Bank Error In My Favor

[mtdesmoines 3]

Let's suppose this happened to you. Would you take the money and start a new life for 6 million dollars? Assume that you are able to withdraw the money and leave the country without getting caught. I don't know, but it seems reasonably possible to get a fake identity and launder the money. As for the moral issue, I think it is fairly gray. You aren't stealing from an individual. Society unfairly rewards people all the time. Why shouldn't you be one of those people? Is there any moral difference between a genetic lottery supported through unjust governments and a bank error lottery?

institutions are theoretically just groups of people, so you are stealing from people. However ... after TARP, I'd say all bets are off

[mtdesmoines 3]

Someone needs to install me on the top right corner. Kthnx

[SBriand 4]

LOLIf murdering someone is morally acceptable to you then you should seriously consider moving to another country.

This post is embarrassing.

[Dawson Leery 12]

Oh I steal things all the time, that's just something I do. I stopped caring a long time ago.

[SilentSnow 1]

1.Why would it be less damaging to steal from more people? Having more victims does not make a crime better. This is very weak. 2.I don't even know what two acts we are comparing. You've vaguely referred to some general crime committed by the banks, but I don't know what you're talking about. 3.Stealing is taking something from someone against their will. Inheritance does not qualify. ( Are you seriously a communist? )4.And if you force people to do that, that isn't stealing? You seem to be working from the idea that it is morally wrong for one person to have more than another. I don't think anyone is going to share that assumption with you. 5.See, I thought you were making some moral/ethical argument, but you're really just pushing some political ideology? I didn't initially realize what you were up to since I don't usually read your posts. A system where equal wealth distribution is forced does not maximize human well-being. It is therefore immoral to implement such a system. 6.Yeah, let's be real careful that no one ends up taller than anyone else or with better musical talent or sharper vision. NOT FAIR!7.It doesn't sound weird, it just sounds stupid. 8.It's illegal to take the bank's property. The law says that if I give you something that's mine -- by accident -- you should give it back, because accidents don't transfer ownership. Now surely some laws are unjust and not worth following because some ethical principle supersedes them. Is this an unjust law worth breaking on ethical grounds? Seems to me like a pretty reasonable law. 9.If we are to follow your "reasoning", then since life is unfair and wealth is not evenly distributed, we should all just take whatever we want, whenever we want to. Is that what you do?

1.Some crimes are worse than others. This is not arguable so let's move on. 2.We are comparing the act of society arbritrarily giving some people large amounts of money through inheritance laws and banks(de facto society) arbitrarily giving someone a large amount of money. 3.But you are taking the money from poor people against their will. I don't exactly fit any political label. I would think the idea that you should have to earn your money is pretty libertarian. 4. Making people return unearned money is not stealing. I am fine with one person having more than another as long as they earn it. I think quite a few people would share this assumption, maybe even the majority. 5.Politics is applied morality. They can't be separated. I think it does. And you are not equalizing wealth distribution but equalizing opportunity by elimination of unearned wealth. 6.We are obviously talking about equality of economic opportunity, not equality of outcome. 7. I think "All men are created equal" sounds better than "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others", but that's just me. 8.You are misinterpreting me again. I've made it pretty clear that I think stealing from the bank is wrong. I am glad you agree with me on this. "accidents don't transfer ownership"- I couldn't agree more. Now the question is why you won't apply this same logic to the way society distributes wealth?9.No, that isn't what I am saying. If a society does not defend economic justice then it can't uphold stealing as a moral principle. A poor person in that society does not have the moral right to take from individuals, but they do have the right to try to reclaim what was taken from them at birth. They would not have the moral right to take the 6 million dollars, but this act wouldn't be any worse than what our society already condones.

[vbnautilus 48]

Someone needs to install me on the top right corner. Kthnx

You're actually on there, but I couldn't get you in range for the screenshot.

[digitalmonkey 929]

So let me get this straight. You are entering a discussion about whether stealing from a bank is ethical with the following beliefs: 1- there is no objective answer to the question. everyone has their own opinions that are all equally valid. 2- you do not consider yourself a moral personI think you've disqualified yourself from having anything to say about this. I don't really expect you to make very much sense given how you've proceeded here, but if you're going to accuse me of a "lie" or an "inaccuracy" you're going to have to tell me what you think they are and why. This is the third time you've hurled a vague accusation like that without any substantiation. I'm arguing with you in good faith and have not demonstrated any attempt to deceive or mislead here, or in any other argument I've ever had on this board.

You said, "You seem to be claiming that if someone steals in order to use the money for medical bills that is A-OK."I didn't say this at all. Lie or inaccuracy?You said, "You'll steal, as long as it's not from the cute girl in front of you. Please give us more of your moral wisdom."I didn't make any claims as to the wisdom of my morals. Nor did I mention anything about the attractiveness of the cashier. Lie or inaccuracy?I can only assume these are things you do because you think they will accumulate over the course of a discussion and make you appear more right.I do consider myself a moral person. Whether you do or not means nothing to me. So you'd notify the cashier of her mistake and pay for the glasses...good for you. I hope you feel good about yourself. It means nothing to me. I'm going to buy some beer with the money I saved on the glasses and **** my girlfriend hard tonight while I call her Emily....Emily was the name of the cashier. You are arguing that something is immoral because it goes against your morals. That does not necessarily make it immoral to me or SS. You should hang out more in the Religion forum.

[digitalmonkey 929]

This post is embarrassing.

I'd love to hear why you think so.It was a ridiculous post in response to his ridiculous analogy.I thought my LOL would be a clue.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

Look, if I were joking I would've said, "what do you do with an elephant with three balls? You walk him and pitch to the rhino."

[mtdesmoines 3]

You're actually on there, but I couldn't get you in range for the screenshot.

Sounds like someone needs a bigger screen.

[brvheart 1,752]

Look, if I were joking I would've said, "what do you do with an elephant with three balls? You walk him and pitch to the rhino."

Hot Shots? You're old.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

Hot Shots? You're old.

You know the best way to shatter a backboard?Tell it it's adopted.

[brvheart 1,752]

haha.

[vbnautilus 48]

2.We are comparing the act of society arbritrarily giving some people large amounts of money through inheritance laws and banks(de facto society) arbitrarily giving someone a large amount of money.

Parents gifting money to their children does not equate to "society" arbitrarily giving money to random people.

3.But you are taking the money from poor people against their will.

No, your parents earned that money and then gave it to you. Maybe this makes sense if your parent's wealth was obtained illegally.

I don't exactly fit any political label. I would think the idea that you should have to earn your money is pretty libertarian.

I would think that forcing equal distribution of wealth is not particularly libertarian.

4. Making people return unearned money is not stealing. I am fine with one person having more than another as long as they earn it. I think quite a few people would share this assumption, maybe even the majority.

Besides there being no rationale for this position, it completely ignores the practice of gifting. You are saying that whenever someone gives me something I am stealing it, because I didn't earn it. Also "earn" is rather vague and doesn't really have much meaning or value. I can "earn" a tomato by planting a seed and watering it. Or I can "earn" a dollar by tricking people into making bids on my website. Or I can "earn" money by ingratiating myself to someone who is rich and decides to gift it to me. There's no real moral category here.

5.Politics is applied morality. They can't be separated. I think it does. And you are not equalizing wealth distribution but equalizing opportunity by elimination of unearned wealth.

You have to provide a rationale for why having something without earning it is bad, otherwise having a talent that you didn't earn seems just as bad.

6.You either have really poor reading comprehension or are deliberately trying to misinterpret what I am saying. We are obviously talking about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

No we clearly are not talking about equality of opportunity, since you are claiming to be against "unearned" wealth. A child born into a rich family has "unearned" wealth from the get-go before his parents die and leave an inheritance.

7. I think "All men are created equal" sounds better than "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others", but that's just me.

You're making the mistake of confusing equality with equal rights under the law. People are not created identically; we don't start out with the same qualities or advantages, physical or financial. But ideally the law does not distinguish among us based on this, and that's what is important. I can't murder someone simply because I'm rich. We actually are stronger in America because of our diversity rather than because of our sameness.

8.You are misinterpreting me again. I've made it pretty clear that I think stealing from the bank is wrong. I am glad you agree with me on this.

You said that under our current system there is no good reason not to steal from the bank.

"accidents don't transfer ownership"- I couldn't agree more. Now the question is why you won't apply this same logic to the way society distributes wealth?

Because my parents or my rich friend gifting me money does not qualify as an accident. Why do you think it does?

9.No, that isn't what I am saying. If a society does not defend economic justice then it can't uphold stealing as a moral principle. A poor person in that society does not have the moral right to take from individuals, but they do have the right to try to reclaim what was taken from them at birth. They would not have the moral right to take the 6 million dollars, but this act wouldn't be any worse than what our society already condones.

What was taken from them at birth? They didn't have anything at birth, how could something have been taken from them? What exactly are you proposing? Seriously, what sort of system do you think gives people equal financial status at birth?

[vbnautilus 48]

You said, "You seem to be claiming that if someone steals in order to use the money for medical bills that is A-OK."I didn't say this at all. Lie or inaccuracy?

I specifically said that you seemed to be saying that. I don't see how that could be either a lie or an in inaccuracy. But why would you include the fact that he was stealing to pay his medical bills in that scenario if you did not think it was relevant to the moral status of his action? You don't see why a reader would think you included it because you thought it was relevant?

You said, "You'll steal, as long as it's not from the cute girl in front of you. Please give us more of your moral wisdom."I didn't make any claims as to the wisdom of my morals. Nor did I mention anything about the attractiveness of the cashier. Lie or inaccuracy?

It's an accurate summary of your position. You're being disingenuous here. It's implicit (possibly explicit) in your sunglasses story that you think what you did was ok. Furthermore, later in this very post you say that you do consider yourself a moral person.

I can only assume these are things you do because you think they will accumulate over the course of a discussion and make you appear more right.

I admit to pointing out your errors because they make me appear more right.

I do consider myself a moral person. Whether you do or not means nothing to me. So you'd notify the cashier of her mistake and pay for the glasses...good for you. I hope you feel good about yourself. It means nothing to me. I'm going to buy some beer with the money I saved on the glasses and **** my girlfriend hard tonight while I call her Emily....Emily was the name of the cashier. You are arguing that something is immoral because it goes against your morals. That does not necessarily make it immoral to me or SS. You should hang out more in the Religion forum.

I spend plenty of time in the religion forum, you are welcome to join me there. As for the rest of this, see below.

I'd love to hear why you think so.It was a ridiculous post in response to his ridiculous analogy.I thought my LOL would be a clue.

I'll tell you why it was an embarrassing post for you. Let's take a look at what happened: 1 - you took a position of moral relativism (my OK is not your OK). 2 - I discredited this position using a reductio ad absurdum. The argument was: if we accept moral relativism, then we have no basis for saying that anything is morally wrong, since "my OK" could very well include some things that are reprehensible that you clearly wouldn't want to accept, like murder. I specifically used murder as an extreme (absurd) example of something a moral relativist is forced by his position to accept, thus invalidating the position of moral relativism. 3- You missed the structure of the argument, despite the fact that I had just explicitly described this kind of argument to you in post #57 complete with a link to the wikipedia page explaining how it works. I had to do this in post #57 because you were unable to follow the argument the first time I used it. When you said "If murdering someone is morally acceptable to you then you should seriously consider moving to another country." you were not only revealing your misunderstanding my argument but also reinforcing my conclusion: to accept murder is absurd. However, as a professed moral relativist you would have to accept murder. After all, it's ok in my morals.

[El Guapo 8]

SS how can you possibly believe that inheritance is 'society' 'arbitrarily' giving someone money?You have to have a seriously distorted view of things to actually think this way.

[hblask 1]

You have to have a seriously distorted view of things to actually think this way.

Hi, you must be new here.... nice to meet you.

[vbnautilus 48]

Hi, you must be new here.... nice to meet you.

I thought you and SS agreed for the most part. After all, he's a libertarian.

[digitalmonkey 929]

I specifically said that you seemed to be saying that. I don't see how that could be either a lie or an in inaccuracy. But why would you include the fact that he was stealing to pay his medical bills in that scenario if you did not think it was relevant to the moral status of his action? You don't see why a reader would think you included it because you thought it was relevant?

I included the fact that one person was using the money to pay medical bills while one was using the money to run off with guidos because you were saying that stealing is stealing and when SS disputed this you called his argument weak. I wasn't saying that either was a-ok.

It's an accurate summary of your position. You're being disingenuous here. It's implicit (possibly explicit) in your sunglasses story that you think what you did was ok. Furthermore, later in this very post you say that you do consider yourself a moral person.

How is it accurate? I never once referred to the attractiveness of the cashier nor did I claim my moral standards were wise or correct or better than anyone else. They are the morals by which I live. Some choose to live by the morals of a religion that turns a blind eye to the homosexual child molestation of young boys. I choose to turn a blind eye toward consumer items accidentally missed by cashiers when I'm making a purchase. I do consider myself to be a moral person. You can argue that by your standards I am immoral, but you cannot argue that I am incorrect in believing I am moral.

I admit to pointing out your errors because they make me appear more right.

See above.

I spend plenty of time in the religion forum, you are welcome to join me there. As for the rest of this, see below.

I do stop in from time to time.

I'll tell you why it was an embarrassing post for you. Let's take a look at what happened: 1 - you took a position of moral relativism (my OK is not your OK). 2 - I discredited this position using a reductio ad absurdum. The argument was: if we accept moral relativism, then we have no basis for saying that anything is morally wrong, since "my OK" could very well include some things that are reprehensible that you clearly wouldn't want to accept, like murder. I specifically used murder as an extreme (absurd) example of something a moral relativist is forced by his position to accept, thus invalidating the position of moral relativism. 3- You missed the structure of the argument, despite the fact that I had just explicitly described this kind of argument to you in post #57 complete with a link to the wikipedia page explaining how it works. I had to do this in post #57 because you were unable to follow the argument the first time I used it. When you said "If murdering someone is morally acceptable to you then you should seriously consider moving to another country." you were not only revealing your misunderstanding my argument but also reinforcing my conclusion: to accept murder is absurd. However, as a professed moral relativist you would have to accept murder. After all, it's ok in my morals.

It has more to do with moral nihilism than moral relativism.

[vbnautilus 48]

It has more to do with moral nihilism than moral relativism.

That would disqualify you from the discussion even more emphatically. (It also wouldn't free you from having to deal with murder.)

[digitalmonkey 929]

That would disqualify you from the discussion even more emphatically. (It also wouldn't free you from having to deal with murder.)

I must have missed the post where the qualifications required for posting were listed. I do not agree with SS's beliefs regarding inheritance, but that doesn't make his beliefs wrong.Also, I swallowed a mosquito while mowing the lawn. It's a very unpleasant experience in case you've never done it. Perhaps it had something to do with the glasses. Perhaps not.Schadenfreude?

[El Guapo 8]

Is this the most asinine thread ever on this forum that doesn't involve All_In? It has to be, right?

[Dawson Leery 12]

What do you guys think about Rebecca Black?

[vbnautilus 48]

I must have missed the post where the qualifications required for posting were listed.

I'm happy to remind you. Someone who does not believe there are any correct moral answers is not in a position to help us decide whether or not it's moral to keep a bank error.

I do not agree with SS's beliefs regarding inheritance, but that doesn't make his beliefs wrong.

What makes his beliefs wrong is that they are wrong, not your opinion about it. Are you now saying you don't believe anyone is ever wrong? That would be nice because then we could rule you out of any argument, instead of just the ones involving morals.

Also, I swallowed a mosquito while mowing the lawn. It's a very unpleasant experience in case you've never done it. Perhaps it had something to do with the glasses. Perhaps not.Schadenfreude?

I.. What? Are you using that word incorrectly or am I missing something?

[SilentSnow 1]

1.Parents gifting money to their children does not equate to "society" arbitrarily giving money to random people. 2.No, your parents earned that money and then gave it to you. Maybe this makes sense if your parent's wealth was obtained illegally. 3.I would think that forcing equal distribution of wealth is not particularly libertarian. 4.Besides there being no rationale for this position, it completely ignores the practice of gifting. You are saying that whenever someone gives me something I am stealing it, because I didn't earn it. Also "earn" is rather vague and doesn't really have much meaning or value. I can "earn" a tomato by planting a seed and watering it. Or I can "earn" a dollar by tricking people into making bids on my website. Or I can "earn" money by ingratiating myself to someone who is rich and decides to gift it to me. There's no real moral category here. 5.You have to provide a rationale for why having something without earning it is bad, otherwise having a talent that you didn't earn seems just as bad. 6.No we clearly are not talking about equality of opportunity, since you are claiming to be against "unearned" wealth. A child born into a rich family has "unearned" wealth from the get-go before his parents die and leave an inheritance. 7.You're making the mistake of confusing equality with equal rights under the law. People are not created identically; we don't start out with the same qualities or advantages, physical or financial. But ideally the law does not distinguish among us based on this, and that's what is important. I can't murder someone simply because I'm rich. We actually are stronger in America because of our diversity rather than because of our sameness. 8.You said that under our current system there is no good reason not to steal from the bank. 9.Because my parents or my rich friend gifting me money does not qualify as an accident. Why do you think it does? 10.What was taken from them at birth? They didn't have anything at birth, how could something have been taken from them? What exactly are you proposing? Seriously, what sort of system do you think gives people equal financial status at birth?

1.I think it does. Certain people are arbitrarily chosen by fate to receive far more wealth than others. Since society allows this then they are in effect choosing this system. 2.Your parents may or may not have earned it fairly. But the important distinction is that you definitely did not. I think society has the obligation to prevent some gift giving in order to prevent hugely unfair distribution of resources. A society that arbitrarily at birth makes some people masters and most people slaves is a bad society. 3.I would think that the current system of forcing unequal distribution of wealth is far less libertarian. 4.Obviously most gifting should be allowed. But the specific case of passing on large amounts of unearned wealth to future generations should not be. If you want, we can define "earn" economically as what is left over after someone pays for the negative externalities their action caused. If something was gained entirely through force or deception then nothing was "earned". If what was gained was made in a fair way with no significant costs to others then it was earned. In practice most activities lie somewhere between these extremes. 5.Money and talents are fundamentally different. Money is a claim on society that allows you to exploit others for your benefit. Talents are not a claim. To gain something from your talents you generally have to use them in a way that benefits others. See #2 again.6.Not a relevant objection. Obviously some unearned wealth cannot reasonably be avoided, but some of it can be. 7.I'm not confusing them. I used that quote to make a rhetorical point. I think it is also important that the law should provide for reasonable economic opportunity and return excess wealth back to society rather than give it to those who did not earn it. But you are far more likely to get away with murder and other forms of exploitation if you are rich. Obviously I think we are weaker because of our economic "diversity". 8.Yes. Repeating myself, that is a reason to change society not steal from the bank. 9.Because clearly you have zero choice who you are born to. Your birth status is the definition of an accident. 10.Their right to be a free and equal member of society. Obviously you can't correct all injustices. But you can heavily restrict inheritances, work hard to eliminate externalities and provide economic opportunities to the poor through various educational and social programs. I took that political scale test. For what it's worth I scored as more libertarian than most people here. http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/p...8&soc=-4.97