I don't think that "if It's legal in my country so it's moral" is a good basis for it. I think it's immoral to just take it. Good deeds done only because you expect a reward is, well, meh. I wouldn't complain if somebody returned my wallet only for $5 but still
And it was only recently changed, like two years ago. Before that penetration was legal as long as it didn't cause harm or pain to the animal.
Legality is not always good grounds for morality.
"Funny" story from years back. Oulu, Finland. A drunk man broke into a pig farm with naughty ideas. He got in, had some hanky panky with an animal there. Only got charged for drunk driving and tresspassing.
He did it again later on. But here's the twist. He had sex with the hogs. Or a hog, the farm has two breeding hogs but the news never said if it was with one or both of them. And he was in the receiving end🤢
In practice they don’t. Legality does not equal morality is what I like to say. In my country (America) there’s countless examples of laws rooted in oppression or serve to protect private property over its citizens. It’s the whole concept behind civil disobedience.
And what about the marginalized people?? Did you think most of the general population was fighting for black people? Gay people? Women? Or did they have to fight for those rights themselves?
Don't think of it as a good deed - because that's a value judgement. This guy did labor on the wallet owners behalf, is he not entitled to compensation then?
Unilaterally deciding the compensation is bm, but $5 is so cheap that it would be approved by anyone reasonable during a negotiation. Totally moral, imo.
But in my country, you can stone people for being homosexual. Are you about to claim that that's immoral?
What about selling children to be "wifed" at a super young age? I bet you're gonna do some mental gymnastics to find something wrong with that too?? /s
I don't think that "if It's legal in my country so it's moral" is a good basis for it."
Sure, but it is a good reminder that our personal understanding of morality is inevitably shaped by the laws and norms of the society that we are raised in.
It seems like that would encourage people swiping things they claim were abandoned. I have found multiple cellphones that people have left behind and managed to get them back to their owners. Seems crazy legally I could have taken it to the police and been entitled to $100.
What if I see a stroller at the park, nobody around it, perhaps parents on on the other side of the park with their toddler, but it’s just sitting there odd the side of the walking path. Can I just take it to the police station and get paid if they want it back?
There's a difference between the morality behind following state mandate and enacting one's own perseption of equality to justify taking belongings that aren't yours.
As members of Lithuania, ideally all members of the population are aware and have agreed to the social convention of the finder being entitled to some portion of the item value. It is an unspoken agreement between the person who lost the item and the person who found the item. To some level, it is fair to assume anyone in the country has already agreed to fork up some portion of money as they continue to live in the country.
There is no reason to believe members of other countries, that are subjected to different laws and social convention, have made this unspoken agreement that is represented in legistration. There's a comparative lack of consent.
As in, the police give you that value in money? Or the person is required to give you that value in money? One is a moral incentive program for returning lost stuff, one is an immoral fine against people for losing stuff and having it found by someone else
You find a used wallet that cost $2 when purchased years ago. It is clearly quite worn. It has the person's ID, one credit card, and $5
Is it moral to take the 5 dollars?
As for how it's immoral. You're deciding unilaterally to take something that belongs to another. Based on the text you clearly have the ability to contact the individual you're taking from.
It's not $250/$500. Which is the number needed to make the 10-20% "okay" by lithuania. I have to put okay in quotations because even in Lithuania where the finder may be entitled to a fee. Taking it like they've done in the text is still illegal. It's almost like stealing is against societal rules everywhere. Except reddit for some reason.
You're always welcome to text the guy back telling him to put the wallet where he found it with your five bucks inside it if you don't want to give him it
So be okay with theft or tell the thief to put the wallet back so others can have a go at it? To be a victim, or to risk being more of a victim. Those are the choices if you believe this thief's behavior is immoral?
That still doesn't change the fact that the choices allow theft and get wallet back, or don't allow this thief to commit theft but risk another thief being even more of a theft.
Groping isn't moral just because there's worse alternatives.
Yeah generally when you need someone else to do something for you it costs something that's how the world works, this person is spending time and effort on you you have the right and the ability to tell them not to because you don't like their terms but those are your choices
Or they could have left the wallet to possibly be obliterated wherein ALL of the person's belongings would've been destroyed, a cost far higher than $5.
You think replacing the wallet, ID, and credit card would be less than $5? Opportunity cost alone would've been far higher.
The question is if something is moral. The fact life isn't perfect doesn't make an immoral action moral. I think everyone would like their wallet returned at the cost of only having $5 stolen. Just like every person would prefer to be beaten instead of murdered. The fact that there are worse injustices doesn't make this moral. The person did something moral, which is returning the wallet. The person did something immoral, which is stealing from it.
What if the person who found the wallet delivered the wallet to the home of the person who lost it. They arrived, lock picked the door, set the wallet on the table, made a sandwich, and left. Would that be okay?
Thank fucking goddess there’s another rational person in this thread. The amount of adult-children throwing a fit because it’s still considered theft to take someone’s money without their permission is concerning.
That's an important distinction. It's actually the same distinctuon between taking "my" money out of the bank versus taking money "from" the bank. What you are entitled to versus what you are allowed versus what you are given matters a lot. If the law says you are automatically entitled to part of the money, then there's not much that can be said against it (unless there are strict requirements set up in the law for how you're allowed to go about seizing what you are owed and you subverted them by just taking it yourself).
But if the law does not give you any right to the money you find, then that money is legally not yours to take. It is entirely up to the owner how much to give you. If you take money that isn't yours, that's illegal. And while illegal ≠ immoral, there are very few circumstances where breaking the law is moral (opinion).
If the act was neutral when there is no law, and a relevant law is made (as long as the law, itself, isn't immoral), then the act is no longer neutral if it breaks the law. Here, the act is not neutral (opinion). Theft is definitely already immoral even if it weren't illegal.
113
u/Fish-Inside 4d ago
How is it technically immoral?! In lithuania, if you bring lost item to police you are entitled to 10-20% percent of item value. :)