That's a hard lesson to learn.

[Saru Inc]

But some people will never follow the rules until drastic circumstances are applied.

 

Besides, I never said it was a good way to govern, I said it was my way. Lord knows I'd hate to be governing officer.

[Peronix]

I do agree that there should be consequences for one's actions... but only if the consequences are in balance with the offense. Yes sometimes consequences will inevitably be harsh. Like ending up dead for doing something stupid. THAT is the risk you take; that no one will be around to help or that it isn't reasonable for them to do so. But if it can be helped, I would make sure justice is done. Every time. Yes I would have levied a hefty fine on them for not paying, but I would not have just watched their home burn to the ground.

[Pirate_Felix]

Sucks for them tbh but they had it coming, they were warned.

 

You cant let somebody's house burn out because then the rest of the houses next to it will be burned away too. So it is in favour of the public safety that they put the fire out. Thats why its payed from the taxes here. Sometimes being the most dense populated country in the world has benefits too.

[lordkafei]

Couldn't they just have saved the house and made them pay a bunch more later or something?

 

I heard a talk radio host say the same thing tonight - and I agree.

 

They should have not charged him $75 - but billed him for payroll, water costs, gasoline and medical bills (should any firefighter needed medical attention), etc.

 

To let the house burn down was pure sheethookery on the part of that fire department.

 

Hospitals and medical practitioners don't get to refuse care based on insurance payment. They treat everyone and then bill you afterwards if you don't have insurance.

 

If someone had been trapped inside that house, do you think they would have remained on the sidelines? Hell no. But since no life was at stake, they chose to act like the mafia and stand by because the protection money wasn't paid.

 

The whole thing just makes me sick to my stomach.

[Assume Nothing]

Ahh, beautiful money. Kinda sucks for the person who lost his home though

[Bloodstain]

Couldn't they just have saved the house and made them pay a bunch more later or something?

 

I heard a talk radio host say the same thing tonight - and I agree.

 

They should have not charged him $75 - but billed him for payroll, water costs, gasoline and medical bills (should any firefighter needed medical attention), etc.

 

 

I remember reading that the guy did offer to pay for the entire cost of putting out the fire, I'll try to find a link when I get home

[The Dark Lord]

 

Like Zach said, you get what you pay for!

 

Totally agree. I think the military ought to charge us a protection fee. If we don't pay it and our country gets invaded, the soldiers don't have to protect us!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6CkltzGAxY&p=15843050B8D2C293

[Zierro]

They should have been cool about it by putting the fire out and then forcing the fee upon them or something.

[Poppet]

They didn't pay they don't get protection.

 

Just because it's what you should do doesn't mean it's right.

 

Wish we would stop having threads on 1 families problems and rather look at a defined picture.

[Zierro]

Just because it's what you should do doesn't mean it's right.

 

Okay, then what is the definition of "right"? :unsure:

[anonymous1234]

Just because it's what you should do doesn't mean it's right.

 

Okay, then what is the definition of "right"? :unsure:

"Right"- correct: free from error; especially conforming to fact or truth.

 

Morals do not make you "right." The fact that an American dollar has the same value as 100 pennies is "right." Saving someone's house from a fire isn't "right," it's morally subjective.

[Zierro]

it's morally subjective.

 

Precisely. There's no difference between what's "morally right" and what "should be done". When we're talking about morality, objective truth is impossible so I don't understand why you would give me the objective definition of "right".

[anonymous1234]

it's morally subjective.

 

Precisely. There's no difference between what's "morally right" and what "should be done". When we're talking about morality, objective truth is impossible so I don't understand why you would give me the objective definition of "right".

 

Because there is no subjective definition of "right." There's moral, fair, and "should," but the word "right" (I actually prefer "correct") is a truth, not an opinion.

[Zierro]

Because there is no subjective definition of "right." There's moral, fair, and "should," but the word "right" (I actually prefer "correct") is a truth, not an opinion.

 

Huh? :huh:

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right

 

righteous

being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper

suitable, appropriate

most favorable or desired : preferable; also : socially acceptable

[fakeitormakeit2]

Because there is no subjective definition of "right." There's moral, fair, and "should," but the word "right" (I actually prefer "correct") is a truth, not an opinion.

 

Huh? :huh:

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right

 

righteous

being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper

suitable, appropriate

most favorable or desired : preferable; also : socially acceptable

I believe he's saying that righteousness is not subjective, and there are definitive (objective) truths of what is "right".

[anonymous1234]

righteous

being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper

suitable, appropriate

most favorable or desired : preferable; also : socially acceptable

 

Righteous is not the same thing as right. Also on that page were several definitions of the "absolute truth" version of right.

 

conforming to facts or truth : correct <the right answer>

genuine, real

acting or judging in accordance with truth or fact <time proved her right>

[Zierro]

I believe he's saying that righteousness is not subjective, and there are definitive (objective) truths of what is "right".

 

In regards to morality, it most definitely is a matter of opinion rather than "truth" (our definitions of "truth" differ from person to person anyway). Even in regards to facts, it's very hard to expunge subjectivity from our speech and our ideas.

 

Also on that page were several definitions of the "absolute truth" version of right.

 

conforming to facts or truth : correct <the right answer>

genuine, real

acting or judging in accordance with truth or fact <time proved her right>

 

I know, but I never claimed that there are no objective definitions of the word "right". The fact that triangles have three sides is "right". I never argued against that. However, we're specifically talking about morals in this thread. And you did claim that "right" does not refer to opinions, so I posted definitions where they are dependent on opinions as a rebuttal.

 

And how is righteous not the same thing as right? It's one of the definitions.

[anonymous1234]

In regards to morality, it most definitely is a matter of opinion rather than "truth" (our definitions of "truth" differ from person to person). Even in regards to facts, it's very hard to expunge subjectivity from our speech and our ideas.

 

The definition of truth does not differ from person to person. Truth is objective.

 

I know, but I never claimed that there are no objective definitions of the word "right". The fact that triangles have three sides is "right". I never argued against that. However, we're specifically talking about morals in this thread. And you did claim that "right" does not refer to opinions, so I posted definitions where they are dependent on opinions as a rebuttal.

The simple fact that "right" had definitions for both "truth" and "opinion" is contradictory. Putting in a subjective opinion here, I think that it makes more sense to keep the word right to mean true, and change the opinion version to "morality" or "justice." It does not make sense to use the same word for an objective and subjective meaning.

 

And how is righteous not the same thing as right? It's one of the definitions.

 

Righteous is almost exclusively used in regards to opinions.

 

Instead of continually using the word "right" in this discussion, how about we avoid confusion and say "justified?" It is more accurate and has a more uniform definition.

[Zierro]

The definition of truth does not differ from person to person. Truth is objective.

 

Truth itself is objective, but what I meant is that a human's idea of what is "true" differs from person to person (my mistake for using the term "definition").

 

For example:

Person A: "It is true that God exists."

Person B: "It is true that God does not exist."

 

There can obviously only be one truth here. Somebody must be wrong, and their idea or interpretation of "truth" is actually untrue.

 

The simple fact that "right" had definitions for both "truth" and "opinion" is contradictory. Putting in a subjective opinion here, I think that it makes more sense to keep the word right to mean true, and change the opinion version to "morality" or "justice." It does not make sense to use the same word for an objective and subjective meaning.

 

Yeah, it is pretty confusing. Haha.

 

Instead of continually using the word "right" in this discussion, how about we avoid confusion and say "justified?" It is more accurate and has a more uniform definition.

 

This whole debate is about that specific word though. As for the word "justified", the connotation I get from that word is on par with "excusable", "warranted", or "acceptable" as if it went through the process of being scrutinized and deemed as a reasonable action, and if not, it would have been viewed in a negative light.

 

"Right" might be a bit confusing but I believe it is more accurate for saying things such as, "Saving that man's life was the right thing to do," rather than, "Saving that man's life was the justified thing to do." It just has a weird ring to it. "Moral" does sound like a better alternative though.

[meol]

And that whole debate was about semantics? :P

Still, just because it's legal does not mean it's the moral thing to do, which was the original point.

[Zierro]

Still, just because it's legal does not mean it's the moral thing to do, which was the original point.

 

Oh lol. I didn't know he was referring to legality by saying "it's what you should do".

 

EDIT: But wait, weren't they supposed to not help them, legally, because they didn't pay?

[anonymous1234]

Another question is, where are these "morals" coming from? Because if we aren't obtaining these "morals" from a uniform source (the law), how do many come to such a united consensus? Religion? Human nature?

[magekillr]

Oh look, the free market people apparently aren't too happy about this, are they?

 

You can't sell fire insurance but let people pay after the flames have begun. If you do, people will sign up after their houses catch on fire, rather than before. That's a bad business. Which is why we don't generally run firefighting as an insurance business (this, actually, was a weird case where a city's fire service sold protection in a rural area outside the city's limits). We run it as a collective good. People have to pay, and firefighters never let someone's house burn.

 

It's ethically unreasonable not to accept the service charge at the scene, but that's a practically untenable solution to the problem; you cannot maintain a fire department if people are paying the full cost of their particular situation either. So it's either this or everybody pays equally.

 

Pay into it, jerks. It's a stupid way to organize the system, but if you knew how your [cabbage]ty system worked and opted to be the [wagon] on your block hoping to pay up front, you're a bad citizen and a bad neighbor. Rubble is your harvest.

[Alg]

Did you even read the thing?

[Skeptical]

System is broken: they should have been fined, or the fee more forcible collected. Probably should have been included in their taxes.

 

Either way, letting their house burn down benefits no one.