Poll: Read OP.
Poll Options
View poll results: Read OP.
Yes, it's immoral for Gary to do that
42 49%
No, it isn't immoral for Gary to do that
28 33%
Ain't sure
15 18%
Voters: 85.
Page 1 of 2
#1
A person (we'll call him Gary) lends somebody some money. The person he lent the money to (we'll call him Mike) promises to pay Gary back by a certain time period. Lets say 3 days. And lets just say the amount of money is somewhere between $20 - $100 although I don't think that makes much of a difference.

So, 3 days go by, and Mike cannot pay Gary back. Mike's like "I'll pay you back in a couple days." So and and so forth, Mike doesn't end up paying Gary back.

So Gary decides to steal the money from Mike. The method, I think, doesn't really matter, but lets just say he took the money out of Mike's wallet when he wasn't around.

Do you think it was immoral for Gary to do that? Or do you think he is justified? He only took the amount of money Mike owed him. And Gary lent the money on the conditions that Mike pay him back in a certain time period.

And no, I didn't steal somebody's money or anything. I've just been debating this question in my head for a bit.

EDIT: And ignore the title of this thread. Just answer whether or not it's immoral.
Last edited by The Madcap at Dec 7, 2011,
#2
Yes, it's immoral.
^^The above is a Cryptic Metaphor^^


"To know the truth of history is to realize its ultimate myth and its inevitable ambiguity." Everything is made up and the facts don't matter.


MUSIC THEORY LINK
#3
Yes, it's immoral and I'll justify later.
--------------╯╰--------------
A SIGNATURE.
--------------╮╭--------------
Last edited by DonGlover at Dec 7, 2011,
#4
Ya that's justifiable. That's pretty much what banks do except it's all legit and they charge interest.

Consider this: what if buy something, use it and then return, claiming it is non-functional and return it. Essentially giving me a free rental. Is that moral? Cause I do it all the ****ing time lol
#5
Poor Mike and his coke addiction. Leave him alone Gary!!!
Quote by AgentWiggles
Thanks, douche.


Quote by SlayingDragons
Dude...



Gear:
Ibanez SZ 520QM
Ibanez RG 450DXB
Fender Big Apple Stratocaster
Pod XT Live
Peavey XXX Half Stack
Peavey Bandit 112
and a soul of Rock n' Roll
#6
Quote by metalblaster
Ya that's justifiable. That's pretty much what banks do except it's all legit and they charge interest.

Consider this: what if buy something, use it and then return, claiming it is non-functional and return it. Essentially giving me a free rental. Is that moral? Cause I do it all the ****ing time lol

Except that you enter an agreement with the bank that allows them to do that. As to your second point, you're lying.
^^The above is a Cryptic Metaphor^^


"To know the truth of history is to realize its ultimate myth and its inevitable ambiguity." Everything is made up and the facts don't matter.


MUSIC THEORY LINK
#7
Gary (f*cking Oak) is immoral and should feel immoral.
Skip the username, call me Billy
Last edited by aerosmithfan95 at Dec 7, 2011,
#8
Well, if you don't make your car payments they can take your car back. This is basically the same idea.
#9
The fact that Scumbag Mike is being an immoral twat doesn't give Scumbag Gary the right to be an immoral twat too.
You who build these altars now

To sacrifice these children
You must not do it anymore
#10
Just take the money Jason!
Quote by StonedColdCrazy
Fact is nobody has ever proven smoking to cause cancer.
#11
It's immoral to borrow money that you know you can't pay back, but it's also sort of immoral for Gary to just go ahead and take it back - just because you have $100 in your wallet, doesn't necessarily mean you can afford to pay $100 back right now. Maybe Mike really is struggling for money and that cash he had was earmarked for other essential stuff, like travelling to work, school or whatever. Obviously we don't know a full detailed backstory but I'd lean towards saying that Gary is in the wrong, unless it turns out Mike is just a dick who never intended to pay it back, or had that $100 and had nothing else he really had to lay out for.
And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me: no, nor woman neither... nor women neither.
Last edited by Caustic at Dec 7, 2011,
#13
It depends. If Mike is walking about with the money lying in his wallet not doing anything I would say it's fine. Although, if the money in the wallet was all Mike had to get him through the week/month/whatever then it's pretty immoral.


#14
Meant to vote immoral. This is one of those times where the Categorical Imperative should definitely be used. Stealing is stealing.
I like St. Anger. Ridicule me, daddy
Quote by The_Blode
^ I'm sorry your highness I forgot that I'm subhuman. . .

Quote by ErikLensherr
Normani
Normani
Normies
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
#15
Quote by zgr0826
Meant to vote immoral. This is one of those times where the Categorical Imperative should definitely be used. Stealing is stealing.

Kant all up in this bitch.
You who build these altars now

To sacrifice these children
You must not do it anymore
#16
Interesting Poll results. I like topics where UG is more cut in half as opposed to Evolution or gay marriage where it's like 95% leaning to the more liberal opinion (not saying that's a good or bad thing).

I'm still undecided on it, but I'm more sympathizing towards Gary, mainly because it's f*cking annoying when I've had people unable to pay me back, and in my experience it never had to do with them being unable to afford paying me back, rather than them just being lazy.
#17
Quote by the bartender
Kant all up in this bitch.


You know it.
I like St. Anger. Ridicule me, daddy
Quote by The_Blode
^ I'm sorry your highness I forgot that I'm subhuman. . .

Quote by ErikLensherr
Normani
Normani
Normies
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
#20
Clicked no it's not immoral then immediately regretted it because of this.

Quote by Caustic
It just because you have $100 in your wallet, doesn't necessarily mean you can afford to pay $100 back right now.
#21
Not sure, but I'm not going to vote until I make up my mind.
My signature lacks content. It is, however, blue.
#22
Banks can take the car back because the car is identified as collateral--it's in the contract.

BTW, often they still lose money on the deal because the car often isn't worth the amount left on the loan, plus they have to pay the repo man, the auction house, etc.

First off, Gary shouldn't lend money to friends. Second if he's going to lend money and wants it back, then he should set up a written agreement for collateral. Like Mike should give him his 15 watt Line 6 Spider IV/Marshall MG until he can pay back the money.
Last edited by jetwash69 at Dec 7, 2011,
#23
Quote by The Madcap

I'm still undecided on it, but I'm more sympathizing towards Gary, mainly because it's f*cking annoying when I've had people unable to pay me back, and in my experience it never had to do with them being unable to afford paying me back, rather than them just being lazy.


Understandable. But example - you've taken out a bank loan for some legitimate reason, or hell, even a frivilous, I-want-a-new-toy thing that at the time you thought you'd be able to repay. Six months down the line, or however long, and you're out of work and though you have x amount of money in your account that you could use to repay that loan, you need it to feed yourself, pay travel costs, rent, et cetera. Due to you not paying the loan back, the lender goes through whatever legal process and reclaims either the money or goods to the value of, you're now totally, completely broke and up the creek without a paddle, so to speak. Moral or not?

You could say your Gary and Mike story is a mini version of that. It's all about the circumstances and without knowing the full story, I'd still say Gary was in the wrong for just taking the money without thinking about what Mike's situation is.
And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me: no, nor woman neither... nor women neither.
#24
Its immoral. You dont lend money without collateral or a binding contract. Besides... if someone has to ask to borrow money, they're pretty much terrible with finances.
Most of the important things


in the world have been accomplished


by people who have kept on


trying when there seemed to be no hope at all
#26
What if Gary needs the $100 to pay his rent or he's out on his ass and Mike simply has no intention of paying him back? Basically, is it the action itself that's immoral, or can the circumstances it's in affect it?
My signature lacks content. It is, however, blue.
#27
Quote by MAC2322
What if Gary needs the $100 to pay his rent or he's out on his ass and Mike simply has no intention of paying him back? Basically, is it the action itself that's immoral, or can the circumstances it's in affect it?

You don't know the circumstances other than those described in the casus. Or as my old maths-teacher used to say: "Assumption is the mother of all ****-ups".
You who build these altars now

To sacrifice these children
You must not do it anymore
#28
Quote by due 07
Oh, btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right


I mean it's pretty well established that it's immoral.


So some day Gary ought to borrow Mike the same amount of cash, and then maybe not pay it back? Maybe they can agree to call it even?

That's better than stealing out of the wallet, but since Mike's a scumbag he probably won't agree to lend Gary money anyway...
#30
Quote by the bartender
You don't know the circumstances other than those described in the casus. Or as my old maths-teacher used to say: "Assumption is the mother of all ****-ups".


Right. The point is, do the circumstances (or rather, can they) affect the moral standing of the action?
My signature lacks content. It is, however, blue.
#31
Quote by MAC2322
Right. The point is, do the circumstances (or rather, can they) affect the moral standing of the action?

depends on your philosophy on ethics. I personally would say it can, but it doesn't necessarily have to.
You who build these altars now

To sacrifice these children
You must not do it anymore
#32
Its immoral but I know Id do it
>>-(ಠ_ಠ-<<
>>-(. Y .)-<<
>>> . (<<<
>>-( Y )-<<
Quote by dudetheman
Dude, your fucking sig creeps me out.

Quote by Kosh H
I just noticed his sig too...I feel uncomfortable now...

Quote by WantsLesPaul
Your sig killed my boner _


DIY SO-CAL PUNK LABEL
#33
Quote by jetwash69
So some day Gary ought to borrow Mike the same amount of cash, and then maybe not pay it back? Maybe they can agree to call it even?

No, that's still wrong...
#34
Quote by Caustic
It's immoral to borrow money that you know you can't pay back, but it's also sort of immoral for Gary to just go ahead and take it back - just because you have $100 in your wallet, doesn't necessarily mean you can afford to pay $100 back right now. Maybe Mike really is struggling for money and that cash he had was earmarked for other essential stuff, like travelling to work, school or whatever. Obviously we don't know a full detailed backstory but I'd lean towards saying that Gary is in the wrong, unless it turns out Mike is just a dick who never intended to pay it back, or had that $100 and had nothing else he really had to lay out for.


This exactly. It really isn't such a clear-cut circumstance without more information about what is going on in either person's life. If Mike is a dick and knowingly borrowed the money without the intention of repaying Gary, I don't think anything immoral has been committed by Gary taking what actually IS his property (he did not transfer full rights of his ownership of the $100 to Mike, but rather gave him certain temporary rights to it under specific obligations, much like a car loan). If MIke was actually in a financial pickle and was honestly unable to repay Gary the money owed, and if the money that Gary took from his wallet was needed for essential things at the time, I do feel that Gary is in the wrong, but I am a little hesitant to commit fully to that notion... :S
Last edited by Paquijón at Dec 7, 2011,
#36
Quote by jetwash69
So some day Gary ought to borrow Mike the same amount of cash, and then maybe not pay it back? Maybe they can agree to call it even?

That's better than stealing out of the wallet, but since Mike's a scumbag he probably won't agree to lend Gary money anyway...


How is he a scumbag? The money in his wallet may have been to buy food/necessities.
dirtbag ballet by the bins down the alley
as i walk through the chalet of the shadow of death
everything that you've come to expect


#37
It all depends. Can Gary distinguish the difference between synthesizers and virtual instruments?

...modes and scales are still useless.


Quote by PhoenixGRM
Hey guys could you spare a minute to Vote for my band. Go to the site Search our band Listana with CTRL+F for quick and vote Thank you .
Quote by sam b
Voted for Patron Çıldırdı.

Thanks
Quote by PhoenixGRM
But our Band is Listana
#38
Quote by Trowzaa
How is he a scumbag? The money in his wallet may have been to buy food/necessities.


Or a gun to rob an orphanage.
Most of the important things


in the world have been accomplished


by people who have kept on


trying when there seemed to be no hope at all
#39
Quote by Nelsean
Or a gun to rob an orphanage.



In which case, I don't blame him. Kids in orphanages are so well off these days
dirtbag ballet by the bins down the alley
as i walk through the chalet of the shadow of death
everything that you've come to expect


#40
Quote by Nelsean
Or a gun to rob an orphanage.


And this is why I think this type of issue should be looked at with Kant-focused glasses, although arguments could be made for a Utilitarian approach...
I like St. Anger. Ridicule me, daddy
Quote by The_Blode
^ I'm sorry your highness I forgot that I'm subhuman. . .

Quote by ErikLensherr
Normani
Normani
Normies
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Page 1 of 2