• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What would you do

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
True. Ive grown up in mess and was homeless.

Another way to put this is murder is wrong because someone elses life dies at another person hands (the act of killing is wrong) but people do it to survive-self defense, food, etc.

I just dont excuse the imorality of murder in and of itself based on whether it is used to kill or save a baby. A life was taken regardless.

That does not mean we need to treat them all the same. I would never tell someone who murdered to save her child is the same as someone who murdered for self-inflicted non necessary reasons.

The difference is, that doesnt change the nature of murder itself (or thief etc) just how we as a society judge whether what action is right or wrong.

I almost lost my home, didnt have clothes, nor food until the Church helped me out. If I were desprite, of course, food and shelter would be top than philosophizing moralityo f the issue.

My point is, regardless my actions and situation, that doesnt change the nature of the action-which I feel the action is wrong no the intent of going through with it.

I dont see stealing as right based on the situation. I see how it is justified thats moral or immoral; and, I agree with the justication not the action.

Think about it. If stealing wasnt immoral, we would do it without laws inposed on our actions. Since it is immoral by law, we judge the punishment by its intent and justification not the immoral act itself.

Although you know what it’s like to be homeless you can understand the desperation.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher


Long story short: Justification (hunger) for stealing doesnt make the act (taking something that does not belong to you) right, just the justification for it (for food).

Some things I agree with the justification like stealing for food. Others I do not, like death penalty. They are both bad actions, but I agree and understand the intent of the former outweighs the immoral action itself.

Which is important: the intent or the action. We flip flop all the time.

I don’t see why robbing a coprporation is wrong if according to my perspective I’m only creating the balance. Isn’t that what anonymous the hacker group does? Commit crimes to do a greater good? Surely none of you question their empathy by them doing harm to systems.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Although you know what it’s like to be homeless you can understand the desperation.

Yes. Of course.

My point is I agree with the justification but the action in and of itself is wrong regardless my justification.

In other words, getting food for hunger is well justified but that doesn't make it right just necessary.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I don’t see why robbing a coprporation is wrong if according to my perspective I’m only creating the balance. Isn’t that what anonymous the hacker group does? Commit crimes to do a greater good? Surely none of you question their empathy by them doing harm to systems.

Create crimes for the greater good?

That sounds borderline (US) political thinking. Got us killed and enslaved for centuries.

Youre talking about the justification. We make laws to determine whats punishable and whats not. So, we decide whats a murder and whats killing even though in both lives are taken. I never saw taking a life in a positive light; but, many people do it to survive and protect their countries.

If its good because of the reason, why build laws of punishment and reward around it?

That would be odd if someone tried to break in your home and your alarm determined the reason for the break in before it goes off.
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
I'm not a bank robber as well. I haven't hurt anyone and I continue to help people.


Yeah, but you said yourself that the reason you help people, and the reason you are not a bank robber is because you believe in a god that rewards and punishes people. I don't believe in a god that rewards and punishes people, yet I don't rob banks. Yet you said if you held my beliefs, you would rob banks, and also harm people who disrespect you. Apparently I have empathy and you don't. This is not a personal attack on you. I'm only basing this statement on what YOU said.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Actually it is. This thread is hypothetical and does not speak for me now, but it is an inference to how believers can potential check their moral positioning in the world based on following authoritative law. The entire basis of this thread is to demonstrate that righteous and wrongfulness are circumstantial and conditionally based.

I can most certainly ask why do people obey laws?

For the most part to avoid jail and infractions and of course to prevent harm towards others (but our judicial system heavily influenced the aforementioned). What keeps you from killing people, or stealing, or the like? Surely you have moral beliefs set in place to mitigate the action to harm, but most importantly there are conditions in your life that keep you from doing such acts.

So I ask why don’t you run red lights?

You don’t want to cause an accident as well as get a ticket. In most things involving criminal activity we don’t do those things because we appeal to authority. I see no different in a bank robbery scenario.

You could have saved a lot of people time if you'd expressed that in your OP.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Interesting then how do God’s view rightness and wrongness? Shiva, the destroyer doesn’t sound too nice so obviously from the perspective of an onlooker this deity is capable of obliterating things surely these things are ascribed to someone with some idea of rightness and wrongness.


Edit: Out of curiousity I did some minor research and in Hinduism there is a god called “Yama” which is a deity of justice. So it would seem this deity would have some sort of idea of justice and judgment.

The gods view right and wrong in light of dharma and adharma, which while they mean righteous and unrighteousness, respectively, they have nothing to do with the ideas of sin, forgiveness, redemption as in Abrahamic religions. The gods don’t judge a person’s actions or life. They maintain order and balance in the universe.

Yama is known a Dharmaraja, Lord of Righteousness. He is not a judge in the sense of deciding what a punishment or reward should be. Karma determines that. He issues and hands out the determinations of karma. Keep in mind these are not universal or required beliefs. Stories like this are largely compilations of stories told over the ages to teach.

Shiva isn’t a reckless wantonly unpredictably destructive god. “God of destruction” is a gross misnomer. His destruction is in no way connected with any idea of right or wrong. He is the dissolutioner of what is old, worn out and past its usefulness. I use the example of a dying star. At the end of its life it is destroyed, but in the process new elements are created and blasted out into space for new creation. That is Shiva at work. In his act of “destroying” he is creating. This is a point very often lost on people. They get stuck on the “God of destruction” label.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yeah, but you said yourself that the reason you help people, and the reason you are not a bank robber is because you believe in a god that rewards and punishes people. I don't believe in a god that rewards and punishes people, yet I don't rob banks. Yet you said if you held my beliefs, you would rob banks, and also harm people who disrespect you. Apparently I have empathy and you don't. This is not a personal attack on you. I'm only basing this statement on what YOU said.
Dang...in this thread, I feel positively virtuous.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
Yes. Of course.

My point is I agree with the justification but the action in and of itself is wrong regardless my justification.

In other words, getting food for hunger is well justified but that doesn't make it right just necessary.

I agree. Essentially robbing a bank is wrong because you're taking unearned money and of course it's a fedearl and local law (NOT to steal from a bank). Now that we at least in the act itself we are in agreement on we can bring it back to my original position which people often assumed I lacked empathy. It was assumed that I don't rob because I in obediance to divine authority, but it is my argument that moral actions are predicated upon circumstatial conditions not independent of conditions. That means I predominantly do the "right thing" based upon the following conditions:

1) Pleasure/Pain principle

2) What is least harmful

3) What is desirable

4) What is lawful

5) What increasures pleasurable responses.

6) What is taught to me as true and absolute

Based on these conditions nobody on this website acts altruistic independent of conditioning that is just a psychopathological fact of our own cognition and it would be a hard argument to argue otherwise. So no, I do not lack empathy for the sake of lacking empathy, I am exhibiting obedience and an appeal to a higher authority for the sake that it is the path whose result is least likely to be harmful to me. This is something most religonist follow. But more importantly I don't do harmful things to other people because of conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
You could have saved a lot of people time if you'd expressed that in your OP.

I shouldn't have to. I mean it is after all common sense. Why would I talk about what keeps me from doing something illegal on the internet and people actually believing that? I for certain wouldn't spend my time on religiousforums.com telling a whole bunch of strangers what I may end up doing. That isn't wise on my part not in the least bit. Not only would I be very stupid to do so, but for anyone to take what I said in the beginning serious as if I'm really of that mindset at my age, means people aren't applying that God-given ability of intellect. But it does give me the idea that from now on I'll post disclaimers for people.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
The gods view right and wrong in light of dharma and adharma, which while they mean righteous and unrighteousness, respectively, they have nothing to do with the ideas of sin, forgiveness, redemption as in Abrahamic religions. The gods don’t judge a person’s actions or life. They maintain order and balance in the universe.

Yama is known a Dharmaraja, Lord of Righteousness. He is not a judge in the sense of deciding what a punishment or reward should be. Karma determines that. He issues and hands out the determinations of karma. Keep in mind these are not universal or required beliefs. Stories like this are largely compilations of stories told over the ages to teach.

Shiva isn’t a reckless wantonly unpredictably destructive god. “God of destruction” is a gross misnomer. His destruction is in no way connected with any idea of right or wrong. He is the dissolutioner of what is old, worn out and past its usefulness. I use the example of a dying star. At the end of its life it is destroyed, but in the process new elements are created and blasted out into space for new creation. That is Shiva at work. In his act of “destroying” he is creating. This is a point very often lost on people. They get stuck on the “God of destruction” label.

But obviously in some fashion in this universe there is some idea of judgment based on one's actions developed by some cosmic mind. Whether you want to disassociate it with the Abrahamic concept, there is some cosmic understanding of right and wrong, and there is a creciprocal effect that results from either or. Someone or something had to set something in place whether they preside over us or not, something that gives us a recompense for our deeds. Whether you want to say cause and effect, divine retribution, or whatever, there is something in place provided by someone who dictates the affairs of things even indirectly.
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
I agree. Essentially robbing a bank is wrong because you're taking unearned money and of course it's a fedearl and local law (NOT to steal from a bank). Now that we at least in the act itself we are in agreement on we can bring it back to my original position which people often assumed I lacked empathy. It was assumed that I don't rob because I in obediance to divine authority, but it is my argument that moral actions are predicated upon circumstatial conditions not independent of conditions. That means I predominantly do the "right thing" based upon the following conditions:

1) Pleasure/Pain principle

2) What is least harmful

3) What is desirable

4) What is lawful

5) What increasures pleasurable responses.

6) What is taught to me as true and absolute

Based on these conditions nobody on this website acts altruistic independent of conditioning that is just a psychopathological fact of our own cognition and it would be a hard argument to argue otherwise. So no, I do not lack empathy for the sake of lacking empathy, I am exhibiting obedience and an appeal to a higher authority for the sake that it is the path whose result is least likely to be harmful to me. This is something most religonist follow. But more importantly I don't do harmful things to other people because of conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Altruism may be largely a result of social conditioning, but I don't think one can learn empathy. Let me ask you this: Do you ever feel bad for anyone who is suffering? If not, you may be a psychopath.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
I shouldn't have to. I mean it is after all common sense. Why would I talk about what keeps me from doing something illegal on the internet and people actually believing that? I for certain wouldn't spend my time on religiousforums.com telling a whole bunch of strangers what I may end up doing. That isn't wise on my part not in the least bit. Not only would I be very stupid to do so, but for anyone to take what I said in the beginning serious as if I'm really of that mindset at my age, means people aren't applying that God-given ability of intellect. But it does give me the idea that from now on I'll post disclaimers for people.

Again, you should have clarified that in your first response to me. Instead you start off trying to suggest that the horrible childhood you had somehow explains why you have no empathy, then you childishly claim that you have done more to help out society that I have in 2 lifetimes. NOW you finally tell everyone that you didn't mean that you'd REALLY rob banks and that it SOMEHOW should have been OBVIOUS... because why would you post your intent to do something illegal online... as if you told us WHICH bank you planned to rob and WHEN, or that you didn't prefaced the entire statement with IF I found out there was NO GOD.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Again, you should have clarified that in your first response to me. Instead you start off trying to suggest that the horrible childhood you had somehow explains why you have no empathy, then you childishly claim that you have done more to help out society that I have in 2 lifetimes. NOW you finally tell everyone that you didn't mean that you'd REALLY rob banks and that it SOMEHOW should have been OBVIOUS... because why would you post your intent to do something illegal online... as if you told us WHICH bank you planned to rob and WHEN, or that you didn't prefaced the entire statement with IF I found out there was NO GOD.
I sense backpedalling from the OP.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
But obviously in some fashion in this universe there is some idea of judgment based on one's actions developed by some cosmic mind.

The laws of karma. Karma is infinitely more complex than the commonly understood “paybacks are a *****”. Nor is it strictly cause and effect. Karma actually means “action”, “deed”, or “work”. No deity started karma or manages it. It simply is. Something I experience today could be the result of some action by me or someone else 1,000
lifetimes ago. What I do today might not bear fruit for 1,000 lifetimes to come.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
The laws of karma. Karma is infinitely more complex than the commonly understood “paybacks are a *****”. Nor is it strictly cause and effect. Karma actually means “action”, “deed”, or “work”. No deity started karma or manages it. It simply is. Something I experience today could be the result of some action by me or someone else 1,000
lifetimes ago. What I do today might not bear fruit for 1,000 lifetimes to come.

So do Hindus do not believe Brahman a cosmic intellect created the universe itself and created self-governing laws, actions, reactions, thereof? If your answer is yes then surely there is acosmic mind behind such concepts as karma whether they manage it or not.
 
Top