Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 86
  1. #1
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin
    Posts
    385
    Post Thanks / Like

    The River: An Investigation of Morals

    Once upon a time there was a woman named Abigail who was in love with a man named Gregory. Gregory lived on the shore of a river and Abigail on the opposite shore. The river which separated to two lovers was teeming with man-eating alligators.

    Abigail wanted to cross the river to be with Gregory, but unfortunately, the bridge had been washed out. She went to ask Sinbad, a river boat captain, to take her across. He said he would be glad to if she would consent to go to bed with him preceding the voyage.

    She promptly refused and went to a friend named Ivan to explain her plight. Ivan did not want to be involved at all in the situation. Abigail felt her only alternative was to accept Sinbad's terms. Sinbad fulfilled his promise to Abigail and delivered her into the arms of Gregory. When she told Gregory about her amorous escapade in order to cross the river, Gregory cast her aside with disdain.

    Heartsick and dejected, Abigail turned to Slug with her tale of woe. Slug, feeling compassion for Abigail, sought out Gregory and beat him brutally. Abigail was overjoyed at the sight of Gregory getting his due. As the sun sets on the horizon, we hear Abigail laughing at Gregory.


    Rank the five characters in order from best person to worst person, and explain your reasoning.
    So...

    I finaggled my way into being able to do a Philosophy minor. I blame you, ODN.


  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,795
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The River: An Investigation of Morals

    I swear we did this in health class

    Let's see (from best to worst):
    1) Gregory. Didn't really do anything wrong. He had reasonable cause to be mad at her. Do I think it was right? No. But it wasn't really evil, per se.
    2) Sinbad. He exploited her, yes. But, the point remains that she thought it was a fair deal, and he at least helped her in her plight. Sinbad gave her two options: him or nothing. Ivan only gave her one: nothing. So Sinbad wins that round.
    3) Ivan. A little cold-hearted? Perhaps. But he didn't want to get involved, and, better yet, he didn't do anything definitively wrong.
    4) Abigail. Driven by true love at the beginning, so we can't really condemn her for that. But I have issues with vengeful people, and the way she betrays Gregory seems a bit...sudden. She's very quick to turn on him. IMO, her actions seem a bit inconsistent, and the situation unrealistic. Oh, and it was idiotic of her to tell Gregory about her deal with Sinbad. Some things are better left unsaid. But we'll just stick with the facts, which are that she's vengeful and that she's quick to betray people.
    5) Slug. I also have issues with vigilante justice. Beating up Gregory is harsh, and it deserves to be noted that he's the only one who does any physical harm. Gregory didn't do anything particularly wrong, and beating him up certainly didn't help matters in the least.
    Freedom is you choosing for yourself. Law is the government choosing for you. The two are opposites.

    Pray - To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy - Ambrose Bierce
    Faith - Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge about things without parallel - Ambrose Bierce

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,896
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The River: An Investigation of Morals

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    I swear we did this in health class
    LOL, I did this in class a few months ago too. It was during moral lessons or something.

    From best to worst:

    1) Sinbad. Yes, he took advantage of Abigail's situation. But as Castle said, he offered Abigail a fair deal, and everything was stated openly. He has the right to state whatever price he wants for his services. Abigail accepted his terms fair and square.

    2) Ivan. Yes, he was unhelpful and callous. But he wasn't obliged to provide Abigail with anything. Lack of altruism is contemptible, perhaps, but not a sin.

    3) Abigail. Her acts were all motivated by love, but her about-face at the end leaves much to be desired. She strikes me as spiteful and emotional.

    4) Slug. He has no call to go about beating up people after hearing just one side of the story. Heck, he has no right to beat people up even after hearing both sides. I abhor violent, emotional people, and Slug falls into this category, however noble his intentions.

    5) Gregory. That cold-hearted bastard ranks lowest in my list, because he obviously cares more about Abigail's virginity than about her as a person. The fact was, Abigail did it for him, and he should at least be appreciative of that fact.
    Trendem

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The River: An Investigation of Morals

    1. Gregory. He did nothing wrong, and anyone who thinks that sleeping with someone else is "okay" so long as you do it "for" your loved one is a fool.

    2. Ivan. He did nothing wrong; he failed to act unselfishly, so he is not good, but he is not exactly evil either.

    3. Slug - did the wrong thing for the right reason (that is, his intent was pure, but his actions were wrong). Evil that stems from action is lesser than evil that stems from malice (i.e., wrongful intent).

    4. Sinbad. He takes advantage of a woman in need.

    5. Abagail. Accepts Sinbad's evil offer, with good intentions, then turns from good to evil when she is rejected. Good descending to evil is worse than evil maintained.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  5. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,637
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The River: An Investigation of Morals

    1) Gregory. I really didn't see him do anything wrong. He rejected a woman that supposedly loved him after she slept with another man.

    2) Ivan. He simply didn't want to get involved with the mess...and there's nothing to indicate that he could have helped her across the river either...so, while he probably could have been more helpful, he's not as bad as most of the others

    3)
    Slug. He did the wrong thing for the right cause. He wanted to protect Abagail but went about it in the completely wrong way. He didn't even bother to here Gregory's side of the story, he just heard Abagails side of the story and beat a man senseless - the 'punishment' was definately more severe than the "crime".

    4) Sinbad. And I'm surprised that anyone would put him below 4 or 5 on this list, he was the cause of most of this mess. I am equally astounded at those who said he made a "fair deal". He demanded that a woman have sex with him before he let her cross the river - he's a riverboat captain guys, do you really think that that's a fair offer to make? How hard would it have been for him to do this for her? Don't you think he could have asked for money or some other form of payment besides sex? Surely you wouldn't mind if a riverboat captain made the same offer to your wife or girlfriend...right? It's a "fair offer", right? C'mon guys! He made a disgusting offer to a woman who needed his help - he took advantage of her to please his own sexual desires.

    5)
    Abagail. She claims she loves Gregory but after pursuing only one other option, accepts Sinbad's offer of sex. Then when Gregory is unpleased at this, she makes no attempt at reconciliation, goes and complains to another man and then laughs maniacally as Gregory gets beat into a bloody pulp. That's evil.
    Last edited by nanderson; July 24th, 2006 at 06:12 PM.
    Nandy For World Domination Clan
    ~Leader~

    We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.
    - The Apostle Paul (2 Corinthians 10:5)

  6. #6
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The River: An Investigation of Morals

    I agree with nandy 100%.

    Also, apparently a bridge HAD been built and there was at least 1 ship (Sinbad's) which tells us that there could possibly be MORE somewhere. While the scenerio did not allow for a "wait period", it seems that waiting until the bridge was rebuilt or finding another boat, were superior options than what Abby did to get instant gratification (now instead of waiting).
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,795
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The River: An Investigation of Morals

    Attacking other people's morals time:
    Quote Originally Posted by nanderson
    He rejected a woman that supposedly loved him after she slept with another man.
    Because she wanted to be with him. She loved him so much that she was willing to do anything to be with him, and she got slapped in the face (figuratively speaking). And you don't see anything wrong with that?

    Quote Originally Posted by nanderson
    there's nothing to indicate that he could have helped her across the river either
    It's implied.

    Quote Originally Posted by nanderson
    while he probably could have been more helpful, he's not as bad as most of the others
    Turning someone away in a time of need isn't bad? He rejected a desperate woman who was trying to get to her loved one.

    Quote Originally Posted by nanderson
    I am equally astounded at those who said he made a "fair deal". He demanded that a woman have sex with him before he let her cross the river - he's a riverboat captain guys, do you really think that that's a fair offer to make? How hard would it have been for him to do this for her? Don't you think he could have asked for money or some other form of payment besides sex? Surely you wouldn't mind if a riverboat captain made the same offer to your wife or girlfriend...right? It's a fair offer, right? C'mon guys! He made a disgusting offer to a woman who needed his help - he took advantage of her to please his own sexual desires.
    It boils down to this:
    Sinbad: Sex or nothing.
    Ivan: Nothing.

    Sinbad wins hands down. He at least gave her another option, which she was free to reject.

    Quote Originally Posted by nanderson
    after pursuing only one other option
    I think you guys are reading too much into this. Besides, it's implied that she was pretty much out of options then:
    Quote Originally Posted by The OP
    Abigail felt her only alternative was to accept Sinbad's terms.
    Quote Originally Posted by Trendem
    That cold-hearted bastard ranks lowest in my list, because he obviously cares more about Abigail's virginity than about her as a person. The fact was, Abigail did it for him, and he should at least be appreciative of that fact.
    And that's enough to stick him below the guy who beat him up and his loved one who was laughing at his misery as he got beat up?
    Freedom is you choosing for yourself. Law is the government choosing for you. The two are opposites.

    Pray - To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy - Ambrose Bierce
    Faith - Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge about things without parallel - Ambrose Bierce

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,896
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The River: An Investigation of Morals

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    And that's enough to stick him below the guy who beat him up and his loved one who was laughing at his misery as he got beat up?
    Yes, because he completely disregarded what she did for him and spurned her after all she went through to get together with him.

    For Abigail laughing at Gregory as he got beaten up, that is spiteful and vengeful yes, but quite understandable considering Gregory's callousness.

    Quote Originally Posted by nanderson
    4) Sinbad. And I'm surprised that anyone would put him below 4 or 5 on this list, he was the cause of most of this mess. I am equally astounded at those who said he made a "fair deal". He demanded that a woman have sex with him before he let her cross the river - he's a riverboat captain guys, do you really think that that's a fair offer to make? How hard would it have been for him to do this for her? Don't you think he could have asked for money or some other form of payment besides sex? Surely you wouldn't mind if a riverboat captain made the same offer to your wife or girlfriend...right? It's a fair offer, right? C'mon guys! He made a disgusting offer to a woman who needed his help - he took advantage of her to please his own sexual desires.
    People pay for sex all the time. Men who patronise prostitutes are also "exploiting" the prostitutes' destitute situation to get sex. What Sinbad did was just paying for sex in another form. And it's not as if Sinbad raped Abigail - she had the option of rejecting his offer, but she obviously weighed the pros and cons and decided that it was worth it.

    Of course, I'm not saying Sinbad's actions were not wrong, I'm just saying that it's less wrong than what the others did, in my opinion.
    Trendem

  9. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Borneo
    Posts
    2,089
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The River: An Investigation of Morals

    It can be argued many marriages come under the heading of "paying" for sex, so in essence asking for sex as a fare was little different than a mini-marriage of convenience. Nothing immoral about it, oldest profession etc.

    Refusing to help someone get their end away with someone the other side of the river is no crime, that chap was under no obligation. He could have a huge variety of reasons for refusing but needs none at all.

    We have no actual indication that Gregory actually wanted the woman to come to his side of the river, merely that Abigail was in love and they're descrbed as 'lovers', but nothing firm here. Certainly no threat from him that if she didn't come over he'd dump her or that she needed to get there within any specific time frame etc. So I don't see how it's his fault that she took extreme steps such as sleeping with someone?

    They are, at best, lovers, not married, so at no point is Gregory obligated to stay with her and is free to change his mind at any time. As such no-one has the right to be overly angry at him for splitting up with his girlfried, presuming she was one and absolutely NO moral right to go physically attacking him - or getting others to do it for them.

    So to me no-one did anything wrong aside from Abigail and Slug, both of whom should be jailed for assault.

    Example scenario - Bridge washed away, no action taken until bridge repaired. Gregory goes across but Abigail has changed her mind and says it's over. Gregory then speaks to Hilda and gets Hilda to physically beat up Abigail for daring to leave him. Does this sound good to you?

    Gregory gets dumped by Abigail, gives her a good kicking. Sound good?


    P.
    "The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."
    head of MI6

    "The Emory University study proves beyond a doubt that politicians and their acolytes - are lying morons."

    "We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it."
    Justice Jackson Nov. 21, 1945, Nuremberg

  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The River: An Investigation of Morals

    Once upon a time there was a woman named Abigail who was in love with a man named Gregory. Gregory lived on the shore of a river and Abigail on the opposite shore. The river which separated to two lovers was teeming with man-eating alligators.

    Abigail wanted to cross the river to be with Gregory, but unfortunately, the bridge had been washed out. She went to ask Sinbad, a river boat captain, to take her across. He said he would be glad to if she would consent to go to bed with him preceding the voyage.

    She promptly refused and went to a friend named Ivan to explain her plight. Ivan did not want to be involved at all in the situation. Abigail felt her only alternative was to accept Sinbad's terms. Sinbad fulfilled his promise to Abigail and delivered her into the arms of Gregory. When she told Gregory about her amorous escapade in order to cross the river, Gregory cast her aside with disdain.

    Heartsick and dejected, Abigail turned to Slug with her tale of woe. Slug, feeling compassion for Abigail, sought out Gregory and beat him brutally. Abigail was overjoyed at the sight of Gregory getting his due. As the sun sets on the horizon, we hear Abigail laughing at Gregory.


    Rank the five characters in order from best person to worst person, and explain your reasoning.


    5. Ivan. Ivan remains the worst in that he refused to aid when able. As it says she explained her plight, that implies that mentioned Sinbad's offer. Seeing the situation as thus, Ivan refused to get involved. Evil by indifference is the worst kind of evil.

    4. Abigail. Abigail, while sympathetic at first due to her reasoning, exploited someone to her suit her own ends, and did so, presumably, twice. This sets her at an easy four.

    3. Sinbad. Sinbad, same as Abigail, exploited someone to suit his own ends. While his reasoning, getting his rocks off because no one with the name sinbad is ever going to get laid otherwise, may seem callous, it can't be denied that he only acted in such a manner once, while his willing counterpart favored the endeavor twice.

    2. Gregory. Gregory ranks at two because of his unwillingness to act in getting to his love. Instead, he remains pious on his riverside and rejects his lover when she comes to his aid, soiled by what she felt compelled to do to be with him. A hypocrite. Not too evil, but evil enough for me to hypocritically judge him.

    1. Slug. Slug acted in the manner he felt appropriate and Just. While his actions may be considered rank or immoral, violence itself is not expressly immoral. Pacifism does not a virtuous man make. Instead, Slug saw a man in need of punishment for his own immoral actions and attitudes, and set forth to do so. The only problem with SLug's actions, are his actions. That we have yet to set a solid, natural precedent for what constitutes a moral level of violence at the minimum, Slug's actions are left ambiguous on the moral scale. However, there remains two more problems with his actions. The problem of the messenger, that we don't know what story Abigail told him, if it was accurate or not. And two, that if she was accurate in her account, and outwardly honest, that he mistakenly placed his judgement by not placing it evenly accross the board and beating Sinbad, Gregory, Ivan, AND Abigail.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  11. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,896
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The River: An Investigation of Morals

    Quote Originally Posted by Pibs View Post
    So to me no-one did anything wrong aside from Abigail and Slug, both of whom should be jailed for assault.

    Example scenario - Bridge washed away, no action taken until bridge repaired. Gregory goes across but Abigail has changed her mind and says it's over. Gregory then speaks to Hilda and gets Hilda to physically beat up Abigail for daring to leave him. Does this sound good to you?

    Gregory gets dumped by Abigail, gives her a good kicking. Sound good?
    Just wanted to point out that the scenario in no way indicates that Abigail asked Slug to beat Greg up. It merely implies that she turned to Slug with her sob story for consolation. In fact, the implication was that Slug took it upon himself to dish out the vigilante justice, and that his actions were unilateral.

    Of course, you could argue that Abigail knew Slug's temperament and expected Slug to react violently, but that still doesn't make her culpable for his actions.
    Last edited by Trendem; July 25th, 2006 at 12:58 AM.
    Trendem

  12. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The River: An Investigation of Morals

    While his actions may be considered rank or immoral, violence itself is not expressly immoral.
    Wow. Guess you don't think suicide bombers are immoral either, then...
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  13. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The River: An Investigation of Morals

    1. Ivan: All Ivan did was refuse to assist Abigail in dealing with the ruthless Sinbad. He didn't act unselflessly, so he didn't do anything good, but I can't say he did anything wrong either.
    2. Gregory: Superficial and unappreciative though Gregory may be, all he did was refuse to get involved with Abigail. Remember that it states that Abigail was in love with Gregory, but she had no right to cross the river and expect him to love her, considering the deed she had just committed.
    3. Slug: The only character who engages in violence during this little escapade, Slug had good intentions but unjustifiable responses.
    4. Sinbad: He exploited Abigail, knowing he was her only way to cross the river. Taking advantage of someone helpless with selfish motives of personal satisfaction is unjustifiable to me.
    5. Abigail: She openly accepted self-exploitation, expected unrealistically that Gregory would accept her even after what she had done (the ends do not justify the means) and when it was she who loved him, and not he who loved her, and turned to evil as a way to resolve her grudge against Gregory in the end.
    [CENTER]-=] Starcreator [=-

  14. #14
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,637
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The River: An Investigation of Morals

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    Because she wanted to be with him. She loved him so much that she was willing to do anything to be with him, and she got slapped in the face (figuratively speaking). And you don't see anything wrong with that?
    She was "willing to do anything" to be with him? Is that necessarily a good thing? I mean, if you had a wife or girlfriend who was 'willing' to have sex with 20 different guys in one night because she was "willing to do anything to be with you"...how pleased would you be with that? If your wife (hypothetically speaking of course) was willing to kill your children "just to be with you", would that be a good thing?

    So how is having sex with a riverboat captain, a "good thing"? Surely there were other ways or she could have thought of other ways to cross the river.


    Turning someone away in a time of need isn't bad? He rejected a desperate woman who was trying to get to her loved one.
    I never said it wasn't bad - in fact, I said he was bad, just not as bad as the others.


    It boils down to this:
    Sinbad: Sex or nothing.
    Ivan: Nothing.

    Sinbad wins hands down. He at least gave her another option, which she was free to reject.
    lol! C'mon! Just because he gave her another option, that doesn't mean it automatically beats not giving her another option, especially when the option he gave her was ridiculously rude.

    Let's use your logic here in another senerio involving Sinbad:

    Sinbad: Bullet to the head or nothing
    Ivan: Nothing

    "Sinbad wins hands down. He at least gave her another option, which she was free to reject." Castle, sometimes "another option" can be worse than no option at all. Especially when that other "option" is used against you in a time of need.



    Quote Originally Posted by Trendem
    People pay for sex all the time. Men who patronise prostitutes are also "exploiting" the prostitutes' destitute situation to get sex. What Sinbad did was just paying for sex in another form. And it's not as if Sinbad raped Abigail - she had the option of rejecting his offer, but she obviously weighed the pros and cons and decided that it was worth it.

    Of course, I'm not saying Sinbad's actions were not wrong, I'm just saying that it's less wrong than what the others did, in my opinion.
    Yes, people pay for sex all the time (though that doesn't make it right either) - however, at least with prostitution, both parties are willing. The prostitute is looking for someone to have sex with him/her for money and the man/woman is looking for someone to have sex with them and is willing to pay for it.

    In this hypothetical, Abagail was just looking to get across the river and Sinbad gives her an ultimatum of sex or nothing. I was pretty shocked when you called this a "fair deal". I mean, if a homeless person asks me for food, would it be "fair" for me to say, "I'll give you food, but only if you have sex with me" - pretty dispicable huh? What about a woman who came to my door begging for refuge and a place to call the cops on her husband who was trying to kill her , would it be "fair" for me to say, "I'll let you in and I'll let you use my phone, but only if you have sex with me first" - is that a "fair deal"?

    I realize that you noted that what he did was wrong, but I think you're vastly trivializing it. Taking advantage of someone who is in need, just so you can please your own sexual desires is a dispicable thing - especially when it caused all the trouble it did in the hypothetical. It's a horrible thing to do in the above scenerios I presented and it's equally as horrible in this hypothetical.
    Nandy For World Domination Clan
    ~Leader~

    We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.
    - The Apostle Paul (2 Corinthians 10:5)

  15. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,896
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The River: An Investigation of Morals

    Quote Originally Posted by nanderson View Post
    Yes, people pay for sex all the time (though that doesn't make it right either) - however, at least with prostitution, both parties are willing. The prostitute is looking for someone to have sex with him/her for money and the man/woman is looking for someone to have sex with them and is willing to pay for it.
    But both parties were willing in this situation too. Sinbad did not force Abigail into it; she freely accepted his offer.

    Quote Originally Posted by nanderson View Post
    In this hypothetical, Abagail was just looking to get across the river and Sinbad gives her an ultimatum of sex or nothing. I was pretty shocked when you called this a "fair deal". I mean, if a homeless person asks me for food, would it be "fair" for me to say, "I'll give you food, but only if you have sex with me" - pretty dispicable huh? What about a woman who came to my door begging for refuge and a place to call the cops on her husband who was trying to kill her , would it be "fair" for me to say, "I'll let you in and I'll let you use my phone, but only if you have sex with me" - is that a "fair deal"?
    I'm sorry, perhaps "fair deal" was a wrong phrase to use. I meant something more along the lines of an "honest deal" - i.e. he presented his terms to Abigail openly and honestly, without cheating her or anything.

    As for your situations regarding needy people, I would tend to say that giving the needy people an option to get help is superior to slamming the door in their faces, no matter how undesirable that option is. Furthermore, your comparisons here are inappropriate, because Abigail is not in a life-threatening situation; and Sinbad, after all, is running a business, not a charity, and has full rights to set whatever prices he wants for his services.

    Quote Originally Posted by nanderson View Post
    I realize that you noted that what he did was wrong, but I think you're vastly trivializing it. Taking advantage of someone who is in need, just so you can please your own sexual desires is a dispicable thing - especially when it caused all the trouble it did in the hypothetical. It's a horrible thing to do in the above scenerios I presented and it's equally as horrible in this hypothetical.
    IMO all this brouhaha over Sinbad's actions is only because Sinbad asked for the taboo act - sex. If Sinbad had asked for an exorbitant sum of money, or if he asked Abigail to perform some other undesirable action like lying or stealing, I doubt the reaction against Sinbad would be so strong.

    For me, I don't necessarily see why sex should be elevated as more wicked than other demands. In fact, sex is probably an easier demand to satisfy than say, a million dollars. But if Sinbad had asked for the latter, you probably would not condemn him as much.

    Obviously however, you can see that for the sake of this argument I am applying some utilitarian morals here. If your religious convictions tell you that sex is somehow more sacred and valuable and hence soliciting sex is somehow more wrong, then I can completely understand.
    Trendem

  16. #16
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin
    Posts
    385
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The River: An Investigation of Morals

    Okey-dokey, I'm glad to see that there are some great responses and debates going on.

    Just to clarify: Abigail and Gregory, prior to this episode, were in love with each other, and used the bridge (washed out in the storm) to see each other. I say this to clarify any doubt... I think it was starcreator who said that Gregory had no obligation to love Abigail. While this is true, they were, in fact, going out prior to this and therefore it was fair of Abigail to expect some level of commitment from Gregory (not to specify how much, as this is an objective clarification of the story).

    As for my ranking... here goes:

    1.) Ivan: did nothing. Should have done something, but we don't know his reasons for not getting involved, and therefore we cannot judge his decision.

    2.) Gregory: rejected someone he loved in order to stand by his morals. He should have had compassion, but likely his beliefs and values were strong enough to convince him to cut off the part of his heart that felt for Abigail.

    3.) Slug: did something wrong, possibly without knowing the full story, but overall for the right reason: to help a friend. His reaction was extreme, but he is no worse than Abigail, because she condoned his actions, even if she didn't commit them or even ask for them.

    4.) Abigail: did something wrong, but only because it was the only option she saw in a time of crisis. However, she is worse than Slug because, since she laughed at Gregory's beating, she obviously would have beaten him herself if she was more physically capable of doing so (she thought it was good that he was beaten).

    5.) Sinbad: He could have done something alltogether good and honorable in every way, but instead demanded not only sex, but, in essense, the honor of Abigail (who, as the story states, was disgusted by his offer). Only after he committed an evil act was he willing to commit a good act. In my poinion, demanding any sort of payment (other than his regular boat fare) would be equally dispicable, since he would be twisting an opportunity for good into an opportunity for personal, selfish advance.
    So...

    I finaggled my way into being able to do a Philosophy minor. I blame you, ODN.


  17. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,795
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The River: An Investigation of Morals

    I still find it odd how you guys find turning Abigail away preferable to making her an offer She can still refuse it if she wants to. Sinbad's giving her more options than Ivan is, options she's under no obligations to choose.

    Quote Originally Posted by nanderson
    Castle, sometimes "another option" can be worse than no option at all.
    Then reject it, obviously. She's not being forced into anything here. It's worth pointing out, that, in Abigail's estimation, it was better than nothing at all. In Abigail's estimation, it was a fair trade.

    Quote Originally Posted by nanderson
    I mean, if a homeless person asks me for food, would it be "fair" for me to say, "I'll give you food, but only if you have sex with me" - pretty dispicable huh? What about a woman who came to my door begging for refuge and a place to call the cops on her husband who was trying to kill her , would it be "fair" for me to say, "I'll let you in and I'll let you use my phone, but only if you have sex with me first" - is that a "fair deal"?
    In both cases, your answer is "yes", and those responses are both better than "no".
    Freedom is you choosing for yourself. Law is the government choosing for you. The two are opposites.

    Pray - To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy - Ambrose Bierce
    Faith - Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge about things without parallel - Ambrose Bierce

  18. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The River: An Investigation of Morals

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Wow. Guess you don't think suicide bombers are immoral either, then...
    Do you consider soldiers immoral?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nanderson
    Yes, people pay for sex all the time (though that doesn't make it right either) - however, at least with prostitution, both parties are willing. The prostitute is looking for someone to have sex with him/her for money and the man/woman is looking for someone to have sex with them and is willing to pay for it.

    In this hypothetical, Abagail was just looking to get across the river and Sinbad gives her an ultimatum of sex or nothing. I was pretty shocked when you called this a "fair deal".
    Both parties WERE willing in the story, Nan. Abigail used Sinbad, and sex with him, to get what she wanted, and Sinbad used his boat, and Abigail, to get what he wanted. It was a fair deal in that both parties did something wrong to get what they wanted. Both used the other to suit their own ends.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  19. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin
    Posts
    385
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The River: An Investigation of Morals

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle
    It's worth pointing out, that, in Abigail's estimation, it was better than nothing at all. In Abigail's estimation, it was a fair trade.
    Yes, but, IMO, this isn't about how Abigail views the trade, it is about why Sinbad offered the trade in the first place, and whether it was right for him to do so. Sinbad was offered the opportunity to do good, and instead did evil. Ivan was offered the opportunity to do good, and instead did nothing. Thus, Sinbad did worse, since no evil was necessary in his response to the situation, yet he still committed an evil.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde
    Both parties WERE willing in the story
    But they weren't. Abigail wasn't willing to sleep with Sinbad. To be willing implies that she would gladly do it, in a hearbeat, to achieve her goals. She was obviously not "willing" to sleep with him, since she promptly refused, and went to seek another alternative. Admittedly, she was pretty foolish as far as that goes, as a single setback caused her to think that Sinbad was her only option, but goodness can't be judged based on intelligence or wisdom. We have to assume that, whether it actually was her last option or not, she felt that it was her only alternative to a life spent apart from beloved Gregory. Sometimes we must sacrifice ourselves to be with those we love, and Abigail did just that. She allowed herself to be taken, and she sacrificed a piece of her honor and dignity in allowing Sinbad to sleep with her. Yet for all this, she is still justified in doing so, whereas Sinbad not only did evil himself (adultery), but also offered the temptation for sin, taking advantage of Abigail in the state that she was in. My point: Abigail was hardly "willing", as, if she had been willing, she would not have saught a better alternative.
    So...

    I finaggled my way into being able to do a Philosophy minor. I blame you, ODN.


  20. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,795
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The River: An Investigation of Morals

    Quote Originally Posted by hope_its_not
    Sinbad was offered the opportunity to do good, and instead did evil.
    I disagree. He was offered the opportunity to do good, and instead acted out of self-interest (i.e. neutrality). But, and here's the key point, his self-interest was beneficial to Abigail (or, at least, she regarded it as such). Thus, it was, at the very least, better than Ivan's decision, which was not beneficail to Abigail.

    I'd like some justification for the "evil" designation, too. Why is that there? Who did Sinbad harm (or, if you have some other criteria for evil, how did he meet that criteria)? How can offering a trade be evil? The other party is free to accept if they don't think it benefits them.

    Quote Originally Posted by hope_its_not
    To be willing implies that she would gladly do it, in a hearbeat, to achieve her goals.
    No, to be willing implies that she'd do it to achieve her goals, which she clearly did. Willing does not neccessarily implies glad to do so. I am willing to go to school; I am not glad to do so.
    Freedom is you choosing for yourself. Law is the government choosing for you. The two are opposites.

    Pray - To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy - Ambrose Bierce
    Faith - Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge about things without parallel - Ambrose Bierce

 

 
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Who's morals should we accept?
    By ophelia in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: May 12th, 2012, 09:03 AM
  2. Toxic Substances
    By Snoop in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: January 29th, 2009, 10:12 AM
  3. What Raises Morals the Most
    By Xanadu Moo in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: June 17th, 2006, 06:14 PM
  4. Atheist Morals
    By Apokalupsis in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: September 15th, 2004, 01:36 PM
  5. Get a look at your morals
    By mrs_innocent in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: April 11th, 2004, 10:39 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •