Examining the Morality of Robbing and Killing: A Scientific Perspective

  • Thread starter Thread starter wolram
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the moral implications of robbery and the concept of evil in various scenarios. It questions whether different forms of theft, including robbing a bank with or without violence, can be justified based on the intent or outcome, such as giving to the poor or personal gain. Participants explore the idea that morality is subjective, often referencing the principle of not doing to others what one wouldn't want done to themselves. There is a debate about the legality and morality of taxes, with some arguing that taxation feels like robbery, while others defend it as a necessary means of collective resource management. The conversation also touches on the idea of personal justification for actions deemed wrong, suggesting that feeling the need to ask if something is evil may indicate an inherent understanding of its wrongness. Overall, the thread examines the complexities of moral reasoning in relation to theft, violence, and societal obligations.
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
4,410
Reaction score
555
If i rob a bank and get clean away is that evil.
If i rob a bank and kill a couple of guards is that evil.
If i rob a bank and kill innocent hostages is that evil.
If i rob from the rich without killing and give to the poor is that evil.
If i rob from the rich and kill and give to the poor is that evil.
If rob from the rich and kill and keep the money is that evil.
If i kill and kill just for gain is that evil.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What are you smoking sir, and may I have some?
 
Cyrus said:
What are you smoking sir, and may I have some?

Just thinking of my pension without regret.
 
Just make sure you wear green tights when you rob people.
 
Cyrus said:
Just make sure you wear green tights when you rob people.

I doubt if i would wear tights, all i need is resolution from feeling evil just because i took money from people by what ever means to make my life easier.
 
If you're planning for retirement in the slammer, it's probably better to do many short stints than one really long one. Go for something petty, like a spot of tax fraud. It's probably also easier on the conscience when you divide the damage by 60 million.
 
wolram said:
I doubt if i would wear tights, all i need is resolution from feeling evil just because i took money from people by what ever means to make my life easier.

I just saw a great movie on corruption. Its called "Enron". I am sure you could not come close to those guys in your wildest dreams.

daily_june21_enron.jpg

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Serious here, evil is defined through morals...morals are basically made through the understanding...Don't do to others what you won't have them do to you...Karma, what goes around comes around.
 
Skhandelwal said:
Serious here, evil is defined through morals...morals are basically made through the understanding...Don't do to others what you won't have them do to you...Karma, what goes around comes around.

In one way or another people are robbing me, (tax) legally so would it be so bad if took some back.
 
  • #10
If you feel a need to ask, then the answer is probably yes.
 
  • #11
Q: What is evil?

A: Graduate electrodynamics with Jackson.
 
  • #12
arunma said:
Q: What is evil?

A: Graduate electrodynamics with Jackson.

Then what is undergraduate electrodynamics with Jackson?

As a fourth-year undergrad, I was required to take two semesters of electrodynamics, and we covered most of Jackson.
 
  • #13
What did you use for your graduate work?

With the help of a grad student, we paralled our undergrad coursework with Jackson, but the tests were all based on Griffiths.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Ivan Seeking said:
What did you use for your graduate work?

With the help of a grad student, we paralled our undergrad coursework with Jackson, but the tests were all based on Griffiths.

Nothing.

If a grad student was accepted without the equivalent of all of Jackson, they had to enroll in the undergrad electromagnetism courses.

All grad students had to take Advanced Quantum Mechanics I, Advanced Quantum Mechanics II and three of Statistical Mechanics I, Statistical Mechanics II, Field Theory I, Field Theory II, Elementary Particle Physics.

All grad students also had to take a certain minimum number of courses. I forget what the number was, but it was more than five. I was allowed to take three graduate courses in pure mathematics as partial fulfillment of this requirement.
 
  • #15
wolram said:
In one way or another people are robbing me, (tax) legally so would it be so bad if took some back.
Two answers here:
1] If someone wrongs you, that does not give you justification for wronging them back. If it's wrong, it stays wrong.

2] Why do you feel taxes are robbery? Here is how I look at taxes:

[Dave's naive PoV]
In a simple world, I either build - or pay for - everything I need, including such things as power for my mill and disposal of my sewage.

That is a very expensive way of living because it means I have to build a power plant on my land and then dig a sewage ditch all the way to the river.

These big ticket items don't scale down well - they work best (i.e. cheaper) on larger scales. If me and my neighbour could cooperate, we could build one power plant and one sewage ditch between us. It would cost less than twice as much. We'd save money.

If I got a hundred of my neighbours together, built one powerplant and a series of ditches, and let someone else handle it, I now get cheap power, cheap sewage - and more, I don't have to maintain it, someone else will. (One operson can manage a dam and sewage for 100 people).

The cost for this by me is fixed and predictable, which is good for my yearly budget.

In an ideal circumstance, this is a win-win.


Just think of your taxes as paying for stuff you'd have to pay for on your own anyway - but it's cheaper.
[/Dave's naive PoV]
 
Last edited:
Back
Top