Moral Question

Morals are
A spook.
OP is
A fag.

I don't even think it's a question about morals. You're going to pay for the book you are quote unquote "stealing". So I guess the universe will balance out. You get the copy you want and the library can buy a new one. Not like they care what edition it is.

It's technically fine, albeit a dick move. But I kind of doubt you'll be paying $15 -- more like 50 bucks or higher and possibly loss of loan privileges.

Libraries (even regular neighborhood ones, but especially college/academic ones) don't take kindly to lost books.

>>8588715
>turns out OP read John Green's latest novel

give it back to the library

Get it signed and give the signed copy back to the library.

>>8588766
this

>>8588715
There's nothing remotely immoral about this, but what book/author? Giving a signed book to the library would be a terrible waste: the next troglodyte who noticed would steal it or tear the page out.

>>8589711
Lying is immoral

Of course it's immoral. You're stealing from them. Your library book is not for sale.

>>8589730
Pfft. Says who? They're lying.

>>8589742
Paying for something is not stealing, especially when they get to name their price.

>>8589751
If you were honest and said you wanted to buy the book instead of lying that you lost it, it wouldn't be immoral.

Honestly that was a bit dumb, but not really immoral. You paid for it, it's not a particularly expensive or valuable book so I think it's fine. Fuck the people who steal Codex Seraphinianus and similar stuff, though.

>>8589751

It's not for sale.

My mother is a librarian and they. don't. care. If you walk in with a brand-new identical edition of the book you "lost," they will smile and say thanks. Good grief.

Depends on how rigorously you apply ethics to your life. Generally speaking, I don't think it's immoral at all unless by some weird mischance someone REALLY needed the book you took out for an assignment.

>>8589892
Not if they have a barcode system or use tattle tapes or other theft deterrents. They'll have to process the new book same as if it was a new purchase.
But you're right, they're usually not attached to the specific book for circulating collections. They're expecting those to get destroyed (read to shreds or eaten by somebody's dog). If they have anything that's irreplaceable, it's kept in a cabinet or display case and not allowed out of the building.

>>8589789
>>8589892
>>8589895

It doesn't matter if the librarian cares or not, or if you pay or not.
The question is if it is morally wrong , and yes it is morally wrong to lie.

>>8590273
So if op hadn't lied, if he simply never returned to the library and never spoke to the librarians again, or if he returned there and clearly said that he is going to keep the book (and pay for it), he would've done nothing wrong?

>>8590327
The lie would be in not fulfilling his promise, which was to borrow the book for a certain time then return it.

If he didn't come back and kept the book, the promise would be broken - lie.

If he came back and told them he was keeping the book the promise would be broken - lie, even if he gave them money.

If he came back and asked if he could buy the book and they came to a new agreement - not a lie, morally acceptable.

>mfw the author notices OP stole a library copy to get signed
>mfw OP spills his spaghetti trying to explain he's not trying to damage his sales
>mfw OP tries to explain he's really going to buy the soon to be a movie copy any way so he's not depriving the library
>mfw OP confesses his shallow aesthetics and morals to someone who probs didn't pick either cover
>mfw no face because my sides are orbiting alpha centuri and there is no photographic medium large enough to capture the resulting photon distribution
go for it. i hope you fuck up the front pages trying to take out the library markers

>>8590397
>>8590273
You realize morals are relative societal bullshit, right? It's cute that you want to proclaim "lying is immoral!" but it's about the same as me saying "Crocs are evil!" I sincerely believe it, but so what?

>>8590397
Cool thinking, although the promise to return the book was only implied.
What if he never borrowed it, what if he only stole it, took it out of the library without checking out, and thus not promising anything?

>>8590465
You have to be 18+ to post here

>>8590473
I'm twice your age. Try again, kid.

>>8590465
Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are His delight.

File: 1332908689121.jpg (77KB, 500x383px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 500x383px

>>8590463

>>8590481
Yes, I'm sure God approves of everything you do on 4chan, son, but that's not really a factor to non-believers.

>>8590473
Yeah, true. The promise was only implied. However, I'm sure OP understood the deal. If he truly didn't understand, then a case could be made that it isn't immoral.

Stealing is also immoral.

>>8590488
In that case I guess you could lean on Kants categorical imperative

>>8590499
Better. Kant's criticism of deception is relevant here, and harder to sweep away--though he gets pretty fucking close to argumentum ad populum as his justification.

>>8590478
>I'm twice your age.
That's pretty fucking sad m8

>>8590494
You could've said that stealing is immoral in your first post. Could've shortened the whole discussion.

>However, I'm sure OP understood the deal.
Yeah, that's true.

Would you mind a digression? Now I'm interested in your views regarding some stuff...

>>8590526
Sure, I'm at work for another hour with nothing else to do.
imorally stealing company time

>>8590546
What is, in your opinion, the relationship between "moral" and "that which should be done"?
Here's my issue: in a recent ethics class we read a text by Lawrence Kohlberg where he describes this problem: a man's wife is dying from an illness, and a cure is needed. The medicine has to be bought, and it turns out that the man doesn't have enough money for it. What should he do? Everyone in class agreed that he should steal the medicine, because saving a life is far more important that depriving the seller of only one item. Stealing isn't immoral here.
You categorically said that stealing is immoral. If it is, and immoral deeds should never be done, should the man have left his wife to die? Or is that situation an exception?

Anons, you're forgetting the real question: what book is it?

>>8590605
Yes, according to kants CI it would be immoral to steal the medicine. This is one of the cases that illustrate why a strict rigid moral system is impractical.
However, I think it is still possible to act morally in this situation and still help your wife.

The bible says in Luke 12

Then Jesus said to his disciples: “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. 23 For life is more than food, and the body more than clothes. 24 Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds! 25 Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to your life[a]? 26 Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest?
27 “Consider how the wild flowers grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 28 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you—you of little faith! 29 And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it. 30 For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. 31 But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.


If you were to go to your church, I am sure the people there would donate and fundraise to help you meet your costs for the medicine.

I guess I have got a little sidetracked from your question. Morality and what you should do are tightly knit, but there are situations where they appear to diverge. There is, however, usually a way to do what should be done morally if you think outside the box and trust in God.

>>8590684
Also, opposed to the CI is utilitarianism which considers the outcome rather than the intent when talking about morality. To a utilitarian, stealing the medicine would be moral. This is the stance your classmates took.
As I said in my previous post though, I prefer the CI and bible.

>>8588715
Nah you're fine. As long as you pay them back you should be fine. Maybe donate another book to the library as well.

>>8589751

> oh wow nice house
> I'm gonna burn it down
> sorry for burning it down.
> name your price! this will make it all ok

>>8590779
Yeah, he likely would be fine. The library likely wouldn't care, especially if he paid to replace the book. But it's still not morally right, unless you are a utilitarian. You're not a utilitarian are you?

>>8588715

the morality hinges entirely on what book it is

>>8590840
The girl on the train

>>8590845
GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY BOARD, ROASTIE

>>8590865
It's a hauntingly beautiful story though, anon.

>>8588715
do it anon

>>8590845
you're good to go OP

>>8588715
Just buy the ugly cover copy and return that to the library.

File: IMG_4685.jpg (3MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x3024px

>>8590840

Mask of sanity. I think it's a dead giveaway, but I don't mind. The irony only hit me recently.

I paid it forward today though. The central library in my county didn't have a copy of starship troopers, so I bought them one.

>>8591517
Cleckley is dead though