Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but being indifferent to right or wrong is not what you described above
Actually it is, way back in an earlier post. Where I explained your morality was something decided by a shared consensus of others and something You have to 'buy' into. To accept right and wrong you have to define culturally what is right and wrong. I am indifferent to these cultural stereotypes choosing to make my own choices. I do not believe morality can be static.
"morality", as in the concept, is not simply "something built by others". Morality and ethics deal with how it is proper to interact with eachother, we can each have unique ideas of how morals work, or of what is moral.
Sure, society does have certain morals it tries to enforce, but by rejecting those, you have not rejected the concept of morality altogether, you have simply adopted a different code.
You describe before how you do agree that killing and stealing are wrong, though you believe circumstances might mediate this in a utilitarian manner. That is a moral stance, not an amoral stance. For it to be amoral, there would be no consideration of the moral implications of killing, and the question would simply be of a cost/benefit type.
You are presenting a false dichotomy here. Simply rejecting "society's morals" is not the same as having no morals. Everything you have said so far indicates that you do see why killing innocent children is wrong, not simply non-profitiable.
Originally posted by inimalistVery, very true. Unfortunately many people think like this today. I've even been with people that would do something that I was very uncomfortable with. "It's like, please don't do that again infront of me. And yeah, you should feel bad, so stop talking about it.
if you only act in a civilized manner for fear of getting caught, you forgot morality a long time ago.
Someone doesn't have to read a book about what morality is. It is something inhereted deeply in all of us. And we know when something is wrong or we did commit wrong. That's just my take anyway.
Originally posted by ThAnus_ofTITassThe specifics of a particular situation, and my emotional state, could cause me to tweak my moral sense, but as a rule, I'd continue to do 'the right thing' if I felt it was the right thing to do.
Seriously, how far would you go? Would you forget with great power comes.... Would you forget morality? Or would you toe the line?
Originally posted by inimalistwould stealing drugs you need to survive and cant access any other way not constitute legal defense enough? more precisely, wouldnt the crime be considered non-existant?
sure, it wouldn't matter though.Canadian justice system, no priors, I have a job, I'm white.
no way I'm getting serious time for knocking over a pharmacy to get medicine
Originally posted by ThAnus_ofTITassnot really, this is just moral subjectivism, which is not amorality. if there are behaviors you consider right or wrong, either absolutely or depending on situational context, you still have morality. Only if you actually considered every possible behavior in any given context equally valid would you be amoral.
However being indifferent to right or wrong is Amoral, i.e. nothing is moral or immoral, merely subjective and in this case based on my subjectivism. :-) I am skeptical that morality is real and not just a meme.
what your question actually gets at is whether people would break the law or or socially stablished taboos if they wouldn't get caught. I would indeed beahve in ways I don't now because there are penal consequences if I knew I wouldnt be caught, but I would not do anything I actually consider wrong.
Originally posted by 753
would stealing drugs you need to survive and cant access any other way not constitute legal defense enough?
for the courts, probably not technically
there would be huge support from the Canadian public though
Originally posted by 753
more precisely, wouldnt the crime be considered non-existant?
it depends, some stuff here is covered, some isn't. Like, there are still some fees I have to pay for insulin/etc for my diabetes, because I don't have full coverage (medicine isn't totally covered in our health system).
The issue in this fictional case might be that the person resorted to stealing, rather than going through channels that exist to help those without money get medicine.
Originally posted by inimalisthum, I asked because our penal code has an article that excuses crimes commited in a state of necessity. When one sacrifices some juridically protected asset, such as property, to save another one of equal or greater value, such as life (oneself's or others'😉, from imminent danger, the crime is voided. there probably are similar excepetions in the canadian legal system
for the courts, probably not technically
there would be huge support from the Canadian public though
Well, if there are other ways one who can't afford could acquire the drug legally, I can see a prosecution going forward.
it depends, some stuff here is covered, some isn't. Like, there are still some fees I have to pay for insulin/etc for my diabetes, because I don't have full coverage (medicine isn't totally covered in our health system).The issue in this fictional case might be that the person resorted to stealing, rather than going through channels that exist to help those without money get medicine.
Originally posted by 753
hum, I asked because our penal code has an article that excuses crimes commited in a state of necessity. When one sacrifices some juridically protected asset, such as property, to save another one of equal or greater value, such as life (oneself's or others'😉, from imminent danger, the crime is voided. there probably are similar excepetions in the canadian legal systemWell, if there are other ways one who can't afford could acquire the drug legally, I can see a prosecution going forward.
unfortunatly, I really just don't know the law well enough
my best answer would be that, because of public opinion, the person would be likely taken care of. Any politican would jump at the chance to get that easy headline up here.