The idea is that there's no finite good guys or bad guys, but there's a dividing line in every person that can be crossed from good to bad (or vice versa, I suppose) given the right situation/authority.

Ex. this thread: for some people that line is family in danger, for others it's a life-changing sum of money

I suppose what I'm arguing is that in a situation truly absent of consequences, that dividing line occurs at a shockingly weak level of justification.

It's not realistic.

No? How do you feel about the situation?

I feel like if the consequences were brought into the situation then people might not be as eager to get involved. It's not realistic to assume that you won't be held accountable for committing murder. That's not to say you will be caught but we are hardly experts at hiding evidence.

I do find it amusing, a little insulting that some people here seem to think it's unbelievable that anyone would NOT contemplate murder for gain. I mean, what's so hard to understand? Are you guys saying that if someone gave you a gun, brought you to a baby in its pram and said shoot this kid dead and I'll pay you fifty million that you would? Is there no line you would not cross? Have you no morals?

And if you don't, then why do you assume I don't?

You couldn't pay me enough to kill another human being.

Now, my father, that's another question: but then he's not what I'd categorise as a human being. I'd do him for half a curly-wurly and a packet of love hearts!

It's not about morality. We all know that it's morally wrong to kill someone for money. That's so obvious that it's not even worth mentioning. The question at hand is whether you think that the morality that is tested by opening the door for little old ladies or not cheating on a test is sufficient to cover this kind of situation. Obviously you have had your morality tested in ways that mine never have, but the question still remains. If you were in this position, just think of how you could help your sister. You could hire nurses. The finest medical care would be at your disposal. Not to overstep my bounds, but I'm sure that when the time came that these thoughts would go through your head and right and wrong might just become blurred.

No, but morality is a creation of evolution meant to serve a pragmatic purpose (i.e. allowing us to live in a group to better chances for survival.) It doesn't exist objectively. Just think of slavery. People thought that it was wrong even when the Spanish were considering enslaving the natives in America. They had public debates on the subject. But I'm sure it occurred to them that if they didn't exploit the New World and all that it had to offer, slaves included, that the English or the Dutch would and would come to dominate them. And so morality was altered to suit pragmatism. It wasn't until the industrial revolution and slavery became obsolete that morality was allowed to win out. Obviously for an individual morality is less fluid, since if a single human being isn't willing to die to protect their child or someone isn't willing to put themselves in danger to fight an oppressive government then morality wouldn't have enough power to protect the species as a whole, but the point remains that morality is not an absolute.

Um, no it wouldn't. If it did I'd consider robbing a bank or mugging someone or insurance fraud. Boring as it may seem, I'm from the school of thought that believe you reap what you sow, and so if I got rich by virtue of an immoral, to say nothing of illegal act, I'd never be able to enjoy it and I'd feel like I was lying to my sister, who would surely ask where all this money had come from? I'd be expecting bad things to happen, even if they didn't. Anyway, I always try to put myself in the other guy's shoes, and I would certainly not want anyone taking money to kill me, or my sister, people they don't even know. Do unto others (then split) as they say... And no, I'm not in the least religious. I just think you should treat people as you would like to be treated.

Smaller, less momentous dilemma: you find a wallet/purse in the street. There are identification details in it and rather a lot of money. Do you hand it in or do you keep it? Or, third choice, do you try to contact the person directly? And if the third choice, do you do so a) because you don't trust the cops or b) you hope to get a reward?

It IS all about morality. The figure you're offered can be large as you want, or even something totally out there, like say Satan appeared and offered me the chance to have my sister cured completely, if I kill one person. Who am I to put that sort of moral responsibility on her, and how would she react if she knew how her newly repaired health had been boughtt?

You need to know there's a line, and you don't step over it no matter what. Murder is where I draw the line. Well, further back really: I wouldn't even injure someone or rob from them. I'm pretty law-abiding really.

This exact scenario happened last month to me. The lady was traveling from Nevada. I got her info off the web and called her. She was a few blocks away desperately looking for her wallet. I had to pay 11 dollars to get her info to contact her. She offered a reward but I just asked for my 11 dollars back as it was only fair. I've even found peoples pets off of posted signs. They are always so relieved and always offer a reward. I don't feel its right to charge people for doing the right thing in any instance. And I don't really care if people find it pretentious, I won't change to meet other peoples standards.