I am Genius

[don't let's]

maybe he just grew out of societal molding and can't (or no longer) have similar values that society holds
it's not 'self-delusion'
it's moral development
BUT I KNOW YOU GUISE ARE GOING TO ARGUE WITH "then i should steal then huh!!!"

I steal from Whole Foods (kale chips are definitely not '9$') and Barnes & Nobles--but never from a family-owned store.
this is because i have a biased and irrational dislike towards companies that overcharge and base my behaviors on an emotional reaction because of general assumptions I have on said stores (i'm too lazy to actually research them lol)

Plus, you get caught if you want to.
I was getting lazy with JMV and that's how he snaggled my puss.  

**also i HAM realizing how extraordinary complex all of this moral relativism and blah blah could potentially grow into

I don't think that I would personally use that argument here in this situation. (Though I probably have used something similar to that in other situations that may not resemble this one at all)

And the self delusion was how he was trying to justify his actions to himself first of all and more importantly, and then also to others. Basically he created his own fantasy world around this action just so he wouldn't have to feel guilty about what he was doing.

when did liveontheedge become the moral police

Since forever. But most of you actually know or admit that what you're doing is wrong when or if you're doing something wrong, instead of trying to pass it off as something it's not.

[don't let's]

You're probably right, and I'm simply banking on past precedence that this wont become an issue, as long as it is not an outrageous amount. You see, even the managers do shifty things, so does the front office, so does the chef, who is also a partner. They do so much shady stuff that even they have trouble keeping a clean and manageable sheet for the big boss, the owner. So really, as long as whatever happens is in this ballpark, they'll just chalk it up to negligence, as long as I remain careful. I know them, how this conversation would play out, what they would say etc... it's simply a calculated risk, as I said before, there are not feelings attached here, I sleep as comfortably tonight as I will tomorrow. 

I am not stealing from the restaurant, as their claim goes through, and how could I be stealing from the CC company when the card is a one time non re-loadable unit? Probably I am stealing from the middle man, if there is one, but I am not sure how they operate, they may just end up going after phantom targets.

So far this week I stayed just below $500, to make sure it's petty and not federal. And so that I can pay everything back if need be, I made over $1,000 in 35 hours though, honest work included too! And who is anyone to question me and my philosophy, I've bent over backwards for the little imperfections and annoyances in life, so that others may live more peacefully, and don't care for money, the reason I disrespect it like this is because it is an evil thing, you either master it, or it enslaves you. I will end up spending it, and whatever, you guys can live as you choose to.

But by stealing, you've already become a slave to it.

[Socks]

But by stealing, you've already become a slave to it.

Oh yeah, I'm a slave to it alright.

[don't let's]

Oh yeah, I'm a slave to it alright.

That's why I said that, and at least you finally admit it now.

[snoorkel]

I don't think that I would personally use that argument here in this situation. (Though I probably have used something similar to that in other situations that may not resemble this one at all)

And the self delusion was how he was trying to justify his actions to himself first of all and more importantly, and then also to others. Basically he created his own fantasy world around this action just so he wouldn't have to feel guilty about what he was doing.

Since forever. But most of you actually know or admit that what you're doing is wrong when or if you're something wrong, instead of trying to pass it off as something it's not.

justifying actions implies accountability

there is no accountability

[don't let's]

justifying actions implies accountability

there is no accountability

He said it himself that he was justified in this. (plus all of the stuff he says about him not doing anything wrong)

... in a sense, i am doing justice.

[snoorkel]

He said it himself that he was justified in this. (plus all of the stuff he says about him not doing anything wrong)

i didn't say he didn't I siad Sanctity is Obsolete

applying perceived external values to actions

objective criticism etc

noI am not talking about nihilism and "ok kill anyone you want"

[don't let's]

i didn't say he didn't I siad Sanctity is Obsolete

applying perceived external values to actions

objective criticism etc

noI am not talking about nihilism and "ok kill anyone you want"

I don't even know where you're trying to come from anymore with this.

[PLEASEHELP1991]

moral relativist troll
good one

[Travis]

If you're going to continue doing this, you really are the biggest shithead here.

Shut Up

[hobbit]

socks can you teach me to do this?

[Socks]

socks can you teach me to do this?

i am willing and able.

[Hippopo]

Although Socks never meant for this topic to slip into an elaborate discussion of moral values, it has nonetheless.  So forgive me for not complying with Sock's intentions, but I will continue in the direction this discussion is moving and examine morality within this post.

Before we can say anything, however, we must try to understand Socks.  Socks is a man of ideals.  He enjoys tugging at the fabric of society, and he takes value and pride in his own perspective of the world.  He isn't afraid to question others, and in return, isn't afraid to take criticism.  After all, one who gives criticism is willing to receive it (as long as it is in a respectful manner).

I do not wish to tell Socks he is wrong or immoral.  Statements such as these would not affect a man of Sock's caliber anyways.  He already realizes the impossibility of objective morality, and would not care about another man's ill-advised judgments against him.  No one can see the world from Sock's vantage, so no one can judge that vantage point.

But one can take the time to question is own morality, and perhaps accept or reject the morals of others.  That's what I wish to do here.  Perhaps Socks, Snorkil, or Skylark can help me as they are the three who have provided the most interesting and concrete moral explanations that seem to go in the opposite direction of my own.  I need their words of wisdom to try to tame my own beast so that I may live a more fruitful life like their own.

Let's examine Sock's philosophy since it seems to be the most heated and the most interesting.  So far in this thread he has made three concrete claims about his own morals.  I have thought about each of them for some time, but I still cannot seem to adopt any.  Socks, please help me better understand where you are coming from and correct any errors that I have!

First there is the claim that virtual money, mere numbers on the screen, has no value.  In fact, Socks claims that "fiat money" has no value, and therefore is not considered theft when taken.  What is money, after all, but an invention of society.  A mere fabrication of trade that holds no real value.

An interesting idea indeed!  But I fear that there are possible underlying currents here.  Unspoken, hidden premises waiting to be called into question.  Sock's earlier conclusion seems to follow either the premise that "objective value" exists, or the premise that nothing has objective value.

For the record, I don't believe that Socks would subscribe to a belief in objective value.  Such a belief would contradict his very character.  He wasn't explicit, though, so I am not sure.  Plus, when one adopts this premise, they are allowed to make claims such as "X has the value of Y" or "X is worth nothing."  Since claims like these were made and he wasn't explicit, this premise could be a possibility.

But a greater possibility lies in the fact that Socks believes nothing has objective value.  If we adopt this view, then of course we can make the claim "money as no value."  In fact, nothing has "true" value.  All value is a fabrication of either society or the individual.  The universe does not determine any of this.

But here is where I get confused, so Socks please help me.  In examining your way of living, if nothing has value in an objective sense, then how is it possible for you to make judgments on anything?  Where do your desires come from?

I hypothesis that you, as an individual, create these values.  So the value of money is different for you than for another.  You make the claim that, form your perspective, money is valueless.  If this is true, then why do you take it with such high risk to a negative outcome?  It would be like me going out of my way to rummage the park for dog shit (something I hold valueless).  Except for in my case, the only negative outcome to taking dog shit would be some puzzled stares from other people.  In your case, taking money could result in a loss of a job, a civil suit, or worse, jail time.  Either you are a reckless man, or you truly do value money.  And if you do value money, then you are taking something of value.  And if you are taking something of value, is that not theft?  I am not clear on this.

You make another, more interesting claim though.  It seems you believe your actions are a natural consequence to our society's operations.  It is only a matter of time before someone is compelled to exploit the system when  citizens are allowed to use plastic cards and virtual money.  It is as if the feeling that compels you to take the money is as natural as the feeling that compels you to breathe.

But here is where I fall into a problem.  Where does this end?  Whenever I feel compelled to act, is that always justified?  This a romantic belief, but what does it say about my character?  It seems as if I am nothing more than a slave to my emotions and my appetite.  Socks, is this true, or do I not yet grasp what you are saying?  Are you nothing more than a being bound to your emotions without any sense of reason?  I dare say you aren't.  But then how can your argument stand?

Finally the most concrete and understandable claim is made.  Socks says that his actions are permissible because they are not dangerous or harmful.  I have already disagreed with this sentiment earlier in this thread.  I believe his actions can be perceived as harmful if he is caught.  Yet, I don't believe this is what Socks meant.  By "dangerous" he could be meaning "violent."  I am not quite sure of his meaning here.

As far as violence goes, he is correct.  His actions do not physically hurt someone.  But if all immoral actions depend on violence as a determining factor, I believe my morals are completely wrong!  I find so many possible actions as immoral without a shred of violence attached to them.  Please shed some light on this problem, Socks.  Is this what you meant?

As you can see I am still very confused from your vantage point, so please help!  I would like to understand your morality a little better, or at least your thought process thus far.  Perhaps you are not giving a full defense of yourself, and that is understandable.  But I believe everyone here craves a clear and coherent justification of your actions.  At least I am so that I may better understand my own morals and bring them into question as well.

[Travis]

Philosophy

[Hippopo]

Philosophy

idk