DenPratt

Thank you, Vlbk! Yes, perhaps I am hoping for a miracle here. Yes, he is old (as am I), and yes, I am primarily surrounded my middle and later aged people. I've heard Stefan's despair of changing the minds of the old and I love your "mixing dried cement" metaphor!! And I think you put your finger on it. I am trying to get him to question his subjective and consequentialist view of ethics, which I believe leads to much Evil. I was hoping to introduce him to UPB rules for ethics, such as universality. What really caught me was when I was trying to universalize his rule of "No harm; no foul", he instantly stated that he was not interested in universalizing any rule. the implication would be that every situation must be individually judged by his subjective, internal ethics machine to determine Right vs. Wrong. He essentially has Ethics by Authority, where he has given up on trusting other people's authority and has replaced the authority with his own. Is Ethics by Self a step beyond Ethics by Authority (e.g., Ethics by Law, or Ethics by Religion)? Or is subjective ethics a step worse, where there is in effect no ethics at all?

Thank you, Powder, for your comments. Yes, I agree that "getting away with" (the theft of) a second movie; is different from theft, when the salesperson's back was turn, of a donut that would likely have be thrown out; is different from theft of a rarely used bangle from a home that you visit as a guest; is different from a strong-arm robbery of a diamond ring on the street; is different from the theft by taxes of half your income every year. The property loss and the feeling of violation is greater as we go up such scales. Where I see the similarity that is useful to Evil is the convenient, self-serving justification that goes along with each of these. Evil rarely admits that they what they do is "Evil"; they instead excuse their action utilitarianly, as less costly to the transgressee and more important for their more worthy goal. The movie theater does not (seem to directly) lose any property. The donut shop was going to throw out the donut anyway as it was close to the shift end. The woman has so many bangles she won't miss one. That rich bitch can easily buy herself another ring with her insurance money. And those 1% bastards can darn well to "give back" some of money because the poor need it and they have plenty! That facile rationalization -- of dishonesty, of lack of integrity, of lying, of taking -- is the slippery slope that I think Evil quickly travels to stealing and murder. I like your mother's quote. Someone wrote in a similar topic that the cost to one's integrity is so much greater than the benefit of a small theft. That is where I fear the real damage is done -- to the person, as well as to the society's acceptance of what is right. I too will be interested in the range of responses!

Overall Question: If I cannot make clear the immorality of sneaking a second movie, what likelihood do I have of convincing friends of the immorality of the state, parental, and religious violence with which they were raised? Situation: An older, retired friend brags that he was able to get past "The Rules" and "societal customs" and snuck into a second movie after his first movie was over, overcoming his wife's concern about "getting caught" so that they could "have fun". When they were caught (because few other patrons had bought tickets for the second movie) and asked to leave, his "worst case scenario" had not proved as bad as he had thought and thus reinforces his belief that he should have "more fun" and worry less about "The Rules". (At one point he nodded to me that he was acting "more libertarian". (Ouch!)) Problem: My attempts to suggest that he had crossed a line in morality have failed. My Question of You: Am I wrong about the morality of the situation? Am I missing an important point? How might you address a friend with a similar brag? My Initial Response: I denied that this had to do with "The Rules" or with "societal customs", but instead with personal integrity. I pointed out that he was out of integrity because he had agreed individually to a clear, implied contract that the ticket would be for one and only one movie. I argued that the destructiveness to himself of promising one thing, and then doing another, was something he needed to worry about, not whether the usher would catch him. Arguments: Friend: There was no implied contract. My Answer: You did not, nor would you have, told them your intention because you know that they would not have sold you the ticket. Thus, you knew of the implied contract. Friend: In the past... Movie theaters, when I grew up, used to permit multiple viewings per ticket. My Answer: And you know that not to be the agreement at this time. (See "No Implied Contract") Friend: I see myself as virtuous. I have no problem with integrity. My Answer: Integrity is oneness between word and deed. You acted contrary to your implied word. There are consequences that expand far beyond a movie ticket for being so quickly willing to break your word. Friend: Only explicit contracts are valid. I never explicitly gave my word. My Answer: So, the universal rule is that, as long as something is not spelled out in black and white, you may do it, even if you understand fully that your host expects you not to do that? Friend: No harm; no foul. As long as (I believe that) there is no detrimental impact on the service provider, I may do this, for the greater good (in this case, harmless "fun"). My Answer: 1) He actually returned a few days later and paid a ticket to see the movie that he had tried to steal. 2) His guess of the other person's mindset or value or benefit can not abrogate the contract. 3) This rationalization is the path down which Evil frequently travels. My Query: So, if it is okay to sneak in to a second movie, you could have also snuck into it for the first time by having someone open for you the fire door? His Answer: No, that would have been "wrong". "Interestingly, that is where I would draw a line." My Query: So, I'm trying to understand the universal rule here. Friend: There are no universal rules, only situational and (culturally) relative. My Answer: So, you believe that you may do anything for which you have a good story for? Other Threads Discussed: I talked to him separately about the difference of having rules imposed one-sidedly upon one, like by his parents, his religion, his schools, versus coming to a win-win agreement of a voluntarily-entered, mutually beneficial contract. He denied that he was confounding the two (despite his initial presentation of the issue as his being able to break "The Rules" and "Societal Customs".) His Bottom Line: As long as he "feels" that his action is justified, moral, and in integrity, it is. There can be no external measures of Right or Wrong, only internal. (I asked him about murder, and his contention is that he does not think murder is right, but the emphasis on him.) His Catch Phrase: "I just don't see the world as you do." "That is not true in my world." "[Other people with my world view] agree with me.", etc. My Fear 1: I don't think he will ever be able to understand universalizing morals, or absolute concepts of Evil. He is typical of people around me -- who use only their gut to judge morality and regularly justify anti-UPB actions. Are all my study and thought wasted, because there is little hope of ever changing him and his kind. My Fear 2: I believe that this type of subjective ethics is the slippery slope down which all Evil travels. Yet all my friends subscribe to something like this. I often feel alone and alien.

Thank you very much, Jzd! My daughter home schools and takes some "seminar" classes at a learning center. This technology turns the entire college experience into "seminar", which always seemed to me to be a more fun way to learn. Don't Let School Hold You Back, Dennis

But aren't you then arguing for laser-faire?