Originally Posted by RyanC

Perhaps this question isn't very well defined, since the context is missing. Maybe it would seem more morally permissable if we knew why this shopkeeper wanted rip off the customer? Is it greed, or has this person wronged him in the past and he feels the need to get him back?

Maybe it's simply because the shopkeeper is in a position of power--a position to act potentially without consequences unless there is a greater power governing him. His position of power, (a), combined with what seems like (b) a seemingly susceptible customer and (c) an opportune time and (d) his desire for greater wealth (read: greed) seems to me a likely explanation. The fifth factor (e), however, was his worry of the consequences of getting caught, which might include (1) lack of customers needed to sustain his business and (2) potential punishments imposed by the greater authority governing him.

Interesting.

Originally Posted by SilentWalker

If the shopkeeper's motive for not ripping off the customer is due to being caught, his act isn't moral. It's selfish.

I think this line is pretty interesting- why do moral actions and selfish actions have to be mutually exclusive? A prime example: Chrome for a Cause. Google is looking out for their own self interest in launching the program, but they are doing a large amount of good through it. Pretty much every action Google takes falls into that category- benefiting Google, but also benefiting everyone else.

In this scenario, the shopkeeper benefits by not ripping the customer off, the customer benefits by not being ripped off, what's not to love?

Originally Posted by Marlowe

I think this line is pretty interesting- why do moral actions and selfish actions have to be mutually exclusive? A prime example: Chrome for a Cause. Google is looking out for their own self interest in launching the program, but they are doing a large amount of good through it. Pretty much every action Google takes falls into that category- benefiting Google, but also benefiting everyone else.

In this scenario, the shopkeeper benefits by not ripping the customer off, the customer benefits by not being ripped off, what's not to love?

I would argue that in Google's case, wrongdoings aren't involved. With the shopkeeper, he simply stopped himself from doing a wrong to save his own ass. Google is doing a good, regardless of their ultimate motive. Bad vs. nothing. Nothing vs. good.

So selfish, but for what reason? Again, it comes back down to intention.

Shopkeeper failed to stick to his goal. Lacks determination.

Originally Posted by SilentWalker

I would argue that in Google's case, wrongdoings aren't involved. With the shopkeeper, he simply stopped himself from doing a wrong to save his own ass. Google is doing a good, regardless of their ultimate motive. Bad vs. nothing. Nothing vs. good.

So selfish, but for what reason? Again, it comes back down to intention.

I'm going to, change the scenario a bit. I'd like to know what you think, SilentWalker, if the shopkeeper's intent stays the same, but along with not conning the customer, he also gives every customer a nickel because then, he will eventually be known as a kind shopkeeper.

Does that suddenly make him a good person?

He is now doing good, regardless of his ultimate motive.

Originally Posted by Cliu91

i wanna hug him

I wanna hug you D:

Free hugs for everyone this cwwwwisssmasss

Originally Posted by ChatBot

I'm going to, change the scenario a bit. I'd like to know what you think, SilentWalker, if the shopkeeper's intent stays the same, but along with not conning the customer, he also gives every customer a nickel because then, he will eventually be known as a kind shopkeeper.

Does that suddenly make him a good person?

He is now doing good, regardless of his ultimate motive.

You see, like I mentioned before (my first post in this thread), there's a common sense factor. Something we, as humans, are able to judge, all the same, regardless of background. Someone who was just contemplating to rip off a customer won't just immediately change his mind and decide to give customers nickels instead. It's a conflict of nature, and unless there's more context to it, it's highly impossible to happen. And I'm sure that if there is more context to the situation, his intentions would be different.

You may say that I'm avoiding answering your question, but that's because it's impossible to answer. It's just not done. It's not human.

Originally Posted by AelyaS

A customer walks into a shop. The customer walks around and picks up a few different items, and the proceeds to the cashier. The shop keeper has been thinking about ripping off this person by either charging more for the goods, or simply short changing the customer. For the sake of the argument let us suppose that the shop keeper would not be caught. He would get away with this. However, ultimately the shop keeper decides not to rip off the customer because he is afraid that if he were to be caught, than people would not come to his store because he would be known for ripping people off.


So, the question is: is the shop keeper moral? He ultimately did the right thing, but perhaps his motivation is wrong. But does motivation and actual act both needed for something to be moral, or is a moral act good within itself?

Didn't have time to read the thread right now I'm in a bit of a rush but...

Interest to note that you stated as absolute truth: "He ultimately did the right thing". But this begs the question, what if the shopkeep ripped him off and it turned out to be a good thing (i.e. the right thing)? For the sake of stagnant imagination I will paint a scenario where this may be true. Perhaps the customer is going to be awakened by this rip off once he realizes it and will save a larger loss so to speak?

Interesting thread though, will get back to it with a closer look at the moral aspects.

I feel that the best judge of a person's morality is their thoughts, rather than their actions. Morality is a system of determining whether an action is right or wrong and as such only exists within our mind. Because the shopkeeper wishes to do the wrong thing, despite doing the right thing in the end, he is immoral. His immorality is not justified by the fact of the fear of the repercussions of his actions outweigh his desire to do wrong unto his patron.

Take the example of a person who works in a soup kitchen yet daydreams of raping and killing all the homeless people. If we consider this person's actions they are kind and moral, however their sense of morality is clearly distorted and unjust. Since morality exists only in the mind, one's actions can never be a truly reliable judge of morality. However, actions are generally the only judge of character we have, which places us between a metaphorical rock and a hard place on the issue of judging morality.

Furthermore, I'd just like to point out that in judging anyone else's morality, you must compare it to your own morality. As much as we like to believe that our sense of morality is flawless, this is simply not true. There is no universally accepted perfect morality and as such, no way to truly decide if all aspects of a person's moral code are just or not. A common example we've seen on the forums of conflicting morality is whether or not illegal download of software, games, songs, etc. is justified.

Originally Posted by Rakim

I wanna hug you D:

Free hugs for everyone this cwwwwisssmasss

You know ya wanna.

Interesting reads => Kohlberg's theory of moral development and the Heinz dilemma. Kohlberg's theory can help to explain the reasoning behind a person's decision. The Heinz dilemma is a frequently discussed example of an ethical dilemma.

He thinks the "wrong" things and wants to do the "wrong" things but ultimately doesn't because of his fear of the possible repercussions.

So not only is he "immoral" but a pu55y as well.

(I put the words in quotations because in the end, it's all subjective)

I'd say thoughts, and not actions, are the ultimate decider in judging someone's morality. I'd say we're all pretty fortunate that we have free will and our minds can't be read.

Originally Posted by lawleypop

He thinks the "wrong" things and wants to do the "wrong" things but ultimately doesn't because of his fear of the possible repercussions.

So not only is he "immoral" but a pu55y as well.

(I put the words in quotations because in the end, it's all subjective)

I'd say thoughts, and not actions, are the ultimate decider in judging someone's morality. I'd say we're all pretty fortunate that we have free will and our minds can't be read.

It's not who you are underneath, but what you do that defines you.

... Bruce?


As pointed out before, if our thoughts are what dictates our morality, then not even the most pious/righteous/whatever person is ever perfectly moral, not that it was suggested that there was a person like that. It's just interesting how futile morality can seem in my head.

Originally Posted by aya017

Question: why are we discussing this? Is this a new means to procrastinate? If so, I like! lol.

On topic: Personally.. I think what matters is doing the right thing. But to be truly good in my opinion, you'd have to have the right motivation along with the right act. But then again, really? How often does that happen? Especially for ethically charged scenarios. So do the right thing, and maybe the right reason will creep on you and you'll internalize it one day after doing the right thing tons of times.

Its for a take home exam.

Originally Posted by ChatBot

It's not who you are underneath, but what you do that defines you.

FFS, can we actually have real conversation instead of quoting mindless garbage?

The only people who live by that quote are those who can't accept the fact that everyone (read: all of humanity) has "bad" thoughts.

Hate to break it to you, EVERYTHING that you do/happens to you/etc defines you.