h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Actually, anybody and everybody's chocolate would be safe with me - I must be the only woman on the planet who doesn't like chocolate!

So for me, this wouldn't pose a moral dilemma.

I also always give up my seat on the bus.

Hmmmm.

The 'little crimes' I feel most ashamed about are the ones I commit against myself. The fact that I am ALWAYS giving up smoking (hey, I quit every night!) or that I reach for a glass of wine rather than my bicycle to get rid of stress. Also I should work harder, be more organized, etc etc etc.

It seems easier for me to do 'the right thing' for others rather than for myself. In fact, I tend to do unto others much better than I do unto myself.

Does this also count as being 'morally wrong'?

Of course, one should resist temptation where possible. But if you do give in it helps to have strategies for deflecting blame. For example, if you and your friend are sharing a 12-pack, and you had more than your share, loudly and angrily blame HIM for drinking too much! Also, remind him of that time he took something of yours without permission. Or, just try to use charm, and apologize prettily.

Why is it that this seems so disturbingly familiar? The 12-pack bit...

I have been known to do the same thing azahar. I often treat people I dislike with greater respect than I do my own body. To the point of near pphysical breakdown whilst smiling at the idiot before me.

Okay, here's one that doesn't involve being self-abusive

What do you do when, at a shop or restaurant, you are given back far too much change?

I have to admit that if it is in a huge department store, where it is obvious that many different people are using the same cash register, I just go - hey bonus! - and pocket the cash. Even though I know this is wrong.

In other situations, like if I think the person involved will have to make up the missing cash, I always come clean and hand it back.

I guess it comes down to WHAT people think temptation is. I mentioned before that I could be surrounded by chocolate and not care at all. But popcorn!

Also, back when I used to have flatmates, the common rule was NEVER USE THE LAST OF SOMETHING THAT ISN'T YOURS. And I do admit to breaking the rule a few times when was involved.

Basically, 'I can resist everything except temptation!' (Wilde, of course)

I try to do the right thing regardless. An exception would be when I found $5 in quarters in a payphone once.

So far, I have usually done what can be classified as "the right thing". I'm not a real fan of chocolate either (unless it's white chocolate... but it's another story).

A temptation that I usually get into is laziness. As in not doing work that I have to do. It's just that I'm not used to keeping up with tight schedules. As DNA himself once said, "I love deadlines.
I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by."


Petkan

hi Petkan,

I hear you! I tend to do anything and everything EXCEPT the very thing I should be doing - until the ultimate last very moment.

But is this laziness?

And does it fall into the category of temptation?

Or right or wrong?

Surely if it is wrong it is only wrong in the sense that we should know better, etc etc. and we would be better off if only we would actually DO, etc etc.

Again, this falls into the category of doing 'wrong' against ourselves. If anything.

This is a forum about what sort of 'sins' we commit or rather, the things we do even though we know they aren't the 'right' things we should be doing.

If we commit a 'wrong' only against ourselves - does this count?

If I do something 'wrong' that ends up affecting another person in a bad way, then I think this is clear. I should NOT have done that. But what if I do something 'wrong' that only ends up affecting ME in a bad way?

Is this still considered a moral dilemma?

Hi, azahar.

Doing somthing "wrong" that affects another in a bad way might not be as clear as one chould think.

I think most would agree that taking water from a person about to die from thirst is wrong, but what if you also where dying from thirst? What if you and a friend where lost in the desert, and you had one litre of water. Would you split it even knowing that the chances of survival would drop to near zero if you din't drink it all yourself. What if your friend where 80 and you 20? what if it where the other way around? If it was your kid or your wife?
This is a dillema, and you can never be sure of what you would do until you are in the situation. Still, thinking about dillemas is a great way of building you understanding of yourself and getting a clearer worldview. (When you know what you would do it is easier to consentrate on what others do (do)

Is doing somthing wrong that affects only yourself a moral dillema?
In my view its stupidity

The only way moral dillemas have any meaning is in interaction with others. We have moral dillemas in situations where what we want is closly balanced aginst what we fear others might think of us. If you where the last person on earth who would care if you did something "wrong"? Is it wrong to trash a house for fun when it's going to be demolished the day after?

Well, I rarely encounter a real dilemma in my life, but what I do then is that I always seek for a third option that leaves both sides satisfied. More often than not, it turns out that such an option does indeed exist. It just takes some hard thinking in order to discover it.


Petkan

You are most definitely not the only woman who doesn't like chocolate.

I myself would rather have a big slice of cheesecak instead.

The chocolate thing-give me a grilled cheese sanga and I would do just about anything!!

I think the temptation is good, because after all, it does feel good to do something that you wanted to do for a long time. The only bad temptation is when you giving in to it under the sacrifice of hurting someone so bad, that they will never forgive you. Cause the eaten chocolate, pop-corn, or even a 5-foot sandwich can be replaced, but the true trust can't.

Having been reading "Sophie's World" again recently, I'd just like to paraphrase a couple of things (I think it's relevant). I hope I'm not being redundant...

Socrates claimed conscience told him what was right. To be precise, "He who knows what good is will do good." Therefore, you could say that part of the importance of learning is gaining knowledge of the difference between right and wrong. Usually this comes from church and parents, but you also can find examples of this at school where children learn that they shouldn't run around screaming.
At any rate, Socrates was concerned with defining "right" and "wrong" actions in a concrete state, unlike the Sophists who thought that morality was defined based on upbringing.
To clarify, he thought nobody would go against their better judgement because they wanted to be happy (i.e. no conscience burdens). Obviously, you can see this isn't the case.
Lots of people who lie and cheat and speak ill of others. Are they aware that these things are not right/fair? Are they happy?
Socrates didn't think so.

I'd have to agree with what LegendV007 said, as well. Things that can't be taken back are the worst because you never forgive yourself for them.

I read a quote recently that now I can't remember exactly but it went something like:

Words are loaded pistols.

I think that very often people use words very carelessly and words are something that CAN NEVER BE TAKEN BACK. One can either apologize for or forgive a careless or hurtful word, but in truth, once spoken, they live forever within the hearts and minds of whoever had the verbal exchange.

I agree with Socrated that people who 'do wrong' willingly and at the expense of others can never be happy. Then again, we would have to come up with a definition for happiness that everyone agreed on if we wanted to try and prove this.

My Collins dictionary says that 'happy' is 1) feeling, showing or expressing joy, being pleased 2) causing joy or gladness 3) fortunate, lucky.

If we cannot do something morally wrong and still feel 'happy' - which we are often shown is not the case - then by what yardstick are we measuring happiness?

Define right and wrong.

I suppose you have to decide whether your belief system includes absolute or relative morals.

As those who claim absolute morals also say that they only apply to humans, I would suggest that even those are relative by definition. In which case, all of these decisions are personal and subjective. The only issue then is whether or not society as a whole has decided to make laws that agree or disagree with your personal ethics. That's an entirely different matter.

well you carnt define right and wrong because there is no such thing, only what you baleve (sorry if this has alreddy been said but I dont have much time) evry persion has there own balefe system there own interpritation of what is wright and what is wrong, some of them maybe almost the same but they will be rated differantly in importance. basically they only reasion somthing is wriong is because you think it is not beciase somthing els be it religion the law or your famly tells you so

yes, I agree that all concepts of right or wrong have to be totally personal and subjective. As with concepts of happiness, god, etc.

If there were a TRUE right or wrong, then I don't see how this horrendous war would be taking place right now (for example) especially as most people in the world don't seem to want it at all.

We often have RIGHT AND WRONG ideas thrust upon us - it ends up being the individuals responsibility to take this further.

But that doesn't take into account societys pressures-- we are pressured into believing what the majority believes is good must be good. This is how society works, the greater good outweighs the individual good ( except in exceptional circumstances where force of will comes into play)
We are brought up to believe that governments know best what we want!!

yes, but within the constraints of what society, family and government dictate, we also have to be individual in our beliefs.