|
|
Test
Mar 6, 2016 17:50:01 GMT -5
Post by JACK-2 on Mar 6, 2016 17:50:01 GMT -5
A man owns an oasis filled with a large body of water. All around him is a desert and water is scarce. But, he does a good job of maintaining his water supply and he has more than enough water for himself and his small family. Next to him is a large village where there is little to no water because of scarce rainfall. The man who owns the large body of water claims that the lake in the oasis is his alone because he owns the land. Furthermore, he doesn't want to share with anyone.
Question: The villagers decide to forcibly remove the man and his family from the Oasis for themselves. Are they right in doing so?
|
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy 
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Test
Mar 6, 2016 17:57:39 GMT -5
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Mar 6, 2016 17:57:39 GMT -5
No. They should provide services and products of value and trade for it, or get their own. Theft is theft period.
|
|
|
|
Test
Mar 6, 2016 18:27:22 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by magicattack on Mar 6, 2016 18:27:22 GMT -5
History will show the man as being greedy and it was a necessity to forcibly take the water supply.
|
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Test
Mar 6, 2016 18:32:36 GMT -5
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Mar 6, 2016 18:32:36 GMT -5
History has shown many civilizations falling apart and nations being invaded because of that mentality too unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
Test
Mar 6, 2016 18:40:14 GMT -5
Post by JACK-2 on Mar 6, 2016 18:40:14 GMT -5
History will show the man as being greedy and it was a necessity to forcibly take the water supply. If needs justify violence then if a bigger group comes along and wants to steal the water supply than other the philosophy. They would be justified in taking it. |
|
|
|
Test
Mar 6, 2016 18:46:09 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by magicattack on Mar 6, 2016 18:46:09 GMT -5
When the man or the smaller village is eradicated, the victor is free to write history as they see fit.
|
|
|
|
Test
Mar 6, 2016 18:48:28 GMT -5
Post by JACK-2 on Mar 6, 2016 18:48:28 GMT -5
When the man or the smaller village is eradicated, the victor is free to write history as they see fit. But, is it Right in your opinion? |
|
|
|
Test
Mar 6, 2016 19:06:03 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by magicattack on Mar 6, 2016 19:06:03 GMT -5
Definitely not. I would try to build some sort of relation with the man.
If I was the representative of the town I would see what type of bartering would be necessary and acceptable to both parties.
If I wasn't representing the town, I would attempt to work out a mutually beneficial agreement to distribute the water to the town.
|
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Test
Mar 6, 2016 19:25:41 GMT -5
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Mar 6, 2016 19:25:41 GMT -5
We're on the same page then. That's how we got the advanced society we have today. People figuring out needs and desires and fulfilling them.
I don't argue what is "moral" as that is based on subjective feelings. The government should be a secular institution and things should be done based on what's the most effective long term. Many fights have been had over people's views being different and the other wanting to impose it which is what I hate.
|
|
