Who is Ethically responsible in the following scenario.

Who is responsible?

  • Rich Lord

    Votes: 5 62.5%

  • Poor Person 1

    Votes: 3 37.5%
  • Total voters
    8
L

lixluke

Refined Reinvention
Valued Senior Member
The Rich Lord has enslaved the poor people. One such poor person decides that instead of serving the long hours toiling away for the sake of Rich Lord's fat pockets, he will rob Rich Lord to the best of his capacity, and relax all day long. Now Poor Person 1 is dedicated to robbing Rich Lord.

Poor Person 1 might use the money to invest in personal education and development or squander it on partying. Either way is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that Rich Lord feeling a little less richer decides to take it out on the poor slave community by taking more from them. Wait a minute. Rich Lord understands the concept of maximizing profits. You see before he was ever robbed, Rich Lord squeezed as much out of the slaves as humanly possible. The rate at which Rich Lord bleeds his subjects dry remains consistant weather or not Poor Person 1 has stolen from him or not.

Who is at fault for the suffering of the poor slaves?
A: Rich Lord for enslaving them.
or
B: Poor Person 1 for robbing Rich Lord, and upsetting him?
 
the rich lord is at fault for enslaving the workers, but the robber is also guilty in that when he robbed the rich man he did not share his wealth with the poor, he is therefore no better than the rich man, and if you consider it theft, then he is even worse than the lord.
 
The poor person is responsible, because if he felt under privelaged he should have left before , instead of waiting to steal from his boss.
 
vslayer said:
the rich lord is at fault for enslaving the workers, but the robber is also guilty in that when he robbed the rich man he did not share his wealth with the poor, he is therefore no better than the rich man, and if you consider it theft, then he is even worse than the lord.
Click to expand...
Is he responsible because he did not share what he stole?
How much should he share in order to be considered respobsible?
If the amount he stole was enough to pay only his necessities, is he still ethically obligated to share? Is it still his responsibility?
If the amount he stole was a great deal, it would still be very difficult for him to use it to help the rest of the slaves even if he wanted to.
What would you do if you were him?
 
i cant make any sense of what you just said. the thing to remember however is that it is the workers who pay taxes(not the rich) and when you leech their welfare money, you are taking money from the workers, intended for the needy, you arent robbing the rich at all.
 
vslayer said:
i cant make any sense of what you just said. the thing to remember however is that it is the workers who pay taxes(not the rich) and when you leech their welfare money, you are taking money from the workers, intended for the needy, you arent robbing the rich at all.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Where di you get that false idea?
when you are robbing the rich, you are robbing the rich. It is not moey meant for thepoor. It is money meant for the rich. How told you that it was money meant for the poor?
 
I think the poor one is wrong because he felt as if he was someohow "special" and did not deserve to have to work like the rest of the poor people.
I think he is a self-absorbed little prick who let his over-inflated sense of entitlement lead him to justify making his fellow poor, suppressed people work harder and keep less of their own money.
I think he is so self-absorbed, in fact, that he demands everyone pay his way even though he is privelaged enough to somehow afford modern conveneinces like a computer with internet access, and has more than enough spare time to waste playing with it.
I think that he thinks being paid to engage in his leisure time activities is more important than having money to feed starving children who can't afford to eat without the help of social systems designed to help those who CAN'T help themselves.
I think rather than making an effort to work with the other oppressed peoples and change public policy and oust the crooked power, he decided he would take advantage of the fact that the crooked power allows him to get over on the others and be a hypocritical leach.

I think the he would throw the other person out of a two-person life boat so he could stretch his legs more comfortably.
I think he is simply lazy and immature.
I think he is the root of much of what is wrong in this country.

I think he knows all of this already, however, and would simply rather spend his time designing fictitous underground lairs, playing video games and arguing on the internet than working, and is looking for anything he can find to justify that.
I think he realizes that everyone else wants to play all day instead of work, but wants to find a way to validate it to himeself that he deserves to get a free ride on everyone else's back, because he is "special".

I think that if he didn't want to work, he shouldn't have to. I wouldn't have a problem if he would raise and hunt his own food, rather than steal from my pockets. However, he is too lazy, self-absorbed and immature to actually perform any form of "work" even to his own direct benefit, therefore would starve to death without the welfare of the system.

I think the spoiled little child needs to be kicked in the ass, kicked out into the street and made to understand what real problems are.

Does that answer your question?
 
one_raven said:
I think the poor one is wrong because he felt as if he was someohow "special" and did not deserve to have to work like the rest of the poor people.
Click to expand...
This is inaccurate. It is not him significantly that deserves to not work like the rest of them. It is every individual that does not deserve to not have to work like the rest of them. Stop changing the scenario.
 
to simplistic to have a define answer.

Both parties are obviously inept. Rich Lord is clearly not acustomed with slavery because if he was he would know that he gets far better end results by giving them some slack a lifetime can last so much longer yust like the profits that can be made of the man.

The poor person is obviously inept because he can't control his own fate. And shows no wil at al to dominate. A person that would inprison me should not fear the aditional lose of his money but should fear for his bloody life.
 
What if the Rich Lord was operating as you suggested?
As for Poor Person, you are insinuating violent action. That is awholenother ethical dillema.
 
The Rich Lord is evil, he should be removed from existence. The poor people are also evil, they are poor :L They must be removed from existence. Infact why not just kill everybody and let'm figure it out later :p
 
I picked the poor people. Yes, i'm not 100% capitalist. I think the poor folks are responsible not only for themselves but for their neighbors and even children's children. Having a lord dominating and dictating over a population is not the fault of the dictator, it is the fault of the community, and the people make up the community. Anybody can be a brutal dictator, but he is only a man or fraction of a whole. A failed state is almost always the responsibility of the group of people, rather than a single party. The people have more power than they know. If we never had the french revolution, we probably would have never discovered ol' democracy.
 
lixluke said:
The Rich Lord has enslaved the poor people. One such poor person decides that instead of serving the long hours toiling away for the sake of Rich Lord's fat pockets, he will rob Rich Lord to the best of his capacity, and relax all day long. Now Poor Person 1 is dedicated to robbing Rich Lord.

Poor Person 1 might use the money to invest in personal education and development or squander it on partying. Either way is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that Rich Lord feeling a little less richer decides to take it out on the poor slave community by taking more from them. Wait a minute. Rich Lord understands the concept of maximizing profits. You see before he was ever robbed, Rich Lord squeezed as much out of the slaves as humanly possible. The rate at which Rich Lord bleeds his subjects dry remains consistant weather or not Poor Person 1 has stolen from him or not.

Who is at fault for the suffering of the poor slaves?
A: Rich Lord for enslaving them.
or
B: Poor Person 1 for robbing Rich Lord, and upsetting him?
Click to expand...

Both. The Rich Lord is inefficient and unable to profit without causing suffering, and the Poor Person is efficient but stupid, thinking only of short term profits.

The result is both are morally responsible. It's not really as simple as Rich Lord and Poor Person, it's Good person and Bad Person.

What about the Rich Lord that wants a more efficient society?

What about the Poor Person who does not steal?
 
orcot said:
to simplistic to have a define answer.

Both parties are obviously inept. Rich Lord is clearly not acustomed with slavery because if he was he would know that he gets far better end results by giving them some slack a lifetime can last so much longer yust like the profits that can be made of the man.

The poor person is obviously inept because he can't control his own fate. And shows no wil at al to dominate. A person that would inprison me should not fear the aditional lose of his money but should fear for his bloody life.
Click to expand...

You want him to fear for his life? What if he just kills you outright instead of considering prison?
 
What if the Rich Lord was operating as you suggested?
As for Poor Person, you are insinuating violent action. That is awholenother ethical dillema.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the world. (If you don't exactly understand this then try comparing your mental abilities for example with George Bush and your own personal change of becoming president)

You want him to fear for his life? What if he just kills you outright instead of considering prison?
Click to expand...

If he's fearing for his life then he has no reason to fear you because he can yust kill you so it's you who should fear for your life. I simply suggest taking the most easy route out

No reason to harm the man that feeds and cloths you. If that is a more easy way of living
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top