Subjective Justification; A Scruples Game
 

This game could be really fun, or really disastrous, depending on how mature you are. We'll see how it goes.

Quandary gets posted. Person after explains rationally, without bringing up morality, why it's right or wrong. In other words, the explanation can't just be 'it's the right thing to do' or 'that's just plain sick'. That's copping out of critical thinking, which is the whole point of this game.

Then post your own scruples scenario/question and the cycle goes on!

Some quick ground rules to keep this running smoothly, try to follow them:

1. Take your arguments elsewhere, don't muddy up a fun thread because you disagree with something someone said. Make your own not fun thread or message them personally, drama queens.
2. Brevity, dudes. A wise man says much but talks little, don't write a ****in essay.
3. Chitchat at a minimum overall. By all means have some friendly commentary on the prior poster's justification, but keep in mind that the MAIN POINT of YOUR POST is to explain your own rationality on your given quandary.


I'll start us off with something light:

Is it okay to take somebody's belongings if they owe you money and haven't paid in a timely fashion?

I'm going to say no on the grounds that it's going to create further bad blood between two people; cut your losses and run when you loan money to friends, and don't be surprised when they don't, or can't pay up. That's been a very valuable life lesson to me that has saved a few of my friendships. I just don't loan money anymore.

Anyways, the further fighting it would cause is probably not worth the argument, unless the sum is substantial, in which case there are other channels to reclaim what's yours.

Is it wrong for a guy to have sex with a raw chicken, clean it out, cook off any bacteria, and then eat it?*

* Real question from a real psychology study of morality; fun!

EDIT: Also, best of luck keeping this threat squabble-free. Lol.

I don't understand how all arguments won't ultimately boil down to an axiom of moral philosophy.

Nah. The question is obviously a loaded one meant to make you separate your personal tastes from whatever passes for objective morality. No harm, no fowl.

If you consider illegal music downloading to be stealing, does that mean that someone who does it is as reprehensible as someone who steals a CD from a store?

*foul ....,

Some people just don't know funny.

Even though I no longer approve of illegal music downloading in my old age, I'd have to say that it is not as bad as taking a direct physical item from a store. Artists are aware that digital copies of their music are made over and over again, it's old news and the smart ones take it into consideration when marketing or figuring out finances.

On the other hand, a physical copy of that music is a bit more sacred, something that helps to balance any losses from downloads. And something for the consumer to show off. I'm more likely to high five someone who owns a cd collection than someone who owns an mp3 collection. You get a fuller package when you have a physical representation of the sound, getting the tracklist and insets, etc. It's similar to printing a picture off the internet and putting it in a frame, versus purchasing an original canvas. Leave the canvases for those who deserve them.

If given the choice between a charming, smart child's life, or the life of two philanthropists' who have done a great deal of good in the world, which would you save?

I would pick the child because the philanthropists have already done such a great deal of good, the child has more potential to do so and hasn't yet had the chance to do any good (or evil, the smart ones can go either way). There is the chance that the child could turn out to be a little prick and it would end up being a bad decision, but the philanthropists have already potentially done so much and took up more of what life had to offer while the child has had a very limited scope of life thus far.

...And your question?

Exactly; it was a study to see if people can differentiate between something that's morally reprehensible, and something that's just gross. A similar question asked if it was wrong of a brother and sister to have had sex if they were well protected and both felt that the experience had strengthened their relationship.

As for the chicken thing, I think it's only wrong if he serves it to anyone else, because it then poses the potential to cause them psychological harm if they were to ever find out.

Mt justification for pirating beng distinct from stealing is that I'm poor and they wouldn't have gotten my busness anyway, so there was no loss of value.

I just think that clicking a link doesn't have the same moral stigma that physical theft does, and while the principal may be the same one's personal perception of the crime is different, which means that for someone to engage in physical theft requires a greater moral lapse.

Oops.

A man has been apprehended for attempting to bomb a public building, but he claims that there are more bombs in the city that he set up. However, that's all the information he is willing to give. A police officer suggests using torture tactics to save lives if there are more bombs out there. Is this acceptable?

My feelings on torture are kind of convoluted. On the one hand, allowing the use of torture would subvert and run against the current trend of human morality. As much as the information might be valuable the possible harm to the fabric of society's morals might be too great.

On the other, depending on the severity of the threat it might be impossible to simply do nothing regardless.

I think a reasonable, if unpleasant, compromise might be what I imagine occasionally goes on already in extreme situations: torture in secret when absolutely necessary and then throw the perpetrators to the wolves if it ever comes to light. You get the information you need and people get to maintain the illusion of moral superiority.

Agreed.
And YOUR question?

I wasn't answering anything, just commenting on my previous one.