' if you elect to keep it? Is it more valuable to you than it would be to them?
I would like to try, Tim. And if we can pick this apart, please let's. I am interested in my definitions of these words and also happy to learn.
If something is moral, then it is in agreement amongst a society that there are particular ways to handle a given situation that will lend to a betterment for that society.
If something is immoral, then it is in agreement amongst a society that there are particular ways to handle a given situation that will lend to a deterioration for that society.
And there are of course different types of morals and immorals. Personal, societal, planetary, and perhaps universal.
Reply to Sir2u It turns out he was very polite and did give me a nice reward (a use laptop). The ring did not have sentimental value to him - he wanted to sell it and he was up front about that.
Reply to gloaming Since it had no sentimental value to him, I'd say the value was equal to us both.
Martin KruminsAugust 29, 2018 at 21:12#2091000 likes
Reply to tim wood hey tim, im not even right wing, i lean toward being an anarchist, but im not in actuality as im a part of a very capitalist community. So yeah im cool with reasoning this. ok immoral was perhaps the wrong word what i mean is not in the category of moral action rather than 'bad'. I personally do not believe in morality at all but that does not stop me from prefering an equal stake society. Ok so ill just tackle your hypothetical. First you changed diamonds for tomatoes so this is a different argument but anyway. I will take moral here in an economic sense to be fair or to a reasonable degree, equivical. Your situation what you describe is a sharing economy and that does not exist at present. In order for a sharing economy to exist you would have to universalise the doctrine or demarcate the sharing boundary and operate within that demarcation. This I would think would be unfair to those outwith the demarcation who are poor so then you would have to universalise the sharing economy. now here is where it gets tricky #stalin. Universalising a doctine designed on fairnes does as the right liberal wankers always state, an act of will over an innocently immoral being. like getting your dog not to eat a snack by shouting at it, its not the dogs fault. that act alone becomes immoral. ok I'm not saying we are dogs but in some circumstances we are all going to break rules...I would say that your example is two people existing in a bubble. I have known such bubbles and they are bubbles. self sufficient communites would not cope with population levels like that of new york (they can barely make it past 20). so bubbles are usually created by highly educated people who use the capitalist system to create their bubble. this is not moral, moral would be fair or exactly equivical. Now as an anarchist I believe that although the taking of ownership can never be fair or equivical, I can think that It can be so scrutinised that people can behave properly and thus creating an equal stake society. whats your take?
Deleted UserAugust 29, 2018 at 21:17#2091020 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Reply to tim wood Blimey. Arrogant much? The question is what is "good", yes? The link I provided takes you to the following argument I referenced:
Premise 1: If X is (analytically equivalent to) good, then the question "Is it true that X is good?" is meaningless.
Premise 2: The question "Is it true that X is good?" is not meaningless (i.e. it is an open question).
Conclusion: X is not (analytically equivalent to) good.
The challenge is how you, Tim Wood, or Martin Krumins, or whoever wants to take a stab at it, would deal with that argument. I don't need a lecture from you, thanks. Just stick to the point and cut the crap. Or don't and we can go our separate ways. It's no skin off my back.
Deleted UserAugust 29, 2018 at 22:04#2091090 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
But your underlying motive seems to be to defeat the notion of morality. Is that your motive? Not a respectable motive, I'm afraid, either intellectually or morally.
Wrong. It's rude and uncharitable to assume that your interlocutor has an underlying ulterior motive, let alone to openly speculate about what it might be, let alone to single out one which you consider to be disreputable.
You could have just asked, and I would have answered along the lines that my motive is exploring problems in philosophy, and how various people I encounter respond to them.
Deleted UserAugust 29, 2018 at 23:24#2091320 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserAugust 29, 2018 at 23:33#2091360 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Those who are discerning will know which of my comments are to be taken seriously and which of my comments are of a more playful nature. Some are gifted in this regard and others are lacking. Clearly there are a few people here who struggle with this and fall into the latter category. You have my sympathies.
Reply to Sapientia I had similar thoughts as Tim. I have a hard time defining "good" in regards to what you have posted, I find it difficult to relate it to my statement, and the premise of the argument seems to me like it doesn't solve anything.
Reply to Lif3r The argument isn't supposed to solve anything, at least not directly anyway. It's not that kind of argument, as should be apparent from just a brief going over of it. It is an argument [I]against[/I] certain attempts to define "good" which are common in philosophy. For example, where what is good is what is pleasurable. But that's just one example of many. Note the variable, "X".
but can we compare the two and deduce which could be considered "more moral"?
Idealist political theories and real time political practices are two different things. One does not really judge in my opinion the theories, we judge the actions.
Real life communism was in no was like the theory, therefore it should really be judged as men's actions. The same does not really apply to capitalism, the theory fits pretty well to the real thing.
I think therefore that politics should be left out of moral theory because what it really comes down to is the way people practice their political beliefs. That can be judged moral correct or not but not the beliefs themselves.
The same applies to many other categories as well. Jews are not more moral than Hindus, red heads are not more moral than blondes.
Reply to Sapientia Good for who? I think we have to pick what something is good for to determine the type of good we are talking about.
Is it good for the individual, society's evolution, the planet's evolution, or the universe's evolution?
Then we have to ask, what is more important?
And further, which is the most important?
From what I understand, morality is not completely objective. We agree as societies and individuals as to what we feel should be objective morally, but it changes.
This discussion is in another post, and I haven't posted in it because I am still piecing this concept together.
I remember saying to myself when I was 15 that morality is more relative than objective, and I feel like I agree with my 15 year old self, but in my mind this doesn't rule out the *potential of objective morality.
Good for who? I think we have to pick what something is good for to determine the type of good we are talking about.
Is it good for the individual, society's evolution, the planet's evolution, or the universe's evolution?
Then we have to ask, what is more important?
And further, which is the most important?
From what I understand, morality is not completely objective. We agree as societies and individuals as to what we feel should be objective morally, but it changes.
This discussion is in another post, and I haven't posted in it because I am still piecing this concept together.
But before you even get to the question of good for who, or what type of good, surely the meaning of "good" must precede that, otherwise how is one to make sense of those questions? And you can't define "good" as, say, "good for the individual" since that would be a circular definition.
One resolution would be to maintain that "good" is in some ways indefinable. This was G. E. Moore's answer, as I understand it.
I dont buy it. Something is good if it creates a desirable outcome.
Okay, so [i]what part[/I] don't you buy, and [i]why[/I] don't you buy it?
So, what's the difference, if any, between asking "I know he is a vegan, but does he eat meat?" and asking "Is something good if it creates a desirable outcome?"?
I'll tell you what the difference is, if you haven't picked up on it. The former is a closed question. In other words, it makes no sense to question whether a vegan eats meat, as the matter is already settled. We know that, on account of being a vegan, he doesn't eat meat. Whereas the latter is an open question, i.e. it is far from settled, as the ongoing philosophical discussion attests, and it does make sense to question whether that which is good is that which creates a desirable outcome. One might, for example, question whether the death penalty is good, even if it creates a desirable outcome. Maybe it's wrong in spite of popular desire for the outcome. Maybe it's something else, in place of desire, that determines what is good. There are alternative theories which do not give desire pride of place.
Are you with me so far? Do you agree or disagree with what I have said?
Reply to Sapientia I understand the argument. What I don't understand is how it negates my original statements regarding society adopting principals in order to preserve it's existence. I'm not trying to imply that a popular moral is good or bad. I'm just saying that it exists.
I understand the argument. What I don't understand is how it negates my original statements regarding society adopting principals in order to preserve it's existence. I'm not trying to imply that a popular moral is good or bad. I'm just saying that it exists.
What? If you understand the argument, then you should understand the problem with what you're attempting to do and address that problem. Maybe the argument is flawed, but you haven't shown that to be the case. You don't seem to have put much effort into engaging it at all, actually.
I've only come into this from your attempt to define "moral" or "good", which caught my attention. Whether we're talking about your original definition about agreement amongst society regarding its betterment or your subsequent definition about creating a desirable outcome, both of these definitions can be subjected to the open question argument, which concludes - contrary to what you propose - that your definition of what is moral or good [i]cannot be[/I] what is moral or what is good. So what's your response? Do you have one? You can't just say that you don't buy it without providing any kind of explanation to move things forward.
That you almost faltered and that you did not instinctively return the ring offers you some data points to where you need to build your character.
That is, if you aspire to be a moral, upstanding citizen, which isn't all it's cracked up to be, truth be told. The world won't come crashing down if you decide to be a little bit naughty and break the rules from time to time.
Deleted UserAugust 30, 2018 at 04:13#2091990 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserAugust 30, 2018 at 04:14#2092010 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
This is what I meant by your being a troll. This isn't worth addressing.
So honesty makes me a troll? I think it's refreshing in an otherwise stale and predictable discussion. If you don't think that it's worth addressing, then don't address it. No one has a gun to your head, do they?
Deleted UserAugust 30, 2018 at 04:18#2092040 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserAugust 30, 2018 at 04:20#2092050 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
But that's the point. You wrote above that you're merely eliciting responses. In these discussions, that's dishonest, at best disingenuous. You're either honest or dishonest, which is it? If you're honest, then a number of your posts here and elsewhere have not been honest.
No, I did not write that I'm merely eliciting responses. I'm not so one dimensional. And what do you want from me? Must I point out, for your sake, when I'm being ironic, when I'm being sincere, and when it's somewhere in between? Sorry, but I'm not going to do that. You'll just have to learn to pick it up, as others seem capable of telling the difference.
You know, believe it or not, I can joke around with the likes of Baden, Bitter Crank and Hanover, and I can also have a serious conversation with them, sometimes jumping in and out and switching between and mixing it up a bit, without them being so utterly flummoxed. Up your game!
Reply to Hanover Fair enough. I did experience temptation and I took time to ponder my decision. (The pondering was useful and brought me personal growth.)
There's a line between being playful, ironic and provocative on the one hand, and trolling on the other. It's not trivial to define the distinction, but I think it's something like the latter deliberately seeks to disrupt for the sake of disrupting, whereas the former may do it more for the sake of humour, or even to make a subtle point. Sapientia's on the right side of that line in my view (even if he is a thieving bastard).
Martin KruminsAugust 30, 2018 at 10:49#2092460 likes
Reply to tim wood i thought you were arguing for a moral economics, you changed. And I am an anarchist in the way I do not believe in authority over others, but yeah sometimes its a very conservative position because its anti-state, but its also anti-employer. And look the next time you call someone a fool, your answer better be absolutely golden. was it even an answer? ok so you think I am so stupid you dont even understand my points. ok, i guess thats fair, but its a second call for clarification and soon its you that looks stupid. when you legislate you in no way change the amoral* character of profit making, its not suddenly moral because you create a floodgate so we dont end up rioting. and look good/bad marketing doesnt matter, its the act of ownership that makes it amoral. the reason it is amoral is because it does not universally apply. ownership. just how the world works, then why are you arguing what i said? and nothing is just how the world works, because we could easily enter a sharing economy and there are many sharing communities in existence. just not in us eurpoe china au etc but they exist in pockets.
Deleted UserAugust 30, 2018 at 14:44#2092820 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserAugust 30, 2018 at 15:05#2092840 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Reply to Michael For if we did not will the return of rings then there would be no rings to steal, hence we would land in contradiction with ourselves.
Reply to Sapientia 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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
*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?
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?
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?
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...)
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.
Reply to Jake 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.
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.
What is good cannot be a matter of definition, obviously. It is a matter of general human consensus based on the sum of experience.
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.
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.
Does this mean ownership goes all the way back to the first person who realized what the Earth was?
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.
If we slander someone's integrity to prove a point we will only strengthen their perspective and the perspective of people who agree with the perspective we wish to change. You have simply made a martyr. Not only that, but we encourage others to slander people as well. We have the power to shift perspective if our approach warrants communication as opposed to separation. We all have the powers of influence and inspiration. Are we using ours to incite divides between humanity, or to build bridges?
Hate+Hate does not = Peace
The few left behind bitch about the US only because they missed the boat.
Oh well, I'm sure we'll get another chance to board the Trumptanic when you get your buoyancy issues sorted. :up: :flower:
creativesoulSeptember 01, 2018 at 08:09#2096530 likes
Everyone with a complex enough belief system has ideas about acceptable/unacceptable behaviour. Some are better than others. All instantiate morality. Returning something accidentally acquired is admirable behaviour, particularly when one suspects that the item in question has value, meaning, and/or some other type of remarkable significance to the rightful owner.
One who finds oneself in the accidental physical possession of something that does not belong to them is faced with a moral judgment that has yet to have been made.
One knows that it is not theirs.
creativesoulSeptember 01, 2018 at 08:13#2096540 likes
How does one measure the morality of such a choice?
Look at the consequences of everyone doing the same thing. Would the world be a better place?
Reply to Sir2u I said "what is good cannot be a matter of definition" not that the word "good" has no definition. In any case I agree with what you say there; it's true that dictionary definitions reflect common usages.
The book you cited may be of interest, but I already have way too much on my list of books to read. :smile:
I said "what is good cannot be a matter of definition"
What is good, is defined as good. It is nothing but a matter of choice upon what action, person or object to bestow that definition. The choice is the people's.
The book is like a dictionary, you can read the history of the words a few at a time. Quite interesting where some words come from and how the have changed over time.
Reply to Sir2u What is the most important perspective of "good" for the longevity of the human species?
Is it the individuals perspective, the societies perspective, the international perspective, the global perspective, or an unnamed perspective?
Martin KruminsSeptember 02, 2018 at 14:41#2098320 likes
Reply to tim wood ok yeah, I would need to clear up ownership and possession. Now in a sharing economy possession is moral where the the rest of the community has warranted a continuation of the possession or every person gets equal amount. But taking of possession is amoral for there is nobody to even if there was a way to divide up the world equally. but like i said your possession can be scrutinised by the whole community and if you still have it after that it would be moral possession. Why is ownership different? well ownership today is absolute possession based on contract or deed. This originated as a system of ownership where the person with divine right from god (universal moral authority) could bestow possesion to one person and thereafter he would have a right from the deed (way over simplified probs tok 3-4 centuries of bullshit reasoning). In old roman law possession could be decreed from a court in the same way, but you could still lose possession afterward if the state of your possession had changed. With absolute ownership there is little you can do/not do to lose possession. The hideous hierarchical moment of man is everything I hate about society.... anyway my point is that possession can be moral after a judgement from say a democratic court, but it would have to be judged moral after the taking of posession which is amoral or if you like before moral. In todays world the contract or deed is full of shit for it stops the challenge of possession. therefore everything owned is simply possessed before decree and therefore amoral or before moral. my argument is something like just because you obtained the ring outwith contract, makes no moral difference to the possession because if you had a contract that absolute ownership has no moral basis either. but I feel ive used a little sophistry to associate my reasoning with my prefered pithy comment.
Comments (252)
But consider; are you wealthy enough that you can have a good life without the worth of the ring. Are the seller wealthy enough to have a good life without the worth of the ring? Does the ring have emotional value to you? Does the ring have emotional value to the seller?
If you were poor and the seller wealthy, it's in some ways morally wrong to keep the ring, but it's also not. If you were poor and kept the ring and the seller doesn't need it's worth but it has an emotional value, it's in my view more morally wrong to keep it.
The basic question is about our value of owning things and the emotional attachment to our things.
But because you don't know if the seller is wealthy enough and you do not know if the ring has emotional value, there is only one rational and decent choice and that is to contact the previous owner.
You cannot make a subjective and personal choice on what the truth is in order to make a moral judgement, you need the truth in order to make it. Sometimes that demands you to sacrifice something for the good of how humanity as a whole should function morally, like if the seller didn't even know that there was a ring there and didn't own it to begin with, it's your loss and the sellers gain, but such an outcome puts the moral choice on the seller while you have done what should be considered the better moral choice.
Another thought - sentimental value and monetary value often differ. I have a 45 RPM record given to me by my late brother. It is not valuable money-wise but means a lot to me.
Men almost never wear diamond rings...women do. Women lose diamond rings off their fingers all the time. Seriously. The come off reaching into laundry machines, handling items in stores, reaching into grocery bags... How could a diamond ring end up in a box of items you purchased for much less than the value of the ring, diamond included this time?
As the person just above has said, treat people with dignity (one of Kant's principles if not stated quite that way). Kant also talked of the Good Will. How should you be oriented to people in a way you wouldn't like them to be oriented to YOU?
I have never forgotten the occasion when, just prior to my first year of university, I dropped a wad of money bills from my pants pocket. Desperately, I went to the store's lost and found desk an hour later and found, to my sober and grateful relief, that a well-intentioned person demonstrated concretely what Good Will really means.
If someone asked you if the ring they had found in a box of junk you just sold to them is yours, what would you say?
If you were hard pressed for money you might say yes even if you had no idea who the ring belonged to.
The person you bought the box from might not have known it was there when he found it at another yard sale.
Is the ring really valuable, if it is the a local jeweler might recognize it. If not, is it worth the trouble to find the owner. Not all diamonds are not all valuable, and some things that look like diamonds are not.
If you are going to return it, at least make sure it goes to the rightful owner. They should be able to give a proper description of it and maybe even draw it for you. A photo of someone wearing it it would be better. You could just tell them that you found a little box containing something without mentioning its possible monetary value. Maybe show them a picture of the box. If they can prove it is their ring, give it to them.
If they have no idea what is in the box or who it belongs to, then I doubt anyone would complain about you turning it into the police or even keeping it.
There is a local buying and selling farcebook page where I live, people often post photos of things lost and found on it, maybe there is one where you live.
Why do you ask? My thoughts on the ethics of it would reach the same conclusion as most others, but that wouldn't stop me from keeping the ring in order to sell if I found out that it was worth a significant sum of money. What would stop me is if I thought I'd get myself in some kind of trouble.
Because I know people well enough to accurately predict how they would judge a matter such as this, in simple ethical terms. And likely so do you. There's not much to be curious about in that, unless it is lead somewhere deeper. If you or I were an extraterrestrial who had just discovered the people of Earth, then maybe you or I would lack this ability.
I contacted my home owners insurance company because I have a rider on my policy and they will reimburse me up to $5k for the loss but I have to file a claim and they are asking if I have retraced my steps in trying to find it. The reimbursement from my insurance company would cover the replacement of the actual stone and setting but nothing will replace the years of my Great Grandmother wearing it in a successful marriage of 50 years to my Gramps.
Please compare this photo with the ring you have in your possession just to confirm my recollection:
Wishing for a quick return of a beloved piece of jewelry
gloaming, your experience helps me to restore my faith in humanity. I sometimes wonder if all the good I try to give the world is ever received the way it was intended. I don't usually stick around to see the outcome of my random acts of kindness or those moral/ethical dilemmas that aren't really a challenge for me, I just do what I would want someone to do for me, if the tables will were turned and have to believe that will be enough.
I do wish you to consider my post seriously but only if you wish for this is a hypothetical and I was just wanting to add another layer that is a possibility and was curious how you would handle it if you had the ring still or if you had sold it.
Asking for a picture would settle it right quick.
As I stated, I am not sure how my ring wound up in a box, contained within a box of railroad parts but I can tell you that I am quite sure my ring fell off my finger while digging through a box of railroad parts earlier.
Could you please post a picture of the ring you have in your possession?
In more casual terms of what you should or would do, that would be closer to what I would predict. But, sticking to explicit ethical terminology, if you think that most people would say that the decent thing to do would be to keep it, then you can quite easily be demonstrated to be mistaken through polling. I think that the replies here will be fairly representative of the replies you'll get in general.
You must be in pretty bad company. If it wasn't intended for you as part of the transaction, to keep it would be to steal it. There's no ethical ambiguity here.
? If someone walking in front of you dropped their wallet and no-one but you saw (so there was no issue of you getting into trouble), would you pick it up, check there was a significant amount of cash in it and then pocket it if there was?
It could go either way. Maybe I would do something nice on an impulse. But most likely I wouldn't be a mug and would pocket the wonga.
You better hope it's not me and I look around mate! Seriously though, I expected you to have a bit more of a social conscience on that one considering your general political views. It's not being a mug not to steal someone's wallet ffs. I mean, really... *Shakes Sapientia vigorously to remove the evil spirits *
That just ain't gonna work, try holy water or fire.
I'm liking that fire idea... :fire: :fire: :death:
I'd just use my invisibility cloak.
Sure, you can call it stealing, which it technically is, but it's not quite the same as stealing it off of his person. He lost it, that's on him. If it's up for grabs, then I'd rather it be me that ends up a couple hundred quid better off than the next guy who comes along and takes it for himself. It pays to look after number one.
The harsh truth is that sometimes doing the "right thing" means being a mug. It comes at a cost. But I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, and I'd have that money.
I've lost valuables before. We all have. It's just one of those things. I'd be mad at myself instead of being a hypocrite and blaming the other person for doing what I would've done - what many people would do.
I'd have to be pretty desperate to think myself a mug for not stealing someone's wallet. Maybe if I was homeless and starving, I'd have a greater responsibility to look after myself. But I'm just another spoiled westerner reaping the benefits of being born in a highly developed country. The harsh truth is that having some moral self-respect is much more important than having an extra bit of unnecessary cash on hand. It also undermines calls for a fairer tax system, which I would think being a lefty you support. Wouldn't those who don't benefit directly from that be right in thinking themselves "mugs" to agree with it? I know what it is, you've turned into a Tory...
That wouldn't be in my interest, and neither would handing back the wallet. But not everything is about self-interest, and I draw the line at some things. Selling arms to Saudi Arabia, who have used those arms to bomb school children on a bus, is on a whole 'nother scale.
That could make a good story: Boy steals ring; boy goes on quest with ring; quest reveals boy shouldn't have stolen ring as halfway through quest booby-trapped ring explodes blowing boy's hand off. Boy learns valuable lesson and owner of ring gets revenge. Happy ending all round. :100:
On the one hand, I felt that I did the right thing. On the other hand, I really wanted the money. I felt... inadequate for not having enough nerve to just ditch the purse and keep the money. That was 18 years ago. I am still stewing over the decision.
Delaying a week probably cost the woman at least $100 in screwing around getting keys replaced, new IDs, credit cards, license, worrying about what somebody was doing with her stuff (performing black magic in her purse, laying a curse on her ...)
You pass the tinman test for having a heart (just about). @Sapientia needs to go see the wizard. :starstruck:
Illogical Spock. Return to Vulcan for retraining. :razz:
... But oh, OK, you win. Just keep an eye on your wallet when Sap is around. :eyes:
This is actually the best answer.
:up:
...keep it. :snicker:
Anyone getting this drift or am I just tripping?
You could invert it and say Sapientia would have done the right thing had it been a Robin Hood type scenario.
If not that, but a mistake, why did the missus remove her ring other than to commit adultery with another model train enthusiast, a crime punishable by stoning?
Abusers of children, adulterers, just horrible people. Keep the ring. Don't associate with low lifes like this.
A hypothetical asking I assume someone shopped at Sears is too fanciful to wrap my head around.
I truly thought this was a hypothetical question, where in which I was playing the part of the woman who did lose her ring and was coming forward searching for it. I don't know what the legal obligation is to posting a Found flyer or in a local newspaper, like you do have to do if you find a dog, for the first 7 days before you can claim it legally yours.
There is some Karma/energy that is passed through what some call "blood money" which is money obtained at the expense of another. I was working at an Irish Bar when I found a Horseshoe shaped man's ring with 8 diamonds in it on the floor. I talked to the bartender because we were a local watering hole and with as many regulars as we had, chances are if we put a sign up on the bar that we found this ring and ask for a description that would surely find it's owner. A week later no one claimed it and they gave it to me. Woo Hoo! I stopped at the jeweler on the way home and played with setting the 8 diamonds in a lady's setting. Designed, submitted for the changes, opened up my first line of credit for all of $150 to pay for the new setting. WOW! This doing the right thing was really coming true as I was approved!
I wore that ring, pawned it for cash I needed, $40 and within 60 days I had it back on my hand. I must have pawned that ring at least 5 times and got it back 6 times. Money got easier and I no longer needed to pawn it but loved the ring dearly. It was within 2 years that the ring went missing from my life. I looked everywhere for it as it was a one of a kind but it never turned up.
Do you suppose that the original Horseshoe ring I found already had 'pawn' like energies in it? Was it only to be mine for a while? Did the person who found my ring look for me or just pocket it like some have suggested? Or, as I have my gut suspicion, is it sitting in some Pawn shop's safe waiting to be picked up by it's current possessor? I doubt I will ever know.
:clap: From where I am sitting I think the choice you are making is a fair and well reasoned out. :up:
Ps. About how to upload an image? @Baden can direct you in that, I still use an outside source of https://postimages.org and it works for me.
The question of the OP is a character dilemma, as in, am I of ethical character high enough to do the right thing and return what isn't mine. An ethical dilemma asks the question "what is the right thing to do," not "should I do the right thing,"
My view on karma changed when my brother died of cancer last year - made it much harder for me to believe in karma.
I did send the seller a message through facebook this morning. If he does not reply in 7 days, is that equivalent to posting a sign?
You paid $150 to modify the ring and you could only pawn it for $40 and you did this 5 times? From my math, you paid $150 for the ring and extracted $200 out of it, all of which was repaid along with the usurious rates charged by pawn brokers, meaning that ring resulted in substantial losses to you. You'd have been better off never to have come across that cursed ring. My guess is that you didn't lose the ring but Satan reclaimed it and passed it on to someone more evil than you.
Me too!
Quoting Sam Sam
I am so sorry to learn of your loss. Loss of a Grandparent is expected overtime, as our parents will one day pass as well but a sibling? Huggsss to you Sam Sam~ That is an unfathomable loss for me. I am not sure what to say, other than I don't know how you have made it this far but whatever has gotten you to today is working so keep on, keeping on. :hearts:
Quoting Sam Sam
Absolutely. :up:
If you knew what I was pawning it for, you would be convinced that it was a piece of Satan and if that is the case? I am damn happy that I am rid of it. :halo:
You are a strong person and somehow, I think your brother is watching over you and helping guide you.
He may have even guided you here to The Philosophy Forum!
Welcome Sam Sam~ We are happy to have you with us~
Ans- By asking. This has been the advice of many responders so far.
Somewhat true, but incomplete. An ethical dilemma must have at least two permissible options from which to choose. We haven't established if all the options here are permissible. To the point, IS IT okay to just keep the ring? That's what we're attempting to establish.
The other components of an ethical dilemma are that the correct, or best, option is not immediately obvious without some analysis/calculus, and that the option of not acting at all is illegitimate; one of he permissible choices must be undertaken.
I agree with you, however; this doesn't constitute an ethical dilemma. A box of 'railroad' junk sold in a driveway yard sale would not include a boxed diamond ring let alone a loose one, any more than a used car would include a well-maintained and loaded pistol in its glovebox. No way, no how.
There are multiple possibilities here in regards to who actually owns the ring, how it got there, and whether or not the person you contact in regards to it will tell you the truth.
But! The person who has found the ring has a choice to make about whether to be honest about an unusual situation to the previous representative of the box. Once the current holder has been honest, their responsibility to their fellow human has been met, and any deceit after the fact is not their responsibility.
There are many benefits to honesty. Karma is not dogmatic in my opinion, but rather reference to the cause and effect of maintaining civility in society.
How dusty was the exterior box?
Maybe there's an interesting story behind it... Someone spent a good deal of their income on a diamond ring intending to ask someone to marry them, but for whatever reason they never got around to it (or maybe they did and were rejected?). How could they have forgot about it? Did something happen to them?
If it's a relatively new or clean box, then it stands to reason that someone may still have intended to use it as an engagement ring, in which case it seems like keeping it would be to steal more than just three months salary, you would be stealing love itself dammit!
The band is 14 K yellow gold
There is white gold around the stone
The ring weighs about 3 DWP (penny weight)
It is size 5.5
The stone is surrounded by 12 baguettes (small diamonds)
The stone is a diamond – it is about .45K with a cut quality of SI1 or SI2 (mid-range)
Estimated value $900
Deceit is intentional, so one who engages in it is always going to be responsible for it. Kant would have waved us away from any deceit since it is uttering falsehood, i.e.- lying.
I think what you mean is that, once one does the right thing (inquiring), one is then only obligated insofar as her conscience dictates. If the seller makes a reasonable case that the ring was not meant to be included, the right thing would be to return it expecting nothing more than gratitude. If the person doesn't respond (you can ensure emails are opened at the recipient's end) after 72 hours, I would say my obligation to do the right thing has been completed; the ring becomes my rightful property.
You are doing the right things. Your conscience will be a good guide that you can trust. Your instincts will tell you if and when you can safely pocket the ring and do with it as you please.
Yes. Kind of and...
" If the person doesn't respond (you can ensure emails are opened at the recipient's end) after 72 hours, I would say my obligation to do the right thing has been completed; the ring becomes my rightful property"
No. If the other person does not reply it could be for a number of reasons, and at that point only your guardianship of the ring is your role, not your ownership of the ring. The possibility of a reply remains, and regardless of how much time passes, the ring does not belong to you because you did not exchange for it under contract.
In ethics, even in Kantian terms, no one is obliged to conduct himself any more than is convenient, provided the act is done in Good Will, and that it passes the tests of ends and universalizability. We would not expect our hapless buyer to pass guardianship, as you put it, on to his son, and his son to his son, in perpetuity. In fact, it would cease to be convenient even on his deathbed. If he passed guardianship onto a trusted agent, say a lawyer or to the police, one would require payment to locate the 'rightful' owner and the other would not have much of an incentive to act except to place the item in a lost-and-found holder. I can tell you which of these would be convenient, but I'm not sure they would be satisfactory.
That's £700, man. I mean, £700 is not £10,000, but still, I would keep it. I can't be the only one. Out of sight, out of mind. I wouldn't be haunted or racked with guilt.
Consider if ten years away, you wear the ring and someone says "hey, that ring belongs to my grandmother." They give you precise details that would lead you to conclude that they are being factual. Do you give it to them, or do you say "well I'm sorry, but I've already had it for 10 years, so it is mine."
Of course this probability is rare, but the possibility remains, and so does your responsibility of returning it to the family that *did* obtain the ring by means of contract, because they sacrificed their energy (work, money) to acquire it fairly and you have not.
Again, once it's out of your hands the negativity revolving it is no longer your responsibility.
"Finders keepers, unless you find the loser."
And also I would say
"Exhausting your ability to find the loser is a respectful responsibility."
And
"Keeping the posibility of the loser rediscovering the object is a respectful responsibility."
Unless the loser tells you to keep it.
I would not have the ring after ten years. I would not wear it, and probably would either give it away or sell it for cash and use its value for something more valuable to me. I would do so without compunction, having made that reasonable attempt to feel more secure in my decision-making.
Let's continue the scenario you present:
"Did you by any chance find a diamond ring in that box you bought from us years ago?"
"I did! I sent you a text message, left a message on your phone, and sent you an email. I tried to call you about three days later, but your phone went to the answering service. So, I eventually decided just to keep the ring." I would shrug, express sympathy, but no regrets. I was reasonable in my attempt to make contact and to wait a period before I considered the matter closed.
What each person must do is what his/her conscience dictates. I would freely take what I thought were responsible steps to determine ownership, but then I would assume, at my convenience, when the item becomes truly mine. For me, three days is plenty, along with those three different attempts at contact.
I asked, if my father stole a neighbor's car and then gave the car to me in his will, do I have a moral obligation to return the car. Everyone said yes.
So then I asked, what if it was my grandfather who stole the car. Everyone said yes again.
So then I asked, what if it was my great-grandfather? Now everyone is getting impatient, and tell me that receiving stolen property is wrong, Wrong, WRONG, period. Ok, they're being consistent.
And then I was naughty and asked...
Should we give North America back to the Indians?
The thread somehow magically died at that point. What a surprise! :smile:
Should we give North America back to the Indians?
It's a good question. I interpreted it as "Should the next generation be responsible for the previous generation's mistakes?"
And I would say yes, we are under obligation to amend the circumstance because if it was stolen it was taken without consent, and thus removes the opportunity that the object, in this case America, possesses from one society and gives it to another by force instead of an equal exchange.
This doesn't equalize the exchange.
At this point you still have acquired energy (work,money) without giving the same amount of energy (work, money) back to them.
I translate this as, "It is inconvenient."
So in other words it is inconvenient, but the majority has a responsibility to the minority that it has created.
At this point you still have acquired energy (work,money) without giving the same amount of energy (work, money) back to them. "
I am not under any obligation to 'equalize' the exchange. It was deemed by both parties to be equal, even if accidentally, when it was concluded. Both parties left, each with a misapprehension. One was potentially salutary, the other not. In Good Will, I offer to return an item that is apparently, or possibly, unintended for sale. If the person never contacts me, even with several earnest attempts to for me to contact him, at some point I can let the matter go.
BTW, to whom would be cede the nation and all of its states and infrastructure? The greater numbers of non-aboriginals are irrelevant, just as, to follow your logic, the passage of time is irrelevant for the possession of the ring...or its 'guardianship.' So, we should give it, the nation, back. But, to whom? To which congregation of supremacy, and at what point in time should we fix the supremacy? At which point in time should we accept the ownership of any one congregation...or tribe...or organization...or culture? There were many, and they quarreled and raided constantly.
In my opinion you are obligated to equal the exchange otherwise it's theft.
And granting the entire nation and it's infrastructure to any group other than the group who currently retains it would be near impossible. This is why we compromise by alloting the representatives of that ancestry a "leg up" in opportunity.
Now I'm not even saying that affirmative action is the end of balancing the exchange, but it is an example of an attempt to.
What entitlement does a descendent have over an ancestor's property and what grants someone superior rights just because they stood on the property first?
Pass the weed and I'll tell you if I feel the same way.
Can't smoke that stuff. Makes me (more) paranoid than I already am. Heh.
I hope that you did not give the seller too much info, maybe they would like it back even if it is not theirs.
If they offer you a reward, accept it. If it costs you anything above a minimal amount to return it, ask if they could refund it for you. If they get uppity about that then you will know you made a mistake going to the trouble of returning it.
Personally I would probably put it away for a while and see if they come looking for it. It is just as easy for them to try and reach you or anyone else that might have bought from them to see if you found anything extra in the box.
Never tried it myself, I used to prefer cigar when I smoked.
Actually the film that came to mind when I read the OP was The Priceless Pocket. A man had a pair of trousers that gave him money every time he put his hand in the pocket. The government eventually bought the pants of him because they could not prove he was doing anything illegal. He bought a nice new suit and started pulling money from the pocket.
Put it on your bucket list of things to do before you die. I don't know, but I think of it as a healthy habit (cancer prevention). Don't smoke it for that goal though. Wish it was as popular as beer or alcohol, many lives would be saved if it we're a substitute good in that regards.
The freaking thing is sooooooooo loooooong I will need a couple of life times already. But I guess I could put it together with #4587 "Go to Political Conference". Might make for an interesting day.
Haha, good luck. Hope it works out for the best if you come around to it.
Very leading edge studies prove your assertion to be true. Nicely stated. :up:
Quoting Posty McPostface
Soon to be on your Liquor store shelves....okay soon is relative but it is already a product that is in a aluminum beer shaped bottle with not a lick of Hops in it but a bit of Hemp instead.
I would presume from some sort of advertising. Using the same method he could reach out to those that attended.
Yeah, it's certainly a healthier habit than alcoholism, say.
Since it's legal where I reside, I might as well ask, how are laws coming along for legalization in AZ?
Personally, if I could I would grow it indoors and reap the benefits of 1:1 THC to CBD. I've heard the CBD potentiates the positive effects on cancer prevention by something like 10-fold.
In ever so many ways...
You already know what you ought do.
Why are you entertaining the remote possibility that an unrelated person hid a diamond ring in someone else's train set?Quoting Sir2u
Under what theory do we now demand payment for doing what is ethical?
And suppose they are uppity? Are they then not deserving of ethical treatment?Quoting Sir2u
This idea seems consistent with the theme of trying to find some rationalization for keeping what is not yours. It also shows some hostility towards the person, as if they're not really worthy of the ring, but the rules require it's return, so you'll do it, but you're going to be as difficult as possible.
Is it unethical of me to not pay to fix a mistake another person made? If it costs me then it's charity, and charity is a choice, not an ethical obligation.
So the categorical imperative demands that we return the ring?
We've not broken down every fact in our hypothetical, but my assumption was that the return of the ring would result in a de minimis expense to you. If you truly do have some real expense in returning it, I think it'd be fine to ask for reimbursement. In @Sir2u's post, he wasn't referencing reimbursement, but "reward," meaning a special something for being a good guy. I don't see where that would be warranted. I do think you are obligated to make all reasonable efforts to return the ring and cannot ethically impose additional obligations on the person who lost the ring because he owes you something for being the wonderful person you are.
But, yeah, if it costs you $2.50 in postage to mail the ring back, you can rightly ask for that money.
That is the beauty of Philosophy and the bane of it's existence all rolled into one. You might get 'thinkers' to all agree that there is a cup on the table but ask them if it is a red cup and good golly, you would think we were trying to define the meaning of life.
Posty, we are a few years away to full legalization if we are to do it at a state level, unless the Federal law changes. The proposal to "legalize like wine" failed but it looks like the Governor of the Cannabis industry is going to be held by the ATF once it goes legal on the Federal level. Here in AZ, we are dealing with a politician who is questioning what exactly we the voters meant, when we voted for the Medical Cannabis program, in that they are questioning whether extracts and concentrates were what we had in mind. Well, my dear politicians, RSO and CBD oil is a life saver and was one of the reasons we enacted the law. Yazy Rad, a young girl with debilitating seizures and CBD oil changed her life and we didn't want to continue for families, to have to make the choice to have safe access to the necessary medicine or move out of state.
It's a hill but one worth climbing.
More power to you. Minds are changing on the issue, slowly but surely.
You already know what you ought do.
Perhaps they wish to know why they feel inclined to go about it whichever way. Perhaps the question is not "what to do" but "why to do it this way or that way"
Ethics would be simple indeed if we we able to mechanically follow ethical rules. We are not able. On the one hand we have ethical rules which are reasonably clear and on the other hand we have desires (emotions) which are often at least as strong as our commitment to ethical behavior.
Probably most people (just guessing) are able to keep their urges/wishes/desires under control--but not always. When the "not always" moment arrives we breach the barriers.
Having breached the barriers that keep us ethical, the next question is "how much do we regret it". If we don't regret it much or at all, we're more likely to behave improperly in the future. If we behave that way long enough, our practical use of "proper" and "improper" will have changed.
Nowhere on this thread has it been stated that anyone hid a box containing a ring in a train set box. That it was found there does not imply even remotely that it was.
The box could have been bought from another yard sale for a kid that did not even bother to take it out of the box.
Maybe the owner throw the thing in to get rid of it because he/she broke up with the other party.
Maybe one of the kids stole it from granny and hid it there till they could sell it, then forgot.
There are dozens of possibilities, why do you think it was hidden there?
Quoting Hanover
Why would I need a theory? Common sense says that I do not have to spend money on returning anything to people that cannot look after their own stuff.
But I think Michael says it nicely.
Quoting Michael
Quoting Hanover
At least they should be nice about the ethical treatment one gives them. How could it be morally correct of them to think that others should pay for their screw ups? I know I would probably pay all the expenses and a reasonable reward to the person that returned the ring I had stole 30 years ago.
Quoting Hanover
If I wanted to keep it I would, moral or not, I doubt that I would waste my time rationalizing or making excuses bout it though. If I was going to steal it I would just do it. And it is not really up to me to make things easy for them to recover their property, that is their job. But again I would not waste my time nor energy helping some one that is not polite.
If you had read the thread you would have known that I was responding to
Quoting Sam Sam
Or he might never have known it was there. :wink:
I have returned the ring.
Because the yard sale ad was on Facebook, I was able to message the seller. About 36 hours later I heard back. We conversed by Facebook messenger, and as expected he did not know it was in the box he sold me. He said he would like it back, and I said I would gladly return it.
This evening he came and picked it up. He was very grateful, saying, “Someone of your integrity is a dying breed.”
Here is the ring’s backstory (he gave me permission to share this). The ring was given to his daughter by a boyfriend when she was 16 (she is 31 now). She did not marry that guy (he was glad about that.) Years later when the daughter needed money, he bought it from her. He plans on selling it, and he asked me for some advice on the best way to do that. (I suggested he post it for sale locally and offer any potential buyer that he will meet them at the jeweler of their choice to have it appraised.)
I did not ask for anything in return. But, in one of his Facebook messages he asked if I had seen anything else at his yard sale that interested me. I said yes, a laptop I looked at (it was marked $40.) He said he still had it and would like to give it to me. I accepted his offer.
I am glad the ring is back where it belongs, and I am happy to have an interesting story I will remember for a long time.
(PS – If I were to grade myself on my ethics in this situation, I would give myself a B-)
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.
Hey, I got that part almost right.
All worked out kind of cool really. Everyone happy and good deeds done for the day, it is time to hit the sack.
Night all.
Thanks for the follow up Sam Sam...
Being honest is remarkably important in more ways than many have imagined. Morality is best understood as a human condition. We are interdependent social creatures, and despite the fact that many folk today couldn't care less about others in their community, we could have never gotten where we are today if everyone were like that all along.
It was a round yellowish ring with a glittery thing on it. It must be mine.
Because you got quite a bit of assistance during the exam?
How many stones does it have?
What shape are the cuts of the stones?
What color are the stones?
Is it engraved?
Is the band thick, or thin?
Answering these questions as an outside observer is difficult, and I imagine that a small percentage of us could hardly do so.
I don't mean to be negative, or to chastise. None of us considered it. Even I didn't think it until just now. I only intend to be objective.
I understand where you're coming from, but I do not think that all ethical rules are on equal ground. Some aren't hard to follow. The right ones, implemented properly, wouldn't be.
I wasn't being serious. I was joking.
Yeah, stop wasting our precious time and just put it on eBay!
I will reconsider my position if you can guarantee me that I'll be rewarded with a free laptop or something similar with every lost item I return. :grin:
Surely, the warm and fuzzy feeling evinced from expressing true love and kindness (as opposed to the fakey manipulative kind) and witnessing its effect on others beats any pleasure that could be squeezed from a $40 laptop?
:chin:
You've lost me.
It was always the decent thing to do. So, as others have suggested, you should give yourself full credit for being positively oriented to other people, at least for this instance and in the way you handled it.
Is this a joke? I'm not very good at joking. :(
These questions struck my curiousity:
Is one responsible for the morality revolving an object prior to their purchase of the object?
If so, to what extent?
Is it to the extent that we are trusting the seller when they say that they have sourced the ring ethically? Are we morally obligated to do more research in regards to it's ethical sourcing? Or are you saying flat out that at no point in time is capitalism considered ethical at all?
I disagree. A Google search will refute this claim, as does our current conversation.
This statement does not prove that capitalism is immoral.
To my understanding capitalism has both moral and immoral implications based on how the individual utilizes it. Is it perfectly moral? No. Is it comparatively more moral than communism? I would argue yes. Something does not have to be 100% perfectly moral for it to not have implications of moral principles.
A ring is an investment in savings.
Eg: I helped someone in order to acquire this ring.
Capitalism is immoral when the people involved in it abuse it with immoral standards in mind.
Eg: I stole this ring.
Thief!
I would like to try, Tim. And if we can pick this apart, please let's. I am interested in my definitions of these words and also happy to learn.
If something is moral, then it is in agreement amongst a society that there are particular ways to handle a given situation that will lend to a betterment for that society.
If something is immoral, then it is in agreement amongst a society that there are particular ways to handle a given situation that will lend to a deterioration for that society.
And there are of course different types of morals and immorals. Personal, societal, planetary, and perhaps universal.
Quoting Lif3r
You'll have to get around G. E. Moore's open-question argument.
Premise 1: If X is (analytically equivalent to) good, then the question "Is it true that X is good?" is meaningless.
Premise 2: The question "Is it true that X is good?" is not meaningless (i.e. it is an open question).
Conclusion: X is not (analytically equivalent to) good.
The challenge is how you, Tim Wood, or Martin Krumins, or whoever wants to take a stab at it, would deal with that argument. I don't need a lecture from you, thanks. Just stick to the point and cut the crap. Or don't and we can go our separate ways. It's no skin off my back.
Wrong. It's rude and uncharitable to assume that your interlocutor has an underlying ulterior motive, let alone to openly speculate about what it might be, let alone to single out one which you consider to be disreputable.
You could have just asked, and I would have answered along the lines that my motive is exploring problems in philosophy, and how various people I encounter respond to them.
Mixing political and moral ideas is not a good idea, and the same can be said about any political system.
Communism is moral when the people involved in it utilize it with moral standards in mind.
Eg: I helped society in order to acquire this ring.
Communism is immoral when the people involved in it abuse it with immoral standards in mind.
Eg: I stole this ring.
And the answer is obvious. No.
Idealist political theories and real time political practices are two different things. One does not really judge in my opinion the theories, we judge the actions.
Real life communism was in no was like the theory, therefore it should really be judged as men's actions. The same does not really apply to capitalism, the theory fits pretty well to the real thing.
I think therefore that politics should be left out of moral theory because what it really comes down to is the way people practice their political beliefs. That can be judged moral correct or not but not the beliefs themselves.
The same applies to many other categories as well. Jews are not more moral than Hindus, red heads are not more moral than blondes.
No, you did not miss anything.
Is it good for the individual, society's evolution, the planet's evolution, or the universe's evolution?
Then we have to ask, what is more important?
And further, which is the most important?
From what I understand, morality is not completely objective. We agree as societies and individuals as to what we feel should be objective morally, but it changes.
This discussion is in another post, and I haven't posted in it because I am still piecing this concept together.
Whereas you'd miss an eighteen-wheeler if it were parked right under your nose.
But before you even get to the question of good for who, or what type of good, surely the meaning of "good" must precede that, otherwise how is one to make sense of those questions? And you can't define "good" as, say, "good for the individual" since that would be a circular definition.
One resolution would be to maintain that "good" is in some ways indefinable. This was G. E. Moore's answer, as I understand it.
Okay, so [i]what part[/I] don't you buy, and [i]why[/I] don't you buy it?
So, what's the difference, if any, between asking "I know he is a vegan, but does he eat meat?" and asking "Is something good if it creates a desirable outcome?"?
I'll tell you what the difference is, if you haven't picked up on it. The former is a closed question. In other words, it makes no sense to question whether a vegan eats meat, as the matter is already settled. We know that, on account of being a vegan, he doesn't eat meat. Whereas the latter is an open question, i.e. it is far from settled, as the ongoing philosophical discussion attests, and it does make sense to question whether that which is good is that which creates a desirable outcome. One might, for example, question whether the death penalty is good, even if it creates a desirable outcome. Maybe it's wrong in spite of popular desire for the outcome. Maybe it's something else, in place of desire, that determines what is good. There are alternative theories which do not give desire pride of place.
Are you with me so far? Do you agree or disagree with what I have said?
I give you no grade. You simply did as required. The most thanks you're due is the same thanks we all are deserving of when we don't steal.
That you almost faltered and that you did not instinctively return the ring offers you some data points to where you need to build your character.
The answer to Cain's question in Genesis 4:9 is yes.
What? If you understand the argument, then you should understand the problem with what you're attempting to do and address that problem. Maybe the argument is flawed, but you haven't shown that to be the case. You don't seem to have put much effort into engaging it at all, actually.
I've only come into this from your attempt to define "moral" or "good", which caught my attention. Whether we're talking about your original definition about agreement amongst society regarding its betterment or your subsequent definition about creating a desirable outcome, both of these definitions can be subjected to the open question argument, which concludes - contrary to what you propose - that your definition of what is moral or good [i]cannot be[/I] what is moral or what is good. So what's your response? Do you have one? You can't just say that you don't buy it without providing any kind of explanation to move things forward.
That is, if you aspire to be a moral, upstanding citizen, which isn't all it's cracked up to be, truth be told. The world won't come crashing down if you decide to be a little bit naughty and break the rules from time to time.
So honesty makes me a troll? I think it's refreshing in an otherwise stale and predictable discussion. If you don't think that it's worth addressing, then don't address it. No one has a gun to your head, do they?
No, I did not write that I'm merely eliciting responses. I'm not so one dimensional. And what do you want from me? Must I point out, for your sake, when I'm being ironic, when I'm being sincere, and when it's somewhere in between? Sorry, but I'm not going to do that. You'll just have to learn to pick it up, as others seem capable of telling the difference.
You know, believe it or not, I can joke around with the likes of Baden, Bitter Crank and Hanover, and I can also have a serious conversation with them, sometimes jumping in and out and switching between and mixing it up a bit, without them being so utterly flummoxed. Up your game!
There's a line between being playful, ironic and provocative on the one hand, and trolling on the other. It's not trivial to define the distinction, but I think it's something like the latter deliberately seeks to disrupt for the sake of disrupting, whereas the former may do it more for the sake of humour, or even to make a subtle point. Sapientia's on the right side of that line in my view (even if he is a thieving bastard).
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 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.
Sigh. For the second time, no, I am not.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
*real & *licence
Good luck trying to get through my force field. And yes, I do have super powers.
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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...)
Said long since in another field, "Possession is nine points of the Law."
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.
Never.
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...
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.
We knew that already because half of Ireland lives in the US.
Which Indian tribe will you be giving your land to?
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.
Does this mean ownership goes all the way back to the first person who realized what the Earth was?
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.
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.
Quoting 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.
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.
Hate+Hate does not = Peace
You want me to move it or delete it?
Oh well, I'm sure we'll get another chance to board the Trumptanic when you get your buoyancy issues sorted. :up: :flower:
One who finds oneself in the accidental physical possession of something that does not belong to them is faced with a moral judgment that has yet to have been made.
One knows that it is not theirs.
Look at the consequences of everyone doing the same thing. Would the world be a better place?
That's a good start.
The book you cited may be of interest, but I already have way too much on my list of books to read. :smile:
What is good, is defined as good. It is nothing but a matter of choice upon what action, person or object to bestow that definition. The choice is the people's.
The book is like a dictionary, you can read the history of the words a few at a time. Quite interesting where some words come from and how the have changed over time.
Is it the individuals perspective, the societies perspective, the international perspective, the global perspective, or an unnamed perspective?
Are you using "good" here as in morally good, or good in the sense of beneficial? It makes a difference.