Moral Dilemma

2011-01-21 09:59:52

#1

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6404|North Tonawanda, NY

I found this moral dilemma and I was curious about other people's thoughts on this...

Two young men, brothers, had got into serious trouble. They were secretly leaving town in a hurry and needed money. Karl, the older one, broke into a store and stole a thousand dollars. Bob, the younger one, went to a retired old man who was known to help people in town. He told the man that he was very sick and that he needed a thousand dollars to pay for an operation. Bob asked the old man to lend him the money and promised that he would pay him back when he recovered. Really Bob wasn't sick at all, and he had no intention of paying the man back. Although the old man didn't know Bob very well, he lent him the money. So Bob and Karl skipped town, each with a thousand dollars.

Which act was worse? why?

Was the old man irresponsible in lending to Bob? why?

I will give my take on this after a few replies.

2011-01-21 10:02:26

#2

Sturgeon: Member; +488|5215|Flintshire

Chances are the shopowner was more financially well off than the old man and would have insurance etc.

Bob committed the worse act imo.

https://bf3s.com/sigs/3dda27c6d0d9b22836605b152b9d214b99507f91.png

2011-01-21 10:15:40

#3

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5976|College Park, MD

I think Bob is the worse guy. He took advantage of a man's known generosity for his own personal gain and lied in order to have that happen.

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2011-01-21 10:42:02

#4

Morpheus: This shit still going?; +508|6273|The Mitten

They're both stealing, really.... it's just that bob's act is more 'personal'

EE (hats

2011-01-21 10:49:47

#5

naightknifar: Served and Out; +642|6835|Southampton, UK

IMO they're 2 grand up. Good effort by all.

2011-01-21 10:54:42

#6

Pochsy: Artifice of Eternity; +702|5817|Toronto

I'll say Karl committed the worse of the two acts. Karl had no intention of returning the money, whilst Bob did.

The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families

2011-01-21 10:57:24

#7

Morpheus: This shit still going?; +508|6273|The Mitten

Pochsy wrote:
I'll say Karl committed the worse of the two acts. Karl had no intention of returning the money, whilst Bob did.

Erm.....

Really Bob wasn't sick at all, and he had no intention of paying the man back.

EE (hats

2011-01-21 11:03:06

#8

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6404|North Tonawanda, NY

Sturgeon wrote:
Chances are the shopowner was more financially well off than the old man and would have insurance etc.

Bob committed the worse act imo.

Does the idea of stealing from a wealthy person somehow make the crime 'less' bad?

2011-01-21 11:08:33

#9

Morpheus: This shit still going?; +508|6273|The Mitten

SenorToenails wrote:
Sturgeon wrote:
Chances are the shopowner was more financially well off than the old man and would have insurance etc.

Bob committed the worse act imo.
Does the idea of stealing from a wealthy person somehow make the crime 'less' bad?

Of course it does ! The filthy rich bastards probably Voted for Bush and his War On Oil !
/sarcasm

EE (hats

2011-01-21 11:13:40

#10

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6404|North Tonawanda, NY

Morpheus wrote:
SenorToenails wrote:
Sturgeon wrote:
Chances are the shopowner was more financially well off than the old man and would have insurance etc.

Bob committed the worse act imo.
Does the idea of stealing from a wealthy person somehow make the crime 'less' bad?
Of course it does ! The filthy rich bastards probably Voted for Bush and his War On Oil !
/sarcasm

This is why we can't have nice things! :p (I see that sarcasm tag, lol)

2011-01-21 11:19:40

#11

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5632|London, England

Equally wrong.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-01-21 11:40:14

#12

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6679|North Carolina

SenorToenails wrote:
Sturgeon wrote:
Chances are the shopowner was more financially well off than the old man and would have insurance etc.

Bob committed the worse act imo.
Does the idea of stealing from a wealthy person somehow make the crime 'less' bad?

The law sees Karl's act as worse. Breaking and entering in addition to stealing would get Karl a greater punishment than what Bob did.

As far as worse when it comes to actual repercussions, Bob's act was worse for the reasons listed above. Bob's act is also worse in a personal sense because of his violation of trust.

Stealing from a poor person is not morally worse on a surface level than stealing from a rich person, but the repercussions of stealing from a rich person are usually less harmful than stealing from a poor person.

So, depending on what you base your morals on, either act can be seen as worse, or both can even be viewed as equally bad.

2011-01-21 11:44:06

#13

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6404|North Tonawanda, NY

Turquoise wrote:
SenorToenails wrote:
Sturgeon wrote:
Chances are the shopowner was more financially well off than the old man and would have insurance etc.

Bob committed the worse act imo.
Does the idea of stealing from a wealthy person somehow make the crime 'less' bad?
The law sees Karl's act as worse. Breaking and entering in addition to stealing would get Karl a greater punishment than what Bob did.

As far as worse when it comes to actual repercussions, Bob's act was worse for the reasons listed above. Bob's act is also worse in a personal sense because of his violation of trust.

Stealing from a poor person is not morally worse on a surface level than stealing from a rich person, but the repercussions of stealing from a rich person are usually less harmful than stealing from a poor person.

So, depending on what you base your morals on, either act can be seen as worse, or both can even be viewed as equally bad.

For the love of god man, take a stand! Which do you think is worse, based on your morals?

2011-01-21 11:44:31

#14

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6679|North Carolina

I agree with Sturgeon.

2011-01-21 11:47:38

#15

13rin: Member; +977|6753

JohnG@lt wrote:
Equally wrong.

*or if you examine it from the shop keepers perspective...

He now raises the prices in his store more to compensate for the lost income. Now EVERYONE who shops there pays more. As to where the scenario only one guy get's screwed.

They're both assholes. I hope the law catches them and they resist with golf clubs, giving the cops a great reason to kill them both.

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2011-01-21 11:50:28)

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2011-01-21 11:50:36

#16

Kimmmmmmmmmmmm: ©; +1,811|6271

Sturgeon wrote:
Chances are the shopowner was more financially well off than the old man and would have insurance etc.

Bob committed the worse act imo.

2011-01-21 11:53:15

#17

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6679|North Carolina

DBBrinson1 wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Equally wrong.
*or if you examine it from the shop keepers perspective...

He now raises the prices in his store more to compensate for the lost income. Now EVERYONE who shops there pays more. As to where the scenario only one guy get's screwed.

They're both assholes. I hope the law catches them and they resist with golf clubs, giving the cops a great reason to kill them both.

If Sturgeon's assumptions are correct, then insurance will cover the losses -- making raises in prices unnecessary.

2011-01-21 11:54:37

#18

Sturgeon: Member; +488|5215|Flintshire

SenorToenails wrote:
Sturgeon wrote:
Chances are the shopowner was more financially well off than the old man and would have insurance etc.

Bob committed the worse act imo.
Does the idea of stealing from a wealthy person somehow make the crime 'less' bad?

In terms of 'damage' caused yes. Stealing $1000 from a retired oap struggling to pay bills/feed himself would cause a lot more damage than stealing $1000 from someone who lives comfortably.

Both are wrong, if I had to do one or the other I'd steal from the shop.

2011-01-21 11:58:16

#19

13rin: Member; +977|6753

Turquoise wrote:
DBBrinson1 wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Equally wrong.
*or if you examine it from the shop keepers perspective...

He now raises the prices in his store more to compensate for the lost income. Now EVERYONE who shops there pays more. As to where the scenario only one guy get's screwed.

They're both assholes. I hope the law catches them and they resist with golf clubs, giving the cops a great reason to kill them both.
If Sturgeon's assumptions are correct, then insurance will cover the losses -- making raises in prices unnecessary.

Yea.. Well... no.

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2011-01-21 11:58:56

#20

depends on what was a thousand dollars in the shop. was it goods or ca$h

2011-01-21 12:00:58

#21

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6679|North Carolina

DBBrinson1 wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
DBBrinson1 wrote:

*or if you examine it from the shop keepers perspective...

He now raises the prices in his store more to compensate for the lost income. Now EVERYONE who shops there pays more. As to where the scenario only one guy get's screwed.

They're both assholes. I hope the law catches them and they resist with golf clubs, giving the cops a great reason to kill them both.
If Sturgeon's assumptions are correct, then insurance will cover the losses -- making raises in prices unnecessary.
Yea.. Well... no.

I'm just saying... Insurance nullifies the damage to a business in a situation like this if the policy is comprehensive and if the deductible is reasonable.

Businesses are generally better protected than individuals when it comes to robbery, unless the person running the business didn't properly purchase insurance.

2011-01-21 12:01:11

#22

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6404|North Tonawanda, NY

Sturgeon wrote:
SenorToenails wrote:
Sturgeon wrote:
Chances are the shopowner was more financially well off than the old man and would have insurance etc.

Bob committed the worse act imo.
Does the idea of stealing from a wealthy person somehow make the crime 'less' bad?
In terms of 'damage' caused yes. Stealing $1000 from a retired oap struggling to pay bills/feed himself would cause a lot more damage than stealing $1000 from someone who lives comfortably.

Both are wrong, if I had to do one or the other I'd steal from the shop.

But why make that assumption? Nothing in the scenario leads to any presumption of wealth for either person.

2011-01-21 12:02:41

#23

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6679|North Carolina

Kimmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
depends on what was a thousand dollars in the shop. was it goods or ca$h

Making the difference by writing off an extra thousand on property damage would cover the cash easily enough. People do that all the time.

2011-01-21 12:17:21

#24

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6404|North Tonawanda, NY

Turquoise wrote:
Kimmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
depends on what was a thousand dollars in the shop. was it goods or ca$h
Making the difference by writing off an extra thousand on property damage would cover the cash easily enough. People do that all the time.

What do you mean by 'writing an extra thousand on property damage'?

2011-01-21 12:35:03

#25

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6925|USA

SenorToenails wrote:
I found this moral dilemma and I was curious about other people's thoughts on this...

Two young men, brothers, had got into serious trouble. They were secretly leaving town in a hurry and needed money. Karl, the older one, broke into a store and stole a thousand dollars. Bob, the younger one, went to a retired old man who was known to help people in town. He told the man that he was very sick and that he needed a thousand dollars to pay for an operation. Bob asked the old man to lend him the money and promised that he would pay him back when he recovered. Really Bob wasn't sick at all, and he had no intention of paying the man back. Although the old man didn't know Bob very well, he lent him the money. So Bob and Karl skipped town, each with a thousand dollars.
Which act was worse? why?

Was the old man irresponsible in lending to Bob? why?

I will give my take on this after a few replies.

I am assuming the store had no people in it, so I will say Bob is the worst.

My reasoning is they both stole money however, Bob is worse because, his crime was also personal, he deceived an old man face to face for the money, so he has no conscience. Bob is also a liar. Bob is a con artist, he feeds off of other peoples good nature and takes advantage of them. Bob is also more dangerous because he has direct contact with his victims

Karls crime as shitty as it was, was not personal. He is still a low life, but Bob is a little bit lower.

Last edited by lowing (2011-01-21 12:36:47)

BF2S Forums Moral Dilemma

Pochsy wrote:

Sturgeon wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Sturgeon wrote:

Morpheus wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Sturgeon wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Sturgeon wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Sturgeon wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Sturgeon wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Sturgeon wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Sturgeon wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Sturgeon wrote:

Kimmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kimmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Board footer