i forgot to add... stealing is just as bad as any other crime, maybe you don't think of it like this, just becuase of the sentencing that the court systems put on it.... i get so sick of people minimizing crimes because "they only hurt someone to a certain degree" i really hate that... it doesn't matter... in my eyes... a theif is just as bad as a murder, and a rapist is just as bad that slaps thier own kid in the face as a punishment.. you are still making a victim... you are an abuser and you now have a victim... even if i can get this through one person's head i've done my "job" think of it t his way, then asnwer my question... you commited an act that is morally wrong, even if your morals are loose... in most cases you chose s omeone innocent of any wrong doings to you... and you made them a victim.. in some way shape or form you exploited their trust (even if you steal from a stranger, only way you didn't exploit trust, is if they are just that paranoid.. because they gave you the benefit of the doubt that you wouldn't victimize them, even by just not watching you wtih an eagle eye is "trusting" you to some extent) and you became an abuser, and once again made them your victim.. there are no victimless crimes... so tell me, if both crimes of involve this process:
targeting someone, usually innocent of anything towards you
expoiting their trust and,
victimizing them
how are they any diffrent? becasue of the sentence you can get for both? that's bullshit....
child molestation - 25 years tops
murder - any sentence to life
are either of those crimes any less damaging? no, the only diffrence is one victim isn't alive to suffer the pain of the acts commited against them... only their family hurts afterwards (maybe them, i don't really believe in an afterlife, and there's no proof so i can't say they suffer even after the crime) on the other hand, your "victim" is rarely actually hurt, but almost always (probably 99% of their life is spent suffering, from emotional pain) from the molestation... in most cases, no lying/stealing doesn't hurt someone so bad... doesn't mean it's not just as bad...in example (tho i'm taking it to extremes to pound this in your heads) poor little suzzie over there will never be right becasue her baby sitter made her commit unthinkable acts on him, while the 80 yr. old woman down the street died 2 days ago because theives broke into her house and in the process of stealing valuables totalling no more than 500 bucks managed to lose her medicine and she coudln't get it replaced in time, and the hospital coudln't save her.
doesn't matter the nature/level of the crime.. you never know what you're doing to someone, until it's done.. and that's the point of why it's wrong... so you broke into some womans house just for the fun of it, or to steal even 10 bucks, you lost her medicine and now she's dead... ain't no putting back the money going to change that, isn't no apologies going to give that woman back her life... you never know what outcomes are going to come from your acts, until they are done, and there's no turning back. that's why you don't do things that are morally wrong... of course you telling jenifer you don't want to go out with her, could lead her to kill her self, but atleast you did nothing morally wrong... simple way to test your morals is to put yourself in their shoes, don't "grade it" (as in stealing a gram from your buddy when he only has two, or stealing an oz from you dealer when he has 20 lbs) just think abou thte act it's self, how you would feel if somethign you might put unlimited value on (sentimental objects for instance) was stolen.. it may not of seemed much to the theif, but it may of seemed like the world to the victim.... if you put "prices" or "grades" on the act, you are only minimizing.... think of the act, make it as bad as it could possibly be from your presepective and judge from there.. of course this isn't fool proof...... but anyone with common sense can figure out what's "morally" wrong and what isn't...
Main Entry: 1mor·al
Function: adjective
Pronunciation: 'mo r-&l, 'mär-
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL <a moral certainty>
3 : having the effects of such on the mind, confidence, or will <a moral victory> <moral support>
- mor·al·ly/-&-le/ adverb
synonyms MORAL , ETHICAL , VIRTUOUS , RIGHTEOUS , NOBLE mean conforming to a standard of what is right and good. MORAL implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong <the basic moral values of a community>. ETHICAL may suggest the involvement of more difficult or subtle questions of rightness, fairness, or equity <committed to the highest ethical principles>. VIRTUOUS implies the possession or manifestation of moral excellence in character <not a religious person, but virtuous nevertheless>. RIGHTEOUS stresses guiltlessness or blamelessness and often suggests the sanctimonious <wished to be righteous before God and the world>. NOBLE implies moral eminence and freedom from anything petty, mean, or dubious in conduct and character <had the noblest of reasons for seeking office>.
