Originally posted by: lostloveforever
I am asking only about yours. I gave you a reference of a thief and a pickpocket to know if earning for a living is somehow linked to morality of action involved in making such a living. Do you believe that the constitutional or legal morality in India justifies such conclusions as drawn by you?
I feel like I am back at high school again sitting for my exam papers lol
Go a little easy on the questions na.😆
Thieving is not legal in any part of the world I would think.There are consequences and the law to punish,whereas prostitution is legal in many parts of the world.Barrring pimping and human trafficking it's also legal in India too, right?
It's a way of living and earning bread and butter for many be it out of force or of free will.
Thieviing is not a legal means to earn a living or to feed an empty stomach,although many may do it because of their poverty stricken state,but it still doesn't make it ok.
All we, out of humanity can do is empathize with this state of majboori, but the law would not
would not hold such empathy and would not be so forgiving.You do the crime,you do the time.
That's just how it works.
So if I am to judge thieving based on a moral compass,i won't say it's the right thing to do,but like I said, all I can do is empathize that is if it was out of sheer helplessness due to a poverty stricken state.
If I or anyone is to judge the above given scenario or anything in general based on moral compass then it depends on the individual school of thought we belong to.
It's not necessary that what maybe immoral to you should also be the same to me or to anyone else. and so on.
Also I cannot answer or say for sure if the constitutional or legal morality in India would deem my so called conclusions as justifiable since I am not from India-Can only go by on what I know and have seen or heard about the Indian justice system or of the morals of majority Indian's- and I also can't speak for all because the moral compass one holds to judge differs from person to person.
The only point I was trying to make in all this is,those women that Sree so easily shamed in the process in his so called rage,without giving a second thought were not there to defend themselves,and neither did I see any topics on it in their defence.
I think we all get that he was poked and provoked to no ends,but he could have said so many other things under the sun in his fit of rage-Why go down that route?Was it really necessary and called for?And my qualm is, that it didn't seem like it was just done in a fit of rage but more in a very calm,calculative manner.
Anyways I hope I have been able to answer the question in the right manner in order to get full marks on that exam paper.
Also I think I have derailed the topic enough lol-As it is I do tend to get accused a lot for derailing topics-Don't blame anyone.I hold my hands up-I do have a tendency to go off topic quite a bit.😆
And I don't want Hippo to have to come down here all angry and guns blazing just to shoo me away with his walking stick, or maybe give me a few blows over the head with Mrs Hippo's belan.😆
comment:
p_commentcount