We'll be discussing the topic of morality as we read through our next book, Crime and Punishment. We must decide upon a definition for morality, but more importantly, how such a word impacts our sense of identity. Our sense of morality is clearly tied to our sense of superego and while it suppresses and denies our id. But to what avail?
Let's first look at the classic moral dilemma (a dilemma is defined as a problem that offers two possibilities, neither of which is practically acceptable). Your family is starving and the only way you could feed your family is to steal a loaf of bread (so charmingly presented here). The options are clear, commit a crime but feed your family or do nothing and watch your family starve. But possibilities contain rather unappealing circumstances; many people do not wish to break the law and they do not wish to watch their families suffer. And so the dilemma is presented. What is one to do?
This leads us to many questions. We know that theft is wrong. But can theft be right/justified in a particular scenario? Note Aladdin's dilemma in the previously posted video. Is theft justified if one intends to use the stolen wares for a positive goal? Can a good deed cancel out the effects of a bad deed? Suppose I am starving and I kill a drug dealer and take his money, money that he has earned by selling illegal drugs, perpetuating addicts' addictions. Is there any morality in my actions? Am I right or wrong?
Let's use a more modern example. Many of your enjoy watching the Showtime series Dexter in which detective controls his impulses to murder by targeting criminals that have somehow evaded our criminal justice system. While certainly presented as an anti-hero, we seem to forgive Dexter for his crimes, perhaps justifying them, even praising them. Why?
If one commits a crime, even for positive means, is s/he innocent/guilty? Why or why not?
DISCUSS!
i think that s/he is neither innocent nor guilty, but I do think their actions are justified. When Mr. Ferencz mentioned stealing the loaf of bread, I immediately thought of Aladdin and Les Miserables. In Les Mis, Valjean must serve many years of prison and perform hard labor for stealing one loaf of bread to feed his sister's starving child, and must live the rest of his life as an ex-convict, which made it hard for him to get work. I don't think that Valjean deserved the hard labor or the legacy it left, because this punishment greatly outweighed the crime he committed. I think that maybe a more reasonable punishment should have been given to him, such as some labor for the person whom he stole the bread from. Although I think that Valjean should not have been punished at all, this would open up thievery as an option for anyone who claims that they are starving, which would leave the baker with less bread and it would be unfair to the baker.
ReplyDeleteThis is all sort of off topic, so before I get into poverty and welfare I will just say this: Each situation must be judged itself. In my opinion, if committing the crime is significantly more beneficial to the person committing it than it is harmful to the person that is receiving it, in the case of the bread thievery, or better for the general public, as in the case of Dexter, than the person committed it is innocent.
I agree with Sophie on the outweighing idea. If one commits a crime, even for positive means, society only deems the crime acceptable if those positive means were attained and if they outweigh the negative consequences as well. If positive consequences were intended but did not result the crime is less acceptable than if those consequences did result, because the consequences are what are used to evaluate/justify the crime.
ReplyDeleteAlso the best way I can think of to justify a crime or an illegal act is if it does not infringe upon the life of someone who never did any harm to another person. Dexter's murdering can be deemed acceptable because he only harms those who have harmed others already. Yes he is killing people, but some might say he is making society safer for innocent people. Another example might involve running a red light. If someone drives past a red light but nothing happens, they may or may not have to pay a ticket but it is okay. However, if someone drives past a red light and then hits another car, harming the people in that car, the action is not okay. The person no longer just faces paying a ticket, but must face law suits and being responsible for other peoples' lives. If the person hits a car, with a criminal inside and helps the police capture that criminal, then the act is okay because the criminal already harmed others.
In the case of the first classic moral dilemma, I think the morality of the situation depends on whether or not one intends to break the law. Concerning the dilemma, the most rational course of action would be to steal the loaf of bread because it is justified by one's intention to feed his family members. Whatever consequences suffered by the baker and the violation of the law were unintended side effects, and subsequently, would be mentally repressed by the thief.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if one perceived the act of desperation to be morally reprehensible, which few people do because the superego deems burglary as a violation of ethics, one would be less likely to steal the loaf of bread. Since the bread is necessary for survival, a person would retreat to the first course of action and attempt to justify his wrongdoings.
The questions relating to moral dilemma also reminded me of a recent NY times article posted a day after this extra credit which concerns a philosophical thought experiment called the “Trolley Problem”. This experiment appears as many variations, but all variations include the choice of: sacrificing the welfare of an innocent individual, for the safety of several individuals. Links, regarding the “Trolley Problem” are listed below:
NY times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opinion/sunday/how-firm-are-our-principles.html
Trolley Problem:
http://suite101.com/article/phlippa-foots-trolley-problem-a297961
With the case of the first moral dilemma of stealing bread to feed your starving family, I believe that the moral decision to make is to do whatever is necessary to feed your family. If you need to take a risk and steal the bread then do it because it is better than watching your family starve to death. However, I am not saying that this decision is completely justified because you have to also take into account what affect this might have on the person or place you stole from. Also, the issue that comes up is that whether or not the intention is actually good or just deemed “good” by the person doing the theft? So the idea that good intentions justify theft creates many loopholes and I think if you were to judge that it would depend on the individual case.
ReplyDeleteI think a good deed can cancel out a bad deed because I believe in 2nd chances for those who made mistakes before. Also, my personal opinion is that if we cannot redeem ourselves after failing then there is no motivation to try after failing. Most importantly the good deed has to outweigh the bad deed. So just doing some community service won’t make up for a horrible crime or act.
With the case of killing a drug dealer and taking his money, I think that this action is not moral because a human life is really precious and once you kill there is no way of bringing that person back. The killer is wrong for taking a human life because there action is not necessary and they could have gotten the money through other means.
With Dexter’s case I think people forgive his actions because he is killing people who society would deem as criminals and dangerous people so he is just murdering them to keep the people safer. I think it is morally wrong to kill these people because as I mentioned before a human life is really precious. I think a fair trial is the best approach and if the criminals actions make them deserve death then it is justified to kill them.
In the case of stealing bread to feed your starving family, it really all comes down to the person who is actually stealing the bread. To clarify, not everybody would agree that stealing bread just to save your starving family is justified. In my opinion, even though letting your family starve is inhumane, stealing that loaf of bread is also morally wrong. I feel like if I was in such a situation, I would without a doubt steal that loaf of bread, but logically thinking so many things can go wrong. I could get caught and be arrested, which would hurt my family even more. I could be hurting the business of the person who owns the bread, which is morally wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe same thing goes with killing the drug dealer, it really all comes down to the person who is killing the drug dealer. In my opinion, it is still wrong to kill somebody even though it would benefit society. As a regular person, I have no right to take somebody's life. Connecting this with Dexter, his actions are also wrong because he has no right to take someones life. I agree with Razwan with the idea that people deserve a fair trial and that a trial would be the only way a justified death could occur.
In response to the classic moral dilemma, I would steal the loaf of bread to keep my family from starving. Since I don’t want to break the law or see my family suffer I would weigh the outcomes and pick the more favorable one. In this case, I would feed my family because a family is irreplaceable. If I lose my family I can never get them back, but a loaf of bread is replaceable. I also think watching my family starve is much worse than breaking the law. However, it is a big risk as David mentioned. I could get caught and then my family would suffer even more. I think that if I really was in this situation there would be a lot more going on in my mind than what I’ve written so far.
ReplyDeleteI think theft can be justified in some situations. I agree with Sophie that “each situation must be judged by itself”. You have to look at each situation in its entirety. If you steal something how will your action affect the people you stole it from? If you have no other choice and your actions have minimal consequences on the people you stole from and the positives outweigh the negatives I think that theft can be justified.
Furthermore, I think that a good deed can cancel out a bad deed only when the good deed is aimed at making up for the bad deed. For example, if you steal something from someone I think you’d have to replace it in order to make up for stealing. In the case of the drug dealer, I don’t think killing the drug dealer is justifiable because I don’t think that it is right to take someone’s life. However, in reality I think the situation would be much more complicated than this. What if the drug dealer is also a murderer? What if the drug dealer came from a family of drug dealers and dealing drugs is all he knows? What if the drug dealer sells drugs to support his family?
I think in all of these cases the intention of the person is very important. In the case of Dexter, let’s say that the criminals he kills deserve to die just to simplify things. If he kills these criminals in order to satisfy his craving for murder I would deem his actions unjust even though the outcome is good. His main goal would be killing people and stopping criminals would be a by-product. However, if Dexter kills criminals because he wants to keep other people safe and bring these criminals to justice, I would deem his actions justified because the outcome is good and so is the intention.
I agree with Razwan on the statement of committing a crime being completely justified. Although stealing the loaf of bread is a crime, the intentions and reason for doing so is not negative. Thus, not making it completely a crime. By no means should it be justified but the person should not be as heavily punished if they were to get caught. I would not want my family to suffer, but before committing the deed, it is wise to find other means of keeping my family healthy and nurtured.
ReplyDeleteI would not steal the money of a drug dealer because it is highly likely that they are only selling drugs to survive. And to be stealing someone's money when they need it to survive it may be wrong. It can also be possible that the loaf of bread I am stealing is from a bakery where the owners need to survive as well, but the situations that I may be involved in also determine different ways of dealing with them. Most of the time, crimes can not be justified but if someone is left with no choice (i.e.: when it is the only way to keep their family from dying) then it can be justified.
In the first case (stealing bread to provide for your family), there isn’t a clear cut between what is right or what is wrong. This is because it is a “dilemma” and the definition of a dilemma is no matter which of the two choices you pick, it can never be completely justified. Just like Razwan said, a) steal the bread to save your family but be responsible for what this might do to the person who you are stealing from or b) stand by your morals but let your family starve. Just as expected, neither choice sounds appealing so I really believe there isn’t a correct answer as to whether this crime is forgivable or not. In the second case (murdering the drug dealer), I do not believe it is the right thing to do. There is no denying that after his death, we will have one less dealer in the world, but is bettering the world really the original goal of your actions? If you strip away all the details, you get the simple truth: you killed someone for the money to save yourself from starving. Maybe you picked a drug dealer so you can better coop with the guilt or maybe it’s an attempt at justifying your own actions. And in Dexter’s case, even though he is saving innocent people, but he is doing it in methods that can be unforgivable. He takes it into his own hands to kill the murderers but who gave him the right to do so? He is also partly doing this because he needs somewhere to express his own desires to murder. So I agree with Zafir. Even though the outcomes are good, his intentions are muddled, therefore his actions cannot be justified.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Razwan in that one must also think about where the person is stealing from. In the case of the classic moral dilema, a person steals bread in order to feed his starving family. If that person stole bread from say, a wealthy bakery, then I believe that the person's actions are justified. On the other hand, if the person stole bread from another poor family or bakery, then his actions are immoral.
ReplyDeleteAs for the murder of other murderers, one can justify this by arguing that the single death of the murderer will prevent the deaths of countless other potential victims. This being said, one may also argue that a criminal or murderer may be willing to change his ways and become a better person, and that the murder of any human being, regardless of his or her previous actions is unacceptable and inhumane. In my personal, opinion, the seriousness of the crime that was committed for positive means determines whether the criminal is guilty or innocent.
I feel that stealing a loaf of bread to feed one's starving family is justified. Saving lives should be the moralistic value that takes priority over everything else. Stealing a loaf of bread is not going to hurt anybody so why not. At the same time however, I do not feel that it is right to rob a bank to feed one's family because it hurts more people than it helps. Theft may indeed be justified in a particular scenario and the stolen wares can be used for a positive goal so long as the positive goal does more good than the harm caused by the stolen wares.
ReplyDeleteIf you are starving and you kill a drug dealer for his money, I believe there is a drop of morality in your actions however, I feel that it is highly unnecessary to kill a human being unless he has killed others. At the same time, it is also possible that the drug dealer is only selling drugs to provide for his own otherwise starving family. In the end, I believe that killing someone to steal their money whether it may be a drug dealer or anyone else, is wrong.
We might praise Dexter's actions because we feel that the criminals deserve justice in some form or another. In my childhood, I have grown up with cartoons that taught me that no one can get away with evil and I guess that might also be how Dexter feels. I do not agree with killing the criminals though because it depends on the severity of the crimes that the criminal has committed. Dexter can be viewed as a murderer which can be considered as a criminal.
If one commits a crime, in most circumstances, they are guilty. I feel that most crimes are committed for personal benefit instead of the benefit of others so they should be punished for it. The definition of guilty can be interpreted in different ways and thus I can not say for sure an exact answer to this question.