04 Oct 13
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadOn the whole, there don't seem to be a great many consequences. Authorised punitive consequences, that is. The manifest lack of interest on the part of law enforcement to deal with rape, among other serious crimes, has in turn fuelled the rise of vigilante justice, often doled out in the form of 'necklacing'. Here's a recent example: http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/another-necklacing-in-khayelitsha-1.1480744
I must also note that here in South Africa, rape is very common and would probably be a lot more common if there were fewer consequences.
Here's another one: http://enca.com/south-africa/vigilante-mob-necklace-suspected-criminal
Apparently, a lot of necklacings don't get reported.
04 Oct 13
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSo, to contradict myself, whatever their moral condition, people in South Africa are continuing to misbehave, despite the potentially very severe consequences for relatively minor misdemeanours, such as cell phone theft.
On the whole, there don't seem to be a great many consequences.
09 Oct 13
Originally posted by Great King Rat...I mean, if you find a bag with $42000 you don't keep it, do you? Or am I that naive??[/b]If I find a bag at work, wallet or purse kind of thing for example, it gets turned in. I have no idea how many dollars are in it.
Bags lost on the street are fair game. I'll drop your id etc in a mailbox, though.
09 Oct 13
Originally posted by apathistIs this because you respect the property of people you know more than that of strangers? And is it general respect for them, or because you fear consequences?
If I find a bag at work, wallet or purse kind of thing for example, it gets turned in. I have no idea how many dollars are in it.
Bags lost on the street are fair game. I'll drop your id etc in a mailbox, though.
09 Oct 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadExcept for I don't think I would steal something, but I am not sure if this is because I think there is a remote possibility of being caught." it would appear that not only are your morals still intact, you seem to be relying more on them when you take away the law variable. Which seems opposite from your OP. So be happy, you're a moral person.
Yes, I meant physically harming someone.
[b]Because I don't think it's actually possible to rob a bank without harming anyone.
True, but I am OK with some sorts of harm to some people.
If you see a wallet lying on the street with money in it, do you take it to the police or do you keep it?
Doesn't happen very often so I can't be ...[text shortened]... y were made available at a reasonable price and reasonable format instead of the current system.[/b]
09 Oct 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, it is because I agreed to be responsible for the job when I took it.
Is this because you respect the property of people you know more than that of strangers? And is it general respect for them, or because you fear consequences?
The reason you suggested, I do respect the property of people I care about more than that of strangers, but that doesn't mean I don't respect the properties of strangers. I plan to return the driver's license, right. But if you can't take proper care of a bag of money, then clearly the money is better off without you.
09 Oct 13
Originally posted by apathistHow very weird. And how very immoral.
If I find a bag at work, wallet or purse kind of thing for example, it gets turned in. I have no idea how many dollars are in it.
Bags lost on the street are fair game. I'll drop your id etc in a mailbox, though.
Would it make a difference if you knew the 150 dollars in the purse would be of a 89 year old lady, who had lost her wallet while falling and subsequently broke her hip meaning she had to wait in the pouring rain for the ambulance to arrive, all the while not realising her wallet was lying 6 feet away from her. She had wanted to use the money to buy some presents for her three grandchildren, one of whom has leukaemia...?
09 Oct 13
Originally posted by apathistYou notice someone has left their house while not locking it. Do you consider it ok to take away their stuff because it's better of without them because they can't take proper care of it?
No, it is because I agreed to be responsible for the job when I took it.
The reason you suggested, I do respect the property of people I care about more than that of strangers, but that doesn't mean I don't respect the properties of strangers. I plan to return the driver's license, right. But if you can't take proper care of a bag of money, then clearly the money is better off without you.
10 Oct 13
Originally posted by Great King RatMy OP is because I was actually surprised when someone stated that he would throw away all morals and go around raping girls if there were no legal consequences (he didn't seem to consider the harm the girls would suffer).
it would appear that not only are your morals still intact, you seem to be relying [b]more on them when you take away the law variable. Which seems opposite from your OP. So be happy, you're a moral person.[/b]
So I am exploring whether there are people who really act that way, whether there are people who think they would act that way, and to what extent my own morals are a result of my fear of consequences and to what extent they are a result of my empathy.
One question I am often asked when I tell people I am atheist is: "What stops you from going around murdering people?"
12 Oct 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot to mention that many of the atheists here were raised by religious parents, which could also be a mitigating factor in their morality set once they became adults.
I don't think it matters whether he was trolling, joking, exaggerating, talking without thinking, or telling the truth. I still think its interesting to ask what people would do without consequences. How much of our behaviour is governed by our morality and how much by consequences.
I have always felt that theists tend to feel that morality is governed b ...[text shortened]... a, rape is very common and would probably be a lot more common if there were fewer consequences.
I mean if you're raised that something is wrong, you usually continue to believe it's wrong, even though your reasons may have since changed.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Oct 13
Originally posted by SuzianneA "mitigating factor"?
Not to mention that many of the atheists here were raised by religious parents, which could also be a mitigating factor in their morality set once they became adults.
I mean if you're raised that something is wrong, you usually continue to believe it's wrong, even though your reasons may have since changed.
You are strongly implying that [in general] religious parents have better morals than non-theistic ones.
That is both incorrect and deeply offensive and insulting.
Many [a majority?] atheists in the states probably do have religious parents...
In the UK the situation is mostly reversed...
Want to compare our crime rates with yours?
16 Oct 13
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeViolent crime worse in Britain than in US
A "mitigating factor"?
You are strongly implying that [in general] religious parents have better morals than non-theistic ones.
That is both incorrect and deeply offensive and insulting.
Many [a majority?] atheists in the states probably do have religious parents...
In the UK the situation is mostly reversed...
Want to compare our crime rates with yours?
by MICHAEL CLARKE, Daily Mail
Created: 23 February 2001 | Updated: 23 Feb 2001
Britain has a higher crime rate than any other rich nation except Australia, according to a survey yesterday.
The chances of having your car stolen are greater in England and Wales than anywhere else in the developed world, it said.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html
The Telegraph Wednesday 16 October 2013
The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America, according to new research.
By Richard Edwards, Crime Correspondent
7:00AM BST 02 Jul 2009
Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power.
The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
The Instructor
16 Oct 13
Originally posted by RJHindshttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/24/blog-posting/social-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/
Violent crime worse in Britain than in US
The Instructor
quote
The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by an arm of the United Nations most recently in 2005, shows the difference between reported crime and all crimes committed by conducting polls that ask people if they've been victims of specific crimes. Polling data showed that England and Wales had 2,600 cases of robbery per 100,000 population and 8,100 cases of "assaults and threats" per 100,000. While those figures are even higher than the meme suggested, the U.S levels are also much higher -- 1,100 cases of robbery and 8,300 cases of assaults and threats per 100,000. And the rate of sexual assault is actually about 50 percent higher in the United States than it is in England and Wales. So this data set doesn’t support the thrust of the meme, either.
16 Oct 13
Originally posted by Great King RatWait a minute. Did I get to know those omniscient details when I found the money? In that case I'd go comfort and shelter her while administering first aid and phoning the professionals. And then go pay my rent.
How very weird. And how very immoral.
Would it make a difference if you knew the 150 dollars in the purse would be of a 89 year old lady, who had lost her wallet while falling and subsequently broke her hip meaning she had to wait in the pouring rain for the ambulance to arrive, all the while not realising her wallet was lying 6 feet away from her. ...[text shortened]... to use the money to buy some presents for her three grandchildren, one of whom has leukaemia...?
Or do you mean her story had already been processed before I found the money? In that case I'd go pay my rent.
I agree that morality is not an unweird nor a simplistic concept.