3 ms·
Murder is still wrong in all of the above. In the first case it was basically the person’s choice to get killed. > Your honor, he stole babyfood from my store!
by catzaa 17y ago
Murder is still wrong in all of the above. In the first case it was basically the person’s choice to get killed.
> Your honor, he stole babyfood from my store!
> Yes, but did he steal it to sell it or because he's too poor to afford it and needed to feed his baby ?
Having a need and stealing to fulfil it is still wrong. It does not matter what your motivation is – it is still not your property. I have respect for a person who break the law in the above case and face the law. But he should still receive his punishment.
To act as if he is not guilty is wrong – he is just as guilty of the crime as any other person who stole baby milk formula (whatever their motivation is).
A good example of moral relativism that I hate is so called “hate crimes”. Do you really care what the person’s motivation is when he murder/assaulted you?
- jacquesm 17y agoThe world isn't black & white, it's lots of shades of gray, and orthogonal to that there are lots of colours, there is not 'one truth', there are as many truths as there are observers. This isn't a mathematics problem where the outcome is '1' ('guilty') or '0' ('not guilty'), there are an infinite number of degrees in between. Let's just say that I hope you will never be put in a position where your assumptions are put to the test. For the record, (some of) my family lived through World War II in a pretty uncomfortable spot and plenty of what they did was against the law of the land at that time, but that didn't make any of it wrong.