Moral?: Sneaking into a second movie with just one ticket?

[DenPratt]

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.

[powder]

that is a really good post Den, you raise some important points.  

 

I can understand your frustration, though I don't share your concern that the slippery slope of compromising personal integrity by getting away with stuff leads to the evils of the kind we experience with the state and religion.  

 

I don't put voluntary contractual agreements and dispute resolution situations in the same moral category as the NAP - theft, murder, rape.  The issue I have with the state, and religion, is that violence is the solution to every problem.  People raised with parents who punish and discipline them to control them naturally internalize this and generally end up thinking that the coercion exercised by the state is not only good but necessary.  I think this is how evil prospers, when it can masquerade as necessary or even good.  

 

On the subject of personal integrity, my mother told us:  "never steal anything small".  I like that quote. 

 

I will be interested to see some other responses to your query.  thanks for sharing.  

[powder]

I was going to edit my post to include a couple of other thoughts but it got whisked off to the moderation realm so...  

 

Like I said, morally speaking I like to focus on the NAP - theft, assault, murder, rape - they are directly connected to property rights and can logically and rationally be universalized.

 

When it comes to things like sneaking into a movie it becomes more difficult to argue that this is theft;  was any property taken that is no longer there?  Broken promises, not honoring contracts and so on, as long as the interactions are all voluntary and the disputes are resolved without violence, I don't care to focus too much of that in the bigger picture.  If I am in a close relationship with a person that I cannot trust, that is a different conversation.  

[vlbk]

 

 

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?

 

     My guess is you already know the answer, but you're hoping someone will come up with a miracle solution. As someone who's tried to change people(opinions and lifestyles), you can't. Also you mentioned your friend who was retired was a little older. Does this mean the people around you are at least middle aged and older? If so, things look worse.

     There is one small possibility. Since their "morals" are basically emotional/subjective/consequentialist, they can still hate the state without any form of morality or universality. There's no rule that says anarchists have to believe in the NAP. If by some act of God himself you pull that off, you can then slowly immerse them a proper form of morality. Don't get your hopes up, you're most likely going to waste time trying to mix dried cement.  

[dsayers]

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?

 

I think this is a false premise. Sneaking into a 2nd movie isn't comparable to mass genocide.

 

My Question of You: Am I wrong about the morality of the situation?

 

I think I could argue it both ways, though I feel my argumentation for sneaking into a 2nd movie is theft would be weaker.

 

Arguments for it is theft: The fact that he's sneaking denotes that he believes it is wrong and trying to get away with it. A theater is private property and the owner only allows the public in certain areas without having bought a ticket. When you buy a ticket, it denotes admittance to one showing of one movie.

 

Arguments for it is not theft: They restrict access to certain areas of this private property on the basis of whether or not you've purchased A ticket. They tend to not restrict access by way of purchasing a ticket for a specific theater at a specific time bracket. Even though they know that people might partake of more than one movie. Also, the 2nd movie would be running in that room whether anybody had bought a ticket or not, so his presence in that theater isn't binding upon anybody else (except for a sold out show).

 

Lack of binding upon others is a strong case for not theft. The strongest case for theft is that a ticket indicates one movie one time. In terms of contractual agreements, this is implicit at best.

 

My bias: The entertainment industry is way too willing to make use of the violence of the State to force people to subsidize their efforts.

 

I wonder how effective it would be to have scanners at the entrance of each individual theater that scanned for the presence of A ticket, and magnetically scanned to verify it was for that movie and time slot.

[DenPratt]

... I don't share your concern that the slippery slope of compromising personal integrity by getting away with stuff leads to the evils of the kind we experience with the state and religion.  

 

I don't put voluntary contractual agreements and dispute resolution situations in the same moral category as the NAP   ...I think this is how evil prospers, when it can masquerade as necessary or even good.  ...

 

... things like sneaking into a movie it becomes more difficult to argue that this is theft

 

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!

[J. D. Stembal]

When most of the movies that get wide distribution are meant to propagandize the populace, the joke is on the rope jumper. People have been sneaking into movies for years, and the employees at the theater don't care. What does that tell you? The goal is to get eyes on the screen, and box office sales are secondary. That's just a trailing metric to see how effective the propaganda was.

 

What does your friend think about the Sony leak?

[DenPratt]

     My guess is you already know the answer, but you're hoping someone will come up with a miracle solution. As someone who's tried to change people(opinions and lifestyles), you can't. Also you mentioned your friend who was retired was a little older. Does this mean the people around you are at least middle aged and older? If so, things look worse.

     ... Since their "morals" are basically emotional/subjective/consequentialist, they can still hate the state ... you can then slowly immerse them a proper form of morality. Don't get your hopes up, you're most likely going to waste time trying to mix dried cement.  

 

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?

[shirgall]

Every transaction carries an explicit contract. Receipts and written agreements are merely evidence of contract.

 

When you buy a movie ticket you agree to exchange your currency for a (most likely future) performance of a film for a single person, in a specific setting, at a specific time. There may even be reasonable expectations of quality of the performance and reasonable expectations of your behavior when participating in the performance. Failure of this contract could imply refunding of value or of being ejected from the performance. The ticket is evidence of this agreement, and evidence of how explicit the agreement is.

 

People should refuse to engage in transactions with those that don't believe in fair deals such as the above. It's tantamount to fraud (knowingly misrepresenting the value of the exchange or commitment to the terms and conditions of the transaction), but the value of the fraud is so small that the appropriate level of censure is on the order of snubbing and negative word of mouth. If someone raises the stake to having a snit in the lobby in front of other customers, I would be tempted to raise the level of censure.

[powder]

Den, how do you see watching 2 movies for the price of one, and taking day old donuts leading to murder.  This is quite an assertion.  Do you have an argument?  Can you walk me through that?  

 

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?

this does not make sense to me.  He has 'ethics by authority' but has given up on trusting other people's authority?  Who are these people with authority that he has given up trusting?  Also I don't understand that if you think that moral tenets are universal then one is not 'better' than the other; 'ethics by authority' or personal ethics are equally irrelevant.  What are you talking about here?  

[J-William]

You're "friend" sounds like a bit of a low class dirtbag. Why are you hanging around him?

 

The theater is running a business, they don't benefit from calling the cops on someone who sneaks into a second movie, but they also don't benefit from letting shifty guys buy one ticket and watch all the movies they want.

 

The reason I've called your friend a shifty, low class dirtbag is the behavior is not really awful it's just kinda jerky. And movie tickets are not so expensive that an adult can't afford another ticket. Also he clearly doesn't have much taste or much to do with his time. I struggle to find time to see a movie and last time I tried I ended up not going because they didn't have one movie I wanted to see, let alone two.

 

Is it immoral? Sure. Is it stealing? Yeah, they set up the theater and show films for people who pay for tickets. Obviously he already bought some tickets so they'll ask him politely to leave. If he was a repeat offender or didn't buy tickets they'd ask him less politely, and eventually physically evict him or call the cops.

 

So it's immoral and illegal. But can you convince him not to do it? I doubt that there is any way.

So why do you bother? What are his great character traits that lead you to call him a friend?

[DaviesMa]

Great post, very interesting topic.

 

I dare say that you already know that he is wrong and trying to weasel out of it with emotion based rationalisations so I won't go into detail here. I wanted to comment on your 2 fears and give another perspective:

 

 

Fear 2 - most people are too afraid to be truly evil as they are kept in check by the consequences of society. I would not worry about your friend becoming a bank robber or hit man any time soon, however don't be surprised if he short changes you on the bill for the restaurant, cheats on his wife or hits his kids.

 

Fear 1 - I think you are mistaking the benefits of your study of philosophy. The journey is about changing yourself first so that you can live with integrity and studying philosophy is a way to become more and more certain of those principles.

 

You have also correctly identified that he is not a person of integrity. This is a MASSIVE benefit as it informs you of how much to trust him, how much to value his opinion and how much to follow his example. This is a big advantage in protecting yourself against people who are not really your friends. If you wish to hang around with him for company, then be aware of the limits of intimacy in your relationship with him.

 

Just as important, if you recognise someone without integrity who will not change, then you will recognise someone with integrity who will change. This will inform you about who you can truly appreciate and build connections with in life. If you are young, then it will also inform you about who to marry and how to parent.

 

If philosophy can help you to see who your friends are, how to fall in love and how to raise happy, lovely children, what more can you ask for? Changing the minds of others is just a tertiary benefit.

 

I understand it can be lonely when you start to de-normalise the appalling morality of many people around you, it can seem like you are destined to be alone and it would be great to have another sane person to support you.

 

From personal experience, I am in the process of cutting some of my 'friends' as I am finding it increasingly distasteful to hang around with bad people. The deeper my understanding of philosophy and the more  I commit to the truth, the less tolerance I have for low integrity people and the more I love the people in my life who are good people.

 

I have at 3 people who I have hung out with in the past who have cheated on their partners and although I have enjoyed their company in the past, it just feels wrong to hang out with them now. It makes me realise that if the can betray the person they allegedly love, (and I am sure I am less important than their partner) then they have no love for me. I am just amusing, entertaining, social proof or whatever, anything other than someone that they can empathise with and love.

 

I would continue to work on yourself and see these people socially until you feel like you don't want to. As Stef says, ask your emotions what you want to do. For me, reading and examining RTR was a watershed of my understanding about people and myself.

 

Don't worry about being lonely as you will start to see the virtues in the good people in your life and start to find people who are capable of virtue as time goes on.

 

Matt

 

[fractional slacker]

Your friend is correct in asserting he is moral - from a utilitarian perspective. His viewing another movie produced the greatest good for his circumstances/situation. There is no way to prove him wrong.

Like all utilitarians, your friend is a relativist.  I believe that is where the two of you might have a disagreement.

[aleles]

Thanks Den for the question and everyone for the feedback. It made me think about a similar scenario with reselling of a ski lift ticket. I posted it separately here

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43371-reselling-ski-lift-ticket-theft/

[Nathan Metric]

Here is a discussion I had with a nihilist. Perhaps it will help.

 

Nihilist: "Evil" LOL You're presupposing that there is even absolute morality in the first place. Haven't you ever heard that you can't get an ought from an is? Morality is just nonsense dude.

 

(Me)Moral Realist: So are you saying because the is/ought problem is true I ought to not believe in this thing called morality?

 

Nihilist: Uhhh.... (hesitates).... no. I'm just saying you can't get an ought from an is and that you are wrong.

 

Moral Realist: Well if there is no reason to change one's behavior upon the perception of a new fact then what the heck is the point of this dicussion? Isn't is self-contradictory to say someone is "wrong" when you don't even believe in morality in the first place?

 

Nihilist: The point is to uncover the truth. By "wrong" I meant to mean what is false.

 

Moral Realist: Why is the truth important?

 

Nihilist: Because the truth has utility to me and I would assume the truth has utility to you as well.

 

Moral Realist: I know full well it has utility to you but why? It is illogical to have preferences for no reason.

 

Nihilist: Because the truth will help me survive and help me get what I want.

 

Moral Realist: Why is survival a value? What exactly do you want and why? Why should you get what you want?

 

Nihilist: I just want the fullest happiest life possible dude. What's so bad about that?

 

Moral Realist: Why?

 

Nihilist: Pfff,  I don't know. I just want it.

 

Moral Realist: Since you can't make sense of your preference for the fullest possible life let me offer a suggestion. The very point of a discussion is to uncover the truth but the truth is not just a subjective value held by both parties. It is a universal preference. Truth is universally preferable to falsehood. Why then is survival a value? Beause survival is necessary for one to accumulate the truth. Why then should one seek pleasure? Because rationality is the prime virtue in accordance with the universal preferability of truth. Rationality is also a very taxing behavior an organism partakes in and the organism must recouperate in order to maintain rationality. Why should one try to be civil? Because one can benefit from the rationality of other people. Why are universal morals better than relative ones? Because conflicts of interests are caused by conflicting moral rules. This is a much more complete philosophy than a mere assertion of desire.

 

Nihilist: You're so wrong dude. I disagree with everything you just said. I disagree that the truth is universally preferable to falsehood. I'm not talking with you under the premise that truth is universally preferable. I'm talking to you under the premise that the truth is at least preferable to me and you.

 

Moral Realist: The problem is you can't make sense of your preference for truth. It is illogical to have have preferences without reasons.

 

Nihilist: I don't see the reason why I have to "make sense" of my desires in the first place.

 

Moral Realist: So you're a sociopath then?

 

Nihilist: Uhhh...no.  I'm not a criminal.

 

Moral Realist: Well just because you you're not a criminal doesn't mean you aren't a sociopath. A sociopath is defined as someone who doesn't feel they have to justify their own preferences. Whether they actaully hurt people is irrelevent.

 

Nihilist: Even if I was a sociopath so what? Why does it matter?

 

Moral Realist: Because if you can't justify your own preferences then you will inevitably become a victim of those that are stronger, smarter, or fitter than you. Nature is governed by natural selection.

 

Nihilist: But even wolves cooperate with each other. Just because the earth is governed by natural selection doesn't mean those of the same species eat each other.

 

Moral Realist: That is true but wolves cooperate with each other because of instinct. Instict gives them an automatical knowledge of right and wrong. Mankind does not have an automatic knowledge of right and wrong. Right and Wrong are determined by man's reason. Men are capable of cannabalizing each other to a far higher degree than other animals because they do not act primarily on instinct. Since right and wrong must be determined by reason what reason is there for anyone to respect your preferences?

 

Nihilist: I don't think man is as non-instinctual as you claim, but I guess it would be best if not too many people think the way I do. Nihilism is okay as long as not too many people believe in it.

 

Moral Realist: Which is precisely the definition of what it means to be wrong. Other people shouldn't think the way I do!

 

Nihilist (Laughs, shakes his head and leaves)

[regevdl]

People with this mentality are as small and insignificant as they feel and project themselves to be.  His statements indirectly say 'i'm an insignificant individual and therefore my actions are insignificant."  Only someone who doesn't feel accomplished would feel their actions have no recourse or impact...good or bad.  

 

Also, his wife is no better.  It's great she was at LEAST apprehensive but her reason-so is pathetic.  Once again.....do good or else.  Rather than...do good because it's the right thing to do.  Gee.....mentality of an abused or spanked child?  Only doing good when you know you might get caught or punished.  Is anyone else sick of this mentality?  I know I am.  

 

People don't care about their actions unless they are effected personally.  That's his problem.  You will have a hard time making arguments unless he feels personally effected by them.  Stealing an extra movie view will be difficult to show him how he's hurting himself in the long run but it may be easier to connect his selfish, low-hanging fruit mentality and how others try to rip him off with the same mentality. 

 

By going around bragging about his selfish act, he may potentially encourage others and make it socially acceptable in which he might be the next 'victim' of this 'minor' act to which he most definitely will not be laughing then.