twisted brother

DRFseven:
Of course the threat of prison time does indeed imply a moral or value judgement. It is a clear indication that society thinks it is wrong to violate the principle. And this is not just a judgment made by American society or some isolated society. This holds true through many countries and cultures.
Though the topic is Moral Foundations and Principles, again I assert that the philosophical arguments cannot take place in vacuum. That is no more realistic than arguing whether a world absolutely free from violence would be a good thing. The precept is valueless when it is impossible.
The question in fact introduces the very real circumstances of whether the finder is poor or not. And the questions does not strictly preclude other consideration by using wording such as "what is the moral thing to do?"
Philosophy in and of itself is a pretty, intellectual exercise, but just as devoid of value as religion when religion ignores reality. The credence of any bible story is lost when fundies try to make it a real story that really happened.
And I'm not sure exactly what you mean by, "avoiding prison time is not a universal consideration, nor is it necessarily much of a threat." If you took the roll of cash, and there was any record of how much there was, it would like be a felony in itself (a roll of bills probably qualifies in the U.S. anyway). If you then tried to return the purse, authorities would be very likely to charge you. If you were later discovered to have the purse, and have spent the cash, and did not try to contact the authorities, you would very likely be charged with more violations. And finally, to not consider prison a threat, or a "universal consideration," seems to assert that there is some situation in which prison would not be the likely result. While it is wildly possible that you would not be charged, or less possible you would be charged and not incarcerated, it would still have a significant impact on your life, especially in the case of a conviction, even without punishment.
Another discussion considers the question of sexuality morality with children. This is a better example of a topic that cannot be considered in exclusion of reality, laws and current practice, unless and intellectually masturbatory, hypothetical question is to be considered.
Even if a question is to exclude any real consequences like laws, of nature or of society, it must be based in some real principles. Otherwise what is the point? Is theology and philosophy which has no hope of real-life application worth any more than the wailing and bowing of religion?

Alonzo Fyfe:
My criteria is reality. "Correct" is not a philosophical term, not a moral judgement, and indeed is related to the topic's operative question, "What should I do?" Like a test in school, there is a correct answer to most questions, and any other answer results in negative consequences (in most school settings) like a failing grade.
The desire to return the money is again an insignificant detail. It is not relevant when the results for not turning it in are life altering. That is not to say that these results necessarily will happen, but that they are so real a possibility they most influence the decision more than what a priest, philosopher or fortune-teller may suggest.
To me, a similar question to this is: If I am jumping on a trampoline, and am in mid bounce, should I come down to earth or should I float in the air?
Just because the purse question is open ended, doesn't mean that the possibilities are endless.
Of course there may indeed be people who would prefer to try to float in mid air (and will probably cause themselves injury) and there may be those who would prefer prison to freedom, but these possibilities are hardly worth discussion.

DRFseven

So? Again, the question was "What should I do?", and concerns personal morality. Certainly, societal values are a part of the whole system of moral acquisition, but an individual's behavior will reflect personal moral opinions, and, to many, legal and moral considerations are different. Even children will discriminate between legal and moral dilemmas (that it is legally wrong to run a red light if there is no traffic, but not morally wrong; however, it is legally AND morally wrong to steal money).

What are you talking about? If you don't like philosophical discussions, why come to a philosophy discussion board?

You seem not to have noticed that discussion of contingencies and mitigating factors (including financial need) DID take place. I'm certainly not denying that legal standards are unimportant in the overall moral climate of a society; just that moral discussions need not include legal considerations. In fact, in these discussions, people often say something like, "Leaving legal considerations aside, what are the MORAL implications of this situation?", indicating a distinct difference in perception between the two. Note: When someone says, "Is it morally ok to cheat on taxes?", there is no implication that in a real-life situation, the legal considerations are unimportant. The point of the question is to determine what the individual determines is right or wrong, regardless of other factors.

twisted brother

I did not deny the importance of philosophical discussion, but rather indicated my judgement that it is of little value when it is in a vacuum.
Perhaps I should ask: What are the implications in this situation of ignoring the law and society's expectations, and how do they influence your answer?
That is the nice way, as I see it, but I am rather more direct than that.
I did notice the purely personal or minor mitigating factors like how poor/rich am I, how do I feel about it, what has happened to me before, what is in the purse, what if I were forced to take it, etc..
But to deny society's expectations however is significant, and serves to invalidate the discussion.

Additionally, I am quite eager to debate the semantics of the questions itself, but since none of the introductory or exclusory statements you mentioned (e.g., "Leaving legal considerations aside, what are the MORAL implications of this situation?") are included, no exclusions should be assumed.

Theoretical Physics is theoretical because it must be. There is little if any possibility of application of theoretical models (until they leave the realm of theoretical physics).
Likewise I believe that philosophical discussions which are based in the real world must either explicitly exclude certain considerations, or expect them to be included in the discussion.

My entire point is that the discussion missed the most important of the "contingencies and mitigating factors."

While calling the others "wrong" is a judgement, that is exactly my point.

DRFseven

It is also off-target; no one here was suggesting that they would blunder ahead with their inclination regardless of legal consequences. Read how the author of the original question elucidated here.

"Sorry, I did not fully explain. I was thinking about morality and how we all share common beliefs and thoughts on right and wrong. As the majority of you dont believe in a god, I was wondering if you would hand the purse back and if so why? Despite this question appearing naieve, I wonder why you think it is right to hand it back? Based on what?

There's nothing to stop anyone from discussing the legal issues, but declaring that doing what was legally sanctioned was the "correct" answer makes no sense when it was stated that the moral motivation for atheists was what was being questioned.

Twisted, do you think most of the people who answered would have said they would even pick up the purse if there were, say, a police officer standing next to it? Instead, it said there was no one there and asked "what should I do?" It did indicate it was summer, "I" was walking, and the day was bright and sunny; perhaps the correct answer is that the most important consideration is that sunscreen be applied or that water must be carried at all times?

I'm just kidding, twisted; of course legal considerations have to do with property-theft, but what was asked about were the moral implications, specifically, the moral inclination to hand the purse over to the owner.

But you are not the arbitor of All That is Wrong and since people have different criteria, you wouldn't be able to answer that question for them. By the way, even if we were answering this question on legal grounds, I'm not convinced that potential purse-snatchers have much to fear. The boy I mentioned earlier who stole my purse was caught and arrested, but showed up at my house, not long after, delivering a pizza! He seemed to have forgotten the incident and, though he was fired from the supermarket, had been hired at the pizza shop right next door. In the last few months, my daughter had credit cards and then a bank card stolen on two separate occasions and, since violence was not involved, the police were not even mildly interested. Also, I can't help but notice that there seem to be many people who apparently do not find the illegality involved in theft to be worth much consideration at all.

twisted brother

DRFSeven:
You missed my point. I said, "While calling the others "wrong" is a judgement, that is exactly my point."

My point is that it is a judgement. Judgements are defined as opinions.

Perhaps had I simply written a hypothetical continuation of the situation my point would have been taken differently:

"Having removed the purse and large roll of bills from the road, you took it home. And though you had good intentions, you were surprised early the next morning when the police broke down the door, slammed you to the floor, and arrested you. You were charged with murder - you see, the body was in the ditch nearby, and you were seen making off with the purse by an unseen witness."

Or more directly, and simply, "I would not even touch the purse as it could be evidence in a crime, and is not mine. I would dial the non-emergency number for the police and report the purse. I would also likely wait for them to arrive, to ensure they took posession."
My moral and personal principle implication: I believe in keeping my nose all together out of it. The purse belongs to someone else. I believe my moral obligation is to allow the police - or society's legal representative to determine the disposition.

However I am rarely direct, and rarely state anything simply.

Alonzo Fyfe

It is an opinion about what, exactly?

An opinion about the nature of dark matter, perhaps? Or an opinion about the true identity of John F. Kennedy's assassin. Or, perhaps, it is an opinion about whether pi will ultimately prove to be a non-repeating, non-terminating decimal?

Here is what I say. Value claims are judgments about the relationship between certain types of objects being evaluated, and some set of desires.

Some, such as "cuteness" and "tastey" are easily determined because they describe relationships between that which is being evaluated and the desires of the person making the evaluation. They can judge cuteness quite directly, by sensing their own emotional reaction to an experience.

Other value judgments, such as rightness and wrongness, are ultimately judgments about the ability of desires to fulfill other desires.

To simply say that they are "judgments" and leave it at that says nothing. It is like saying that cats are living beings -- and to go no further to answer questions about how cats differ from other types of living beings, or how they are the same, or what cats are, or what they do.

Opinions? Judgments? About what?

Alonzo Fyfe

I have never seen you saying merely that value-claims are just a measurement. Rather, you have always been reporting more -- that value claims are a particular type of measurement with particular properties.

I mean, of course value claims report a measurement -- how one thing stands in relation to another in terms of value or merit. No sane person would dispute that; and for that reason it is not worth debating.

The real issue questions are: What is being measured? How is it being measured? Why is it being measured?

The thesis that I defend is that moral evaluations ultimately measure desires in virtue of their capacity to fulfill or thwart other desires.

Others suggest that people making moral claims are measuring actions or events relative to their own desires -- the same way they would measure cuteness and tastyness. However, when one looks at the only evidence relevant to deciding amongst these theories -- peoples' verbal behavior (the only way to determine what terms mean), this theory is grossly inconsistent with the facts.

twisted brother

The judgement is that most common in western society. It is a modern, evolved directive not to become involved but sit passively by and watch. To let the authorities take control.
To resist not just a desire, and not a moral inclination to do something, but to resist every motivation for any action except that which fits modern society's definition of acceptable behavior. The judgement overrides the moral code which overrides the desire.

While I disagree about the moral choice being an attempt to control desire, I do believe that the laws and expectations of society have superseded many of our moral committments.
In the case of Social Workers who see a bad situation but are in some way prevented from acting because of a court order. In the case of Police who are prevented from acting because of a ridiculous definition of a law which may change tomorrow. Even in our every day life as simple citizens with no special office or capacity this is often the case.

My example: It is my desire to free every tethered dog. I have a visceral reaction when I see a dog chained to a tree yards out from the house, in a muddy mess. My moral standard tells me to do everything legal to free that dog - call the SPCA, or whomever and try to get them to force the owner to change his treatment. I have in fact done so, but in my capacity as a Social Worker, though to me, any human would have done so. The result was my termination as a Social Worker.

I applaud and admire the actions of many of the radical animal liberationists who take extreme action to improve the treatment of animals who are horrendously abused in the name of science. They are the few who are willing to risk prison or death to make a stand. They live according to their moral code. They are willing to put their feet to the pavement to try to stop this societal vehicle, regardless of the damage to their feet (even against their desire to avoid pain). Whereas I have scuffed my feet a few times, been reprimanded for trying to protest, and have succumbed.