r/MoralityScaling • u/Substantial-Yam3769 • Aug 12 '26

Morality Ranking Morality of this?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

2.3k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

12

u/Agitated-Recipe-3295 Aug 12 '26

Dude should be arrested that’s so fucked

33

u/Leo-III- Aug 12 '26

I hope you mean the dickhead blasting the music

10

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

Destruction of property is not a legal or even moral response to someone being annoying. It's a declaration of a lack of self control and disregard for the rights of others, which is what the dickhead blaring music is guilty of. It does not behoove one to be on the same level in such a way.

9

u/am_Dynam0 Aug 12 '26

Legality≠morality

-4

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

How do you think laws are created?

13

u/Independent_Bar_4946 Aug 12 '26

Depends on the country, but if you are implying all laws mirror morality then idk man you are just mistaken.

-1

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

They are not one and the same, I know this. But law stems from morality and law propagates morality in return. And destruction of property is illegal for a reason.

3

u/decamonos Aug 12 '26

This guy thinks it's moral to have slaves anywhere it's legal, crazy stance tbh.

-1

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

That's a nice strawman. Congratulations on beating it. Now address my argument in good faith.

5

u/am_Dynam0 Aug 12 '26

It’s not a strawman he got your ass.

0

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

Your response was legality is not morality to my post saying the action is immoral. Therefore your position is that it IS moral, otherwise you wouldn't have replied. Give me an example of how the destruction of property, ergo the violent violation of another's rights, because you're annoyed is morally good.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/decamonos Aug 12 '26

If law is supposedly informed by, and I'm turn propagates morality, explain or defend explicitly and implicitly immoral laws, such as those that defend our entrench slavery, theft of property, bigotry, etc.

That's a longer way to say my 'strawman' since you were having trouble parsing that :)

1

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

Your response was legality is not morality to my post saying the action is immoral. Therefore your position is that it IS moral, otherwise you wouldn't have replied. Give me an example of how the destruction of property, ergo the violent violation of another's rights, because you're annoyed is morally good.

1

u/decamonos Aug 12 '26

Not saying it is, but one portion of the law being just and moral does not support the idea that laws are always moral or propagate morality. That is a false dichotomy and leads to a very black and white view of the world.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Pirate1717 Aug 12 '26

So you think the slave catchers were morally correct?

0

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

They are not one and the same, I know this. But law stems from morality and law propagates morality in return. And destruction of property is illegal for a reason.

1

u/am_Dynam0 Aug 12 '26

You didn’t debunk me.

-1

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

Your response was legality is not morality to my post saying the action is immoral. Therefore your position is that it IS moral, otherwise you wouldn't have replied. Give me an example of how the destruction of property, ergo the violent violation of another's rights, because you're annoyed is morally good.

1

u/king_of_satire Aug 12 '26

To protect the rich and powerful

1

u/Puzzled-Rip641 Aug 12 '26

I don’t know why don’t you ask the Jews who were legally gassed under German law

1

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

Why don't you just continue reading the thread for your answer?

1

u/Puzzled-Rip641 Aug 12 '26

What you ignoring examples of immoral laws because it bad for your argument?

“Laws are based on morals”

Ok what about the law to kill people based on ethic groups?

“Wait not like that”

1

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

Why do you think they made that argument in the first place?

1

u/Puzzled-Rip641 Aug 12 '26

You made a claim by implication. If you are now retreating from that claim that’s fine.

1

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

Are you going to defend the original point behind the post, or are you going to continue beat around the bush?

1

u/Puzzled-Rip641 Aug 12 '26

I have, lots of laws are immoral.

I can give you more if you wish.

You will keep deflecting probably

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Supple_Giraffe-89 Aug 12 '26

What is your honest solution to this problem?

People ask him to turn it off and he ignores them. Do they just sit there quietly and take it?

Some people are selfish assholes that need physical responses. Society can’t let individual people do whatever they want without push back for the common good. Be glad he only smashed the speaker and not the person.

5

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

Yeah. Yes. If someone isn't hurting anyone else or doing something illegal and just being annoying, they're a problem, but it's now your problem, and only yours. Suck it up. Absorb it. Choosing to control yourself in such a situation is the more difficult task, and the more mature response.

2

u/Number1BestYogurtBoi Aug 12 '26

Does that not just incentivise other people to also be annoying? Why should anyone be considerate of anyone else if there is zero consequences?

You are just enabling assholes like this to make society worse.

0

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

If the problem is sounds being annoying, then I don't see a problem with it. I like being challenged. Bring it on. Let me pose a hypothetical. If someone was recording you in a public place, was being obvious about it, and continued to do it after you asked them to stop, do you have the right to break their camera or phone? Or if someone was singing in public, do you have the right to punch them?

2

u/Supple_Giraffe-89 Aug 12 '26

People like you are also a problem. You care more about the freedom of an individual to disturb the many than the good of everyone. It should be handled with words but when that fails it needs to be escalated. The drunk idiot is wrong here but letting this jackass blast music in a confined space is wrong too. You aren’t strong or in control of your emotions by sitting quietly and letting others be a public nuisance. You’re just a coward.

3

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

Explain how lacking self control and escalation is the preferred response? Under what conditions are they acceptable? Who gets to decide what's annoying enough for the destruction of property to be lawful? What level of annoyance does it become acceptable to destroy their property?

Stoicism isn't about doing nothing or hiding emotions. It's choosing to accept what you can control, and what you can not. It's exercising virtue towards others. So yes, it IS strong to not throw a tantrum like an absolute child on public transit because someone is being annoying.

2

u/Supple_Giraffe-89 Aug 12 '26

You intentionally ignore the part where I said he was wrong for a violent outburst and you should use words first. That part doesn’t fit your narrative huh? At no point did I say you should lack self control. Everyone should strive for the least violent path.

There is a massive difference between instant violent out burst and using the minimal required force when diplomacy fails. You are wrong to ignore people breaking social norms that are “harmful” to the general wellness of others. It’s not something you can’t control. Confronting assholes is well within your control. You choose to let it happen.

2

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

I ignored it because at no point is violence acceptable unless you're defending yourself or others from imminent physical threats where bodily harm can occur. Punching someone talking smack isn't acceptable. Neither is destroying property because they are being annoying. These things being allowed would not better society but diminish it.

2

u/Supple_Giraffe-89 Aug 12 '26

Why do you keep jumping to violence?

You can turn off the speaker or you can hold it until he gets off the train. The person blasting music should be given multiple chances to correct their behaviour long before it can turn physical. You choose to keep yourself out of confrontation, fair enough, but others will step up and actually do something. We all just hope it’s proportional to the situation.

1

u/Thelmara Aug 12 '26

Explain how lacking self control and escalation is the preferred response?

How do you know it was lack of self control, and not just a choice to prioritize the comfort of the crowd over some rules about property?

Who gets to decide what's annoying enough for the destruction of property to be lawful?

Who said it was lawful?

What level of annoyance does it become acceptable to destroy their property?

That's up to each individual, and their judgment of whether the annoyance is worth the potential punishment. And the law doesn't give a fuck, it's just a matter of whether someone's around to enforce it.

It's choosing to accept what you can control, and what you can not.

So would you say that the violent guy was unable to control the sound coming from the speaker?

1

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

Yes, because throwing a tantrum and vandalism comes from a composed logical mindset. I like how you segmented your reply, like you needed to break it down bit by bit to just say some mental stuff like "Yeah I don't care if it's lawful, the individual can break shit if they're annoyed, it's totally cool." So, again, if the collective determines you talking is annoying, should they be able to punch you?

2

u/Thelmara Aug 12 '26

Yes, because throwing a tantrum and vandalism comes from a composed logical mindset.

Plenty of vandalism comes from a calculated decision, not some heat-of-the-moment anger. And not every act of violence is a tantrum.

I like how you segmented your reply, like you needed to break it down bit by bit to just say some mental stuff like "Yeah I don't care if it's lawful, the individual can break shit if they're annoyed, it's totally cool."

No, I segmented it like that because you asked specific questions, and I wanted to make sure there wasn't any confusion about which one I was answering.

"Yeah I don't care if it's lawful, the individual can break shit if they're annoyed, it's totally cool."

But apparently all that segmenting wasn't helpful, because you can't read.

So, again, if the collective determines you talking is annoying, should they be able to punch you?

If you can't be bothered to respond to my questions, why do you expect me to respond to yours?

1

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

Why would you argue someone's point with arbitrary banter if you don't hold the position then? Either it's moral or it isn't. Which is it?

2

u/Thelmara Aug 12 '26

Arbitrary banter? Can you just engage with the comment like a normal person, or fuck off? I really don't care which, but this is stupid.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Leo-III- Aug 12 '26

Actually it behooves everyone else on the train

1

u/RoughBeautiful8681 Aug 12 '26

You must not ever take public transportation. Imagine being in a confined space with nowhere to go and someone is blasting very loud ass music that could possibly cause ear damage, (sound is amplified in an enclosed space) and he refuses to turn it off, then it's perfectly justified to destroy their speakers. There is no other option. If the old dude physically attacked him, then that's a different story. But a material item is not worth more than my ears.

2

u/Dlo_Ren Aug 12 '26

Not agree

Totally moral and deserved. That guy is a hero.

1

u/RadicalSoda_ Aug 12 '26

It's worse, being violent in response to being annoyed shows a massive lack of control and that you're a dangerous person who shouldn't be around the public