# A test about morals of different types



## CorrosiveThoughts (Dec 2, 2013)

I'd take the money out, tear it into neat little triangular pieces. And throw it in the air, while shouting out obscenities against the capitalist system of oppression. Then move to the Amazon rainforest and live alongside the hunter-gatherer tribes, using the salvaged leather from the wallet as underwear.


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

CorrosiveThoughts said:


> I'd take the money out, tear it into neat little triangular pieces. And throw it in the air, while shouting out obscenities against the capitalist system of oppression. Then move to the Amazon rainforest and live alongside the hunter-gatherer tribes, using the salvaged leather from the wallet as underwear.


That would be some tiny underwear....

I'd try and return it if I could, either by contacting the person or handing it in to the nearest shop or police station. I'd be tempted to ask around to see who dropped it but wouldn't (liars and social anxiety) or to put the wallet on a wall with the money taken out and my number in it (but then people may phone and get the money even though they werent the owner...)


----------



## Aqualung (Nov 21, 2009)

I found a guy's wallet in the street as I was riding my bicycle. I called information, got his number & called him. Got his answering machine but he picked up after I said "wallet". Found out where he lived, met him there & gave it to him. Had some bills in it but I left them in. He said he left it on top of his car & drove off. Also lost his checkbook so we drove around looking for it but never found it.


----------



## VIIZZY (Mar 22, 2014)

First thing I'd do is look for contact info and if I found some I'd contact the owner, wait where I found the wallet, take no money and return it to them. If I didn't find contact info I'd ask people in the area if they lost a wallet; I would keep the actual wallet out of sight and ask anyone who said it was there to describe the wallet in detail to avoid giving it to the wrong person. If no one in the area owned the wallet I'd wait a bit where I found it in case they came back and that way I could ensure none of the money was taken. If I was in a hurry I'd find a police station to leave it at. In any of the scenarios I wouldn't take the money; you never know what's going on with others lives and they could need the money more than me.


----------



## iisu (Mar 8, 2014)

It depends on where I found it a lot.

If it happened in my town I'd see if there's any way to identify the owner and if there is, then I'd find that person and return the wallet without taking anything. Taking what belongs to someone else is stealing, even if that person doesn't know where their belongings are. However, if there's no chance of finding out who lost this wallet I'd take everything for myself because I have no idea how to find the owner anyway. Yes, it still would be stealing.

If it was some other place where there's helpful police or something else what looks reliable, I'd give the wallet there with all the money it had and details of how, when and where I found it.


----------



## ai.tran.75 (Feb 26, 2014)

This happened to me before , I found their wallet and it has the ladies ID , credit card and $800, we were at the airport ; I returned it to lost and found. The only thing that crosses my mind is that the poor lady must be nervous out of her mind. Plus I left my purse behind at department store before and people have always returned it . It's just a common sense thing to do - this deals nothing with morality 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

Return the money, keep the wallet. Just to be contrary.


----------



## Ghostsoul (May 10, 2014)

Hand it to the police.
What else?


----------



## malphigus (Jan 15, 2014)

Well, depends.

Pick it up, look at ID and go to their address/call them if there's a number there. Otherwise if I have time I'll wait around, there's a chance that the person will come back looking for it. Give them the whole thing and secretly expect a reward.

I won't hand it to the police, they'll probably eat it up.


----------



## Fynest One (Jun 26, 2013)

I would return the wallet to the owner or police station. I knew if I had lost mine, I would hope someone would do the same for me.


----------



## Sabrah (Aug 6, 2013)

I'd check the wallet to see if I could find any identification info and return it to whoever lost it. If not, I would turn it into the police station.


----------



## Van Meter (Sep 28, 2012)

I believe in God, and that's the only reason I wouldn't take the money. 





I'm not kidding.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Straystuff said:


> *Imagine yourself walking in an empty street. You find a wallet with a huge amount of cash lying on the ground. What would you do?*
> 
> As an INFJ I would take some of the money as a reward -not too much tho. Then I would go to the nearest police station and return it.
> 
> I would do this 'cause I know that there are some people who would just keep the money so I feel the person who owns the wallet might think I earned some of the money for doing the right thing. And if they felt I was stealing, well, I think my actions were still justified.


Um . . . why you deserve ANY of the money? I can understand the logic of taking the money when there is no ID - assuming that there was no way to identify the owner but unless you're actually destitute; this isn't in any way justified IMO. Of course, should it be someone like Donald Trump, some overpaid rich celeb or cooperate mogul whose wallet you found; then, in that case I would probably keep it unless I was a fan.

I also don't get why you are bringing type into this in that way. I would think that as an INFJ, you would recognize that the wallet holder would clearly feel violated by you helping yourself to their non-reward.


----------



## NawTawThair (May 30, 2014)

Personally, I would look around suspiciously (make sure nobody is watching), take the money, leave the wallet there and be on my merry way. I'd also probably be paranoid for the next week or so that the police/owner would come banging on my door because somehow they KNOW.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

NawTawThair said:


> Personally, I would look around suspiciously (make sure nobody is watching), take the money, leave the wallet there and be on my merry way. I'd also probably be paranoid for the next week or so that the police/owner would come banging on my door because somehow they KNOW.


The tell-tale heart. :wink:


----------



## Riptide (Feb 13, 2014)

If I am honest, it depends on my situation. If I was dying of starvation or if my family needed money for surgery or whatever, I would take it. However, I would see it as a loan, I owed the owner and I planned to repay him for sure. If I had none of these problems I would call the owner or take it to police station.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Well I keep my wallet in my pocket. Not sure how one can lose a wallet, unless you're old. So I'd look for photo ID to check and see if I believe the person to be excused of making a mistake like this or not. If I believe the person to be simply careless then I'd take the money then leave the rest there. You shouldn't leave your wallet lying around. It's not a matter of helping to me but instead a matter of doing something stupid and paying the consequence for it. Literally.


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Take all the money, but return the wallet. It is the honest thing to do, and proper etiquette.


How is taking the money proper etiquette? Would you tell the person that you took the money or would you blame someone else?


----------



## Straystuff (May 23, 2014)

To be honest I forgot to say in the original post that there is no ID -just a plain wallet with tons of money.

There are few reasons why I would take some.

1) If you walk around with huge amounts of money with you and manage to lose your wallet chances are you are not poor.
2) The amount I would take would be around the amount I would figure the person would give me -20 euros or so. I feel that good deeds are not payed back enough in the world and I know for a fact that many people would just steal the money, so taking 0,1% of the total sum is ok for me -chances are the person wont even notice.
3) I guess you are just better person than I am...? 

I brought in the type 'cause I wanted to see if there's a pattern when it comes to morals of MBTI types. So far I see nothing too clear tho. There have been some INFJ:s that seem to think very much like me but some -e.g. you -have somewhat different values. I find it interesting


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

Stelliferous said:


> Well I keep my wallet in my pocket. Not sure how one can lose a wallet, unless you're old. So I'd look for photo ID to check and see if I believe the person to be excused of making a mistake like this or not. If I believe the person to be simply careless then I'd take the money then leave the rest there. You shouldn't leave your wallet lying around. It's not a matter of helping to me but instead a matter of doing something stupid and paying the consequence for it. Literally.


This makes no sense to me. I am sure most elderly men would keep their wallets in their pockets just like you. Most elderly women probably keep a purse in a purse, like most women of any age. So what makes you think they are more likely to lose something. That assumes so much about people who are advanced in age. I mean here you can't really use a senility argument if you apply the same logic of "paying the consequence" for lack of intelligence. I mean, if they have some awareness that their memory is fading, then they should be smart enough to hire some assistance or take extra precautions, right? And if they don't, then there "stupid" and deserve to 

Besides, how could you possibly deduce who deserves to be forgiven from their ID (without being extremely racist or sexist or ageist??)

Idk to me this is like the whole … leave-your-door-locked-if-you-don't-want-to-get-robbed argument.

I don't think at any point does finding something on the street make it yours; it doesn't matter how trivial the object seems to you. If it wasn't intentionally abandoned then I don't think, in terms of some kind of legal reasoning, it stops being someone's private property. Obviously, people make exceptions. They lose things that don't really matter to them, and they stop caring if they may have lost something. But, it's really never the finder's decision to decide how much something matters to someone or whether they have a "worth excuse" for losing it.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

surgery said:


> This makes no sense to me. I am sure most elderly men would keep their wallets in their pockets just like you. Most elderly women probably keep a purse in a purse, like most women of any age. So what makes you think they are more likely to lose something. That assumes so much about people who are advanced in age. I mean here you can't really use a senility argument if you apply the same logic of "paying the consequence" for lack of intelligence. I mean, if they have some awareness that their memory is fading, then they should be smart enough to hire some assistance or take extra precautions, right? And if they don't, then there "stupid" and deserve to
> 
> Besides, how could you possibly deduce who deserves to be forgiven from their ID (without being extremely racist or sexist or ageist??)
> 
> ...


Well young people don't have Alzheimer's. That's how I would base it, age strictly. Because my grandma leaves important things lying around herself and she doesn't even have Alzheimer's. I wouldn't take advantage of the elderly like that. However, a younger person should have the responsibility and physical/mental capabilities to not misplace their wallet. Therefore, I would assume the wallet I found, belonging to the younger person, obviously wasn't important enough to the person. Hence, why I would take the money and know what to do with it. (Hint: I wouldn't leave it lying around).

edit: Think of the wallet like a pet. It's like finding a stray cat and taking it instead of taking it to the pound or attempting to look for the owner. I know that I could care for the cat, and it seems that the owner neglected it for some reason.


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

Given if the huge amount of money was something I could replace in time, I'd take the money and then leave the wallet with the same amount of cash in another location. Start the cycle all over again. I've done this before.


----------



## Christian Exodia (May 28, 2014)

Find its owner. Return it as quickly as possible.

Deny reward.


----------



## Antiloop (Feb 10, 2014)

Stelliferous said:


> Well young people don't have Alzheimer's. That's how I would base it, age strictly. Because my grandma leaves important things lying around herself and she doesn't even have Alzheimer's. I wouldn't take advantage of the elderly like that. However, a younger person should have the responsibility and physical/mental capabilities to not misplace their wallet. Therefore, I would assume the wallet I found, belonging to the younger person, obviously wasn't important enough to the person. Hence, why I would take the money and know what to do with it. (Hint: I wouldn't leave it lying around).
> 
> edit: Think of the wallet like a pet. It's like finding a stray cat and taking it instead of taking it to the pound or attempting to look for the owner. I know that I could care for the cat, and it seems that the owner neglected it for some reason.


Anything could have happened to have someone lose their wallet. I don't like how you're just assuming that some people have no excuse to not lose it, and if they do it must be because they intentionally left it there. It could simply slip out of your pocket, or bag or whereever one has it. It could also be stolen or maybe lost in a hurry or such. The bottom line is that you don't know why it's there.

At work (gas station) customers lose or forget things quite a lot, and it's always the same damn reason - distraction. Almost every day people turn in some credit card they found on the lot or by the terminals, or somebody's cell phone or wallet or whatever. Also more often than not, people who sod off without paying for gas do it simply because they forgot, not because they are filthy thieves. And whenever we get in contact with these people who've lost something or forgot to pay, they always mention that they were distracted by something. Such as meeting someone they knew, or some event happened nearby or whatever. You simply cannot stay 100% focused on your things 100% of the time.

Another catalyst for forgetting things like wallets is that the wallet spends almost all tie in one place - like your pocket. You don't think about it being anywhere else. Together with some distraction you'll lose it quite easily! People assume it's in their pocket, and move on. When we got those chip-card readers people tended to walk away without their card a lot. With those magnetic stripe thingies it didn't happen because you swiped the card and then put it back in it's place. This is why the wallet shouldn't be compared to a pet, since a pet is a live thing and moving around and needs to be taken care of, and a wallet is just an inanimate object which spends most of its time in your pocket! And I can imagine that there's been cases where people have lost their pet or kids too.



ai.tran.75 said:


> It's just a common sense thing to do - this deals nothing with morality


Yeah, you'd think it be obvious to return the wallet, but apparently it's not obvious, as evidenced by the posts in this thread.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

Straystuff said:


> To be honest I forgot to say in the original post that there is no ID -just a plain wallet with tons of money.


You can't change the rules midstream. WTF ??


----------



## Straystuff (May 23, 2014)

Geoffrey Felis said:


> You can't change the rules midstream. WTF ??


Nah, not changing the rules, I just decided it's easier to explain my actions on that situation when I tell the whole story. This was originally a test in one of my classes in UNI and back then I answered with the knowledge that there was no ID.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

surgery said:


> How is taking the money proper etiquette? Would you tell the person that you took the money or would you blame someone else?


I'm being a realist. The idea of losing a wallet, with a bunch of money, and having it returned.....is a pipe dream. Where I am from anyway. A little place called America. 

I actually lost my wallet two years in a row. Almost certain I lost one in a cab, in a drunken stupor. Almost a year later, lost it again. First time, I called around. Called a bunch of cab companies, called the clubs/bar I was at. Nothing. Not a peep. Like the thing never existed. Same thing with my second wallet. Not a peep. 

Contrast that to my buddy who lost his wallet in Canada. He never expected to see it again. But like 2 weeks later, he got a package in the mail, with his wallet, all contents intact, and a brochure on Canadian tourism. lol.


----------



## Fynest One (Jun 26, 2013)

Antiloop said:


> Anything could have happened to have someone lose their wallet. I don't like how you're just assuming that some people have no excuse to not lose it, and if they do it must be because they intentionally left it there. It could simply slip out of your pocket, or bag or whereever one has it. It could also be stolen or maybe lost in a hurry or such. The bottom line is that you don't know why it's there.
> 
> At work (gas station) customers lose or forget things quite a lot, and it's always the same damn reason - distraction. Almost every day people turn in some credit card they found on the lot or by the terminals, or somebody's cell phone or wallet or whatever. Also more often than not, people who sod off without paying for gas do it simply because they forgot, not because they are filthy thieves. And whenever we get in contact with these people who've lost something or forgot to pay, they always mention that they were distracted by something. Such as meeting someone they knew, or some event happened nearby or whatever. You simply cannot stay 100% focused on your things 100% of the time.
> 
> ...



Well said.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

No ID and a lot of cash? I'd take maybe a fifth of the cash as a self-reward, take it to the nearest lost and found and put up a few fliers in the area I found it indicating where to find it.

I've lost my wallet once and it had an ID but was never returned to me. If I ever meet the guy who took my wallet I'd probably punch him (because I know it's a dude) in the breadbasket as payment for being such a dishonest git then tell him he can keep the change.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Antiloop said:


> Anything could have happened to have someone lose their wallet. I don't like how you're just assuming that some people have no excuse to not lose it, and if they do it must be because they intentionally left it there. It could simply slip out of your pocket, or bag or whereever one has it. It could also be stolen or maybe lost in a hurry or such. The bottom line is that you don't know why it's there.
> 
> At work (gas station) customers lose or forget things quite a lot, and it's always the same damn reason - distraction. Almost every day people turn in some credit card they found on the lot or by the terminals, or somebody's cell phone or wallet or whatever. Also more often than not, people who sod off without paying for gas do it simply because they forgot, not because they are filthy thieves. And whenever we get in contact with these people who've lost something or forgot to pay, they always mention that they were distracted by something. Such as meeting someone they knew, or some event happened nearby or whatever. You simply cannot stay 100% focused on your things 100% of the time.
> 
> ...


Morality isn't an objective matter, bro. The decision may be obvious to YOURSELF but other people have different points of view on things (no way!). You say that you don't like how I would act. Well I say I don't like how you are making my view seem like it's wrong and actually taking the time to tell me how wrong I am. I'm pretty sure right and wrong is an individual conclusion. See, you don't understand why I would take the money. You're not me. This thread isn't a debate over what is objectively right or wrong (because that would be stupid) but instead how different people do different things (because of different values!) in the situation. It's cool how you think the decision would be obvious, but please don't concern yourself with others points of view if you can't accept them. If I lost my wallet, I would not expect anything back either. That's the tradeoff.


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

Cash some ka-ching and bring the wallet to the cops.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Stelliferous said:


> Morality isn't an objective matter, bro. The decision may be obvious to YOURSELF but other people have different points of view on things (no way!). You say that you don't like how I would act. Well I say I don't like how you are making my view seem like it's wrong and actually taking the time to tell me how wrong I am. I'm pretty sure right and wrong is an individual conclusion. See, you don't understand why I would take the money. You're not me. This thread isn't a debate over what is objectively right or wrong (because that would be stupid) but instead how different people do different things (because of different values!) in the situation. It's cool how you think the decision would be obvious, but please don't concern yourself with others points of view if you can't accept them. If I lost my wallet, I would not expect anything back either. That's the tradeoff.


You must live in a lower class neighborhood then because I would certainly expect my wallet to be returned even if all the money were taken as a reward.

There are standards of decency and being kind to your fellow Man is one of them and that is certainly what is taught in school and/or church.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

I would totally get it.
It happened to me about 2 weeks ago or so, i saw three people stading there, we we're waiting for the pedestrian traffic lights. I looked down to my phone and when i raised my head i saw 5 euros lying there between those people, and suddenly the lights went green so they started walking, i decided in a a matter of seconds to get them and shut up, anyway it was just 5 euros, maybe if it was more i would have asked but why wouldn't they say it was theirs?


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

Stelliferous said:


> Well young people don't have Alzheimer's. That's how I would base it, age strictly. Because my grandma leaves important things lying around herself and she doesn't even have Alzheimer's. I wouldn't take advantage of the elderly like that. However, a younger person should have the responsibility and physical/mental capabilities to not misplace their wallet. Therefore, I would assume the wallet I found, belonging to the younger person, obviously wasn't important enough to the person. Hence, why I would take the money and know what to do with it. (Hint: I wouldn't leave it lying around).
> 
> edit: Think of the wallet like a pet. It's like finding a stray cat and taking it instead of taking it to the pound or attempting to look for the owner. I know that I could care for the cat, and it seems that the owner neglected it for some reason.


Like I said, shouldn't a person with Alzheimer's be prudent enough to get assistance with day to day things or know to take extra precautions? If they're not "intelligent" enough to do that, then do they have an adequate "excuse" for losing their wallet? Some elderly people with Alzheimer's can be incredibly stubborn about not seeking assistance so if they get hurt or lose something, isn't it still their fault?

Or what if the wallet feel out of a mother's purse because a criminal had cut a hole in the bottom of the bag. This is common thing in big cities. Or maybe she just left it on the counter at a restaurant by mistake because she was preoccupied with finding a place to breastfeed or change a dirty diaper or wipe some surprise vomit. 

Then another customer comes a long and, seeing the wallet, thinks, "This obviously wasn't important to her. Dumb bitch should be more careful."

To me that sounds overly harsh and judgmental. Have you never been forgiven for making a simple mistake? I mean, even though you said would check the wallet for ID, the only way you would consider returning it is if you found it belonged to someone elderly?

I just don't see the difference between taking something young person may have lost (for any infinite amount of reasons) than an older person whom you presume to be less competent somehow...

As for a stray cat, I don't think that's a comparable analogy without a few more details to consider. For example, if you came across a cat with an ID collar, then the owner obviously has taken some precaution. In simply coming across such a cat, you don't know the circumstances of how the cat has been separated from the owner. You don't know how long it's been separated from its owner either. So, does it really make sense to just assume that the owner is an irresponsible idiot and take the cat or would you give them some benefit of the doubt and try to contact them based on the information on the collar?

Now, if you came across a cat with no collar and it looked as if it had been neglected for a while…then I can totally see why you would adopt the stray cat. But, one with a collar that isn't necessarily in poor health….? It doesn't seem reasonable to judge the owner so quickly...

The same things goes for the wallet.

If the person clearly has ID and a lot of money then that's the same as a cat with an ID collar. I mean for all you know, the owner could be looking for the wallet as you come across it. Maybe they're calling a restaurant they went to that day and are asking if someone found it there. They may simply not have had the opportunity to retrace all their steps yet. 

If the wallet has no ID, then I can see why you'd take the money. Especially if the wallet looks as if it had been neglected for a while or was in a very odd place (like, not in the middle of a street or some busy place where anyone could have easily lost it…)

Like you said, I don't believe that morality is objective either. There isn't a clear right or wrong answer here. But, I think the way you try to justify taking the money is bogus in so far as it raises the bar of forgiveness to a point that is much higher than the way most people actually experience life.


----------



## laura palmer (Feb 10, 2014)

If I found a wallet I would take like, 5 dollers but return all the importent cards and stuff, like its bad if u loose ur credit card a drivers lisence. but yah i would take some money lets b serious
But on wednesday me and my friend legit found 90 dollars on the ground ( just stray bills) and we split it and it was awesome.


----------



## FakeLefty (Aug 19, 2013)

I'll think for a bit. What happens after the thinking.... well I'll decide if it ever happens :wink:


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

surgery said:


> Like I said, shouldn't a person with Alzheimer's be prudent enough to get assistance with day to day things or know to take extra precautions? If they're not "intelligent" enough to do that, then do they have an adequate "excuse" for losing their wallet? Some elderly people with Alzheimer's can be incredibly stubborn about not seeking assistance so if they get hurt or lose something, isn't it still their fault?
> 
> Or what if the wallet feel out of a mother's purse because a criminal had cut a hole in the bottom of the bag. This is common thing in big cities. Or maybe she just left it on the counter at a restaurant by mistake because she was preoccupied with finding a place to breastfeed or change a dirty diaper or wipe some surprise vomit.
> 
> ...


Ok a couple things here, the cat analogy wasn't meant to show a different circumstance in which I would do the same thing (collar thing is different) but to point out how important I think a wallet is and you shouldn't misplace something important. The stubbornness in elderly I do not see as a weakness because I can sympathize what it's like to greatly want to be independent. Also, I'm only taking cash. The owner won't miss it if they figure out it has been taken when they find it (or if). Taking the cash should be a sign to them to better care for their wallet because their identity could have been stolen. It would be like a slap of reality to them and they would probably thereafter take better care of the wallet. And no, I wouldn't return it to the elderly either. I would just walk away. I'm not destroying their life. They probably have money elsewhere too.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)




----------



## Ebon (Aug 9, 2013)

No ID or credit cards? Take the money, leave the wallet. If the wallet is decent enough, then I'd drop it off at Goodwill next time I donate.

If there's an ID, credit cards, or any identifying information, I'd try to find the person to return it using my fancy sleuthing skills, like ability to google, look them up in a phone book, etc. I wouldn't have thought to take it to the police station because I didn't know you could do that. Now I do. If I know the wallet is going back to its owner, I don't see why I'd take a cut of the money before handing it over, whether there's 10¢ or $10,000 in the wallet.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

I'd take it to a police station or, if I didn't have time, ask someone (like a friend) to. Even if it had ID in it, I wouldn't be comfortable with calling whoever lost it. I also wouldn't be inclined to take any money inside because it's not that person's fault they lost it. I'd be quite annoyed if someone helped themselves to a 'reward' (purely because I would give them one upon it being returned - it's like if people use my stuff without asking: I'd happy for them to use it, but they need to ask first).

If it had no ID or cards in, I'd probably put it up on a wall somewhere they could see it if they came back to look.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

Straystuff said:


> Nah, not changing the rules, I just decided it's easier to explain my actions on that situation when I tell the whole story. This was originally a test in one of my classes in UNI and back then I answered with the knowledge that there was no ID.


Helps to "tell whole story" from the get go. :wink:


----------



## Antiloop (Feb 10, 2014)

Stelliferous said:


> Morality isn't an objective matter, bro. The decision may be obvious to YOURSELF but other people have different points of view on things (no way!). You say that you don't like how I would act. Well I say I don't like how you are making my view seem like it's wrong and actually taking the time to tell me how wrong I am. I'm pretty sure right and wrong is an individual conclusion. See, you don't understand why I would take the money. You're not me. This thread isn't a debate over what is objectively right or wrong (because that would be stupid) but instead how different people do different things (because of different values!) in the situation. It's cool how you think the decision would be obvious, but please don't concern yourself with others points of view if you can't accept them. If I lost my wallet, I would not expect anything back either. That's the tradeoff.


Are you honestly trying to justify not returning a wallet with "people are different"? I understand that people might actually not return the wallet, but don't tell me that it isn't the wrong thing to do. You made the assumption that the person must have neglected the wallet rather quickly, but you fail to make the assumptions that stealing is bad, and that returning lost things are good? Come on.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Antiloop said:


> Are you honestly trying to justify not returning a wallet with "people are different"? I understand that people might actually not return the wallet, but don't tell me that it isn't the wrong thing to do. You made the assumption that the person must have neglected the wallet rather quickly, but you fail to make the assumptions that stealing is bad, and that returning lost things are good? Come on.


Justify? I see no injustice. Apparently, you do. That's where we are different. You would feel guilty for taking the money, I wouldn't. End of story. I'm not discussing this further with you because you continue to attack my belief system. Surgery is questioning it, but you are attacking it. I'm not attacking anybody else's belief system here. I could argue with you too about how stealing isn't bad but I'm not. Because it's stupid, it will lead nowhere, and this isn't the first time people have wanted to pick an argument with me and I'm kind of tired of it. You believe stealing is bad under these circumstances, I don't. Leave me alone. I do NOT want to get into a huge topic about every little detail behind my beliefs (especially since this isn't a debate thread) only for you to say "I disagree". It's obvious we disagree at this point BEFORE I debate my side... which I'm not going to do as aforementioned. You can reply to this, assume what you will about me, but know that I will not reply again.


----------



## Echoe (Apr 23, 2012)

INTP I think:


I see taking the money as dick-ish. I'd have to be at some scary straits (like going homeless) at the time before I'd even consider taking it. I'd take the wallet to a police station or and probably try to call the owner and/or perhaps do a post on Craigslist to tell them where it is (these wouldn't feel too out of my way to do). I'd probably not take any reward offered unless I felt I could do with the money.


----------



## gaffloda (Jul 22, 2013)

I would probably find some way to return it to its owner. However, my returning it would not be due to any kind of a moral principle; I would just be personally inclined to return it. I wouldn't take any money out of it because I would feel bad if I did, and I would return it because I would feel bad if I didn't. I would be returning it for selfish reasons, really.


----------



## SoulRefugee (Jan 27, 2014)

Damn I feel like a dick now, I'd first search for identification. If after a day or so of not finding the owner, then I'd take the money but donate the wallet. Though I'd probably use some of the money as donation to somewhere, might as well do something productive with it.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

Stelliferous said:


> Well young people don't have Alzheimer's. That's how I would base it, age strictly. Because my grandma leaves important things lying around herself and she doesn't even have Alzheimer's. I wouldn't take advantage of the elderly like that. However, a younger person should have the responsibility and physical/mental capabilities to not misplace their wallet. Therefore, I would assume the wallet I found, belonging to the younger person, obviously wasn't important enough to the person. Hence, why I would take the money and know what to do with it. (Hint: I wouldn't leave it lying around).


That...isn't an assumption with any basis in fact, though. I mean, could we say of people who take risks that obviously their _life_ doesn't matter much to them? I don't think so. Rather, I think that the more appropriate thing to say would be that the person taking a risk with either wallet or life values both things, but spending every second thinking about each and every possible bad thing that could happen to things like them diminishes one's quality of life in some way.



> edit: Think of the wallet like a pet. It's like finding a stray cat and taking it instead of taking it to the pound or attempting to look for the owner. I know that I could care for the cat, and it seems that the owner neglected it for some reason.


The reason for your comparison could include "I let the movers for the new stuff into my house and some of them left the door open for a minute so they could more easily move things in. I was gone because I had to run an errand so I didn't see when the cat took the opportunity to slip out of the door." For one. So assuming neglect is quite frankly, stupid.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Just because it is not neglect 100% of the time does not mean I should not assume it is neglect. I find neglect of important things to be a bigger crime than taking cash lying around. It's not stupid so stop calling me stupid. This is ridiculous how many people are intentionally being rude to me, which also IMO is worse than taking cash lying around.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

Stelliferous said:


> Just because it is not neglect 100% of the time does not mean I should not assume it is neglect. I find neglect of important things to be a bigger crime than taking cash lying around. It's not stupid so stop calling me stupid. This is ridiculous how many people are intentionally being rude to me, which also IMO is worse than taking cash lying around.


In _my_ opinion, and in the opinion of people you steal from, probably, taking their stuff because they handled it using their preferred level of attention instead of yours is interfering with their _right_ to use their stuff as they see fit. Regardless of whether you think they're paying proper attention to it or not, it's at least likely that they earned said stuff already through labor and in any event, you certainly _didn't_ earn it by simply noticing that it was unprotected. On _top_ of that, your reasons for doing so indicate that you're _also_ being highly disrespectful towards the people you robbed by presuming to tell them how to live their lives, which I find to be _extremely_ offensive.

As for my example and what conclusions you should draw from it, you technically could call the example I gave a form of neglect, in that you weren't there to make sure the movers didn't leave the door open. The kind of neglect involved in forgetting a wallet is similarly minor--you take it out, get some sudden distraction, and then you're not there to make sure anything bad happens to it. 

Moreover, not _everyone_ leaves their wallet somewhere because of neglect. I'll leave my stuff out where I was while heading somewhere in a hurry--and be fully aware of this--simply because _I trust people enough not to take it from me_.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

Ok, something my roommate just told me. If you have someone's wallet with ID and credit cards, and a cop were to stop you and discover it on you legally you are in trouble. So the best thing to do, IMO, is to immediately the non-emergency number of local law enforcement and tell them you just found a wallet. That way you don't wrongfully get blamed for identity theft ect.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Keep it all. Fucker should have kept track of his/her wallet. If they don't have to bear the consequences of their actions, how will they learn?


----------



## elixare (Aug 26, 2010)

I'd take the money, invest it on the stock market, and sell the wallet on ebay


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

↑ ChildofPoorParenting.

Not to pick on you of course but that's true of anyone who apparently doesn't know of the golden rule which is like the most basic form of common courtesy but instead espouse their own self-absorbed point of view. The worst is actually trying to blame the victim that's a level of d-baggery I haven't seen in quite a while.

Heck, I once found a set of keys that a person left hanging in their door. I took it for a few days to teach the guy a lesson then returned it with a note saying that I found it hanging on his door and to be more careful next time. 

I guess younger people these days aren't being taught values anymore. Such a shame.


----------



## in_finite_form (Jan 7, 2014)

Hard to say. How much money is in it? I definitely wouldn't go to the police station, for fear that they would pocket the money themselves. Probably try and get ahold of the person it belongs to if at all possible, since it's likely that there's also an ID or some indication of their whereabouts or identification contained within the wallet. 

If I've exhausted all attempt to get ahold of the person to return it, only then would I keep the money.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

MNiS said:


> ↑ ChildofPoorParenting.


ROTFLMAO !! :laughing:


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

Where I work, a lot of people forget their possessions with me. I 100% return their items, no problem going out of my way to return them either. Even though it can be annoying. Outside of work, someone once left their wallet, I actually went out of my way to track them down because I knew they weren't too far, I spotted them, they said it saved their day. No tip. But really do not care. 

Those of you who would steal the money/wallet/leave it there -- I hope you all lose your wallets tomorrow and you run into someone with the same attitude. Than you stub your toe. Muwhaha!


----------



## elixare (Aug 26, 2010)

MNiS said:


> ↑ ChildofPoorParenting.
> Not to pick on you of course but that's true of anyone who apparently doesn't know of the golden rule which is like the most basic form of common courtesy but instead espouse their own self-absorbed point of view.


I'd adhere to the "Golden Rule" if there is a good chance that the other party would return the favor - the "Golden Rule" is a quid pro quo proposition, not a free handout - there is no free lunch...In this case though the previous owner of the wallet is a complete stranger so there's little incentive for him to go around rewarding me for the "Golden Rule" and even if he does reward me it would never be of the same amount as the amount of money in the wallet...adhering to the "Golden Rule" in this case is just poor economic decision making....

Btw my parents were indeed poor parents (like literally), so at least you got that one right....which is good actually since it taught me how to manage my finances such as in this scenario


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

childofprodigy said:


> I'd adhere to the "Golden Rule" if there is a good chance that the other party would return the favor - the "Golden Rule" is a quid pro quo proposition, not a free handout - there is no free lunch...In this case though the previous owner of the wallet is a complete stranger so there's little incentive for him to go around rewarding me for the "Golden Rule" and even if he does reward me it would never be of the same amount as the amount of money in the wallet...adhering to the "Golden Rule" in this case is just poor economic decision making....


I don't disagree with you. A rational agent would never be kinder to a person than he expects to receive in return. That's kind of the basis for something like Game Theory and the prisoner's dilemma. Every man for himself ends up being the most rational decision.  However, we live in a civil society and in order for that civility to not break down some ground rules should be adhered to, otherwise people might start trying to harm one another out of spite. 



> Btw my parents were indeed poor parents (like literally), so at least you got that one right....which is good actually since it taught me how to manage my finances such as in this scenario


I was being cheeky since you were joking. Or at least I hope you were joking. I would think no one would go that out of their way just for a few extra bucks since you probably won't get much for a used wallet unless it were an ultra expensive designer and most people don't carry a lot of cash on them anymore.  Or would you do it anyway? :|

Good for you about learning finance though I think your actions in this hypothetical situation are a bit misguided.  I think learning how to manage finances is something that's not taught nearly enough in school though.


----------



## DailyFacade7 (May 18, 2014)

I would do my best to find the owner and return everything. After all avenues have been exhausted I would donate any cash to a charity of my choice.


----------



## an absurd man (Jul 22, 2012)

Keep the cash. The probability that I return the wallet decays exponentially the further I am from a police station. I'll probably shred the credit cards at home.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

I'd turn it in as is. I'm not interested in money I haven't earned. 

_Addendum_: This scenario happened to me in college. I found a wallet while working in the dining hall. I turned it in exactly the way I found it and the man who lost it gave me a $20 as a reward.


----------



## Fluff (Jun 1, 2014)

series0 said:


> Take a look at that thread I linked and you'll see more information on the subject. There is only white and improper integration of it. I would perhaps allow that there is no black, excepting theoretical. Instantiated white is also theoretical. But progress towards it can be seen and compared in any two points of view that differ. If there is any inkling from the 3rd party consensus filter then that inkling we must hope is driven or integrated from a collective white viewpoint, or, that of objective moral truth.
> 
> I maintain that subjective morality is simply a cop-out.


A cop out from what exactly?
I assume you mean claiming so with the intent to do what you would label as wrong. That's still just you projecting your feelings onto others life choices though. I will go as far as to give you that the person in said situation might be labeled as "bad" by the majority based on current trends, but that means nothing past your own judgement of them. It will also more than likely be null within any given amount of time as with almost every other social, ethical, religious or otherwise moral compasses. Not only are these purely opinions within each individual but the common majority isn't static.

Also, what about people with answers like mine?
I wouldn't take the money, because I have no desire to steal or obtain wealth. I wouldn't return it either though, I would just leave it for somebody else to deal with because it's not my problem. (I've done this before) What do you believe I'm coping out from? I neither gained nor lost anything in this decision.. but I didn't do what you would call the "objective moral truth" so what reason would I have in your opinion to claim morals are subjective solely to have done..nothing? 

If you don't mind me asking I'm also interested in your reasoning for such a staunch stance. Is it an ego thing, emotional, religious, etc?


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Fluff said:


> A cop out from what exactly?
> I assume you mean claiming so with the intent to do what you would label as wrong. That's still just you projecting your feelings onto others life choices though. I will go as far as to give you that the person in said situation might be labeled as "bad" by the majority based on current trends, but that means nothing past your own judgement of them. It will also more than likely be null within any given amount of time as with almost every other social, ethical, religious or otherwise moral compasses. Not only are these purely opinions within each individual but the common majority isn't static.


I suppose there is feeling involved, yes, but an immense amount of logic and reasoning as well. So when you say, 'that is _*just *_you ... ', the word 'just' is in vast error.

You then say that it means nothing what 3rd party opinion is past judgment. This is in error as well. Third party opinion is 1 of only 2 meaningful filters a person has to make decisions from. One filter, the internal filter is your own set of choices. Then you weigh any given choice against your own perception of a 3rd party consensus filter. To suggest this effort has no value is ludicrous. It carries with it an implication that you FEEL that you cannot learn from others, or the wisdom of the masses. I kind-of hate that phrase myself. 'wisdom of the masses'. It is fraught with peril. The masses do express some wisdom, but the 3rd party consensus I refer to is one vetted by my own filter first and then accepted by individual into a second pool of _'people whose ideas do not seem to suck to me right now, and tend to utter things I, perhaps even grudgingly accept as wisdom.
_
I am, rather continually in my life, learning tiny bits of moral truth from these sources which I must then integrate into myself, into my approach to objective moral truth. In other words, some wise person taught me a new shred of wisdom I recognize as a step towards objective moral truth. I can rail against it, but, the weight of 3rd party consensus from a pool of people accepted as wise already by me forces me to begrudgingly admit that I can grow by accepting that new wisdom, rather than depending only on what I have now as my moral truth. Please realize that I use my own inner sense of right and wrong to ponder and suss out whether each new possible moral presented is indeed a step forward on my path or not. I never accept anything based on simple authority and people fall in and out of my accepted pool of 'the wise' all the time. It's a continually refining effort.

As my other thread shows clearly and I will re-iterate here for your consumption, moral truths are accepted in EXACTLY the same way that factual truths are. They are learned. You evaluate them and accept those you agree with into your pool of morals or facts. You may think that the moral(s) I am offering you are not morals at all but just my opinion. But, for now, to me, they are part of my moral truth just like facts are part of my knowledge truth. As indicated, I can change them, just like I can change an accepted fact, but, right now, they have accepted status. Further, as I progress towards a rich understanding of objective moral truth, rather like a scientist that has deeply and thoroughly researched an issue and literally gone beyond and surrounded the less complicated and less invested efforts of other scientists around them, I can see that my set of morals exceeds the understanding of many others around me. This is indeed alarming. It can appear arrogant. But, to teach someone who does not understand something that thing requires stating it as a proposition and then giving evidence to support it. As a lack of arrogance, I offer that process with any moral I tout as true. This includes the moral that states: Progress towards objective moral truth is each person's journey towards real maturity and a deep sense of belonging leading most often to moral behaviors if and when practice follows understanding.



Fluff said:


> Also, what about people with answers like mine?
> I wouldn't take the money, because I have no desire to steal or obtain wealth. I wouldn't return it either though, I would just leave it for somebody else to deal with because it's not my problem. (I've done this before) What do you believe I'm coping out from? I neither gained nor lost anything in this decision.. but I didn't do what you would call the "objective moral truth" so what reason would I have in your opinion to claim morals are subjective solely to have done..nothing?
> 
> If you don't mind me asking I'm also interested in your reasoning for such a staunch stance. Is it an ego thing, emotional, religious, etc?


Your situation is easy to dissect and deliver the appropriate moral. Shades of understanding for this moral tenet are pervasive in most spiritual philosophies. The quote, attributed to many, Edmund Burke among them is this, *"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." *Humorously, it underscores with great success (to my mind) the very definition of a moral cop-out. 

Why, You might ask. Because the lost wallet clearly represents potential suffering for its owner. Put yourself in their shoes. Belonging philosophy (my name for my current moral philosophy) requires that you understand that the owner of that wallet could be you. Your hard-earned cash and your credit cards. Your pictures of your new baby girl. Your spare house key. A lucky coin given you by your dad before he died. The value is indeterminate and must be assumed to be priceless. You could indeed be the only person ever to notice the wallet where it is. You cannot determine that. The person missing the wallet would have tons of hours of work cancelling cards, defending themselves from identity theft, etc. Your return of the wallet is actually required of you morally. To shirk this responsibility is to let yourself down. You fail yourself. You are the owner. 

Whether you can accept this moral standpoint or not, whether you agree with it or not, it remains true to me and others that have made it this far into understanding objective moral truth. If you choose to see this as arrogant then I can only offer that one day I hope someone returns something invaluable to you, back to you. Maybe, only maybe you will glean the truth then. And if they have taken from the wallet some share of the money there, rather than freely acting in accordance with real morality and given it all back to you in spite of any gain they could have had, they have taken your father's lucky coin by chance as a payment they deem appropriate (not knowing the significance of the coin to you) then maybe you can see how there is NOTHING in this situation that is in any way subjective morally. The right path is absolutely clear to those that know it. 

What you are perhaps confusing yourself with is the dogmatic opinions on morality you have witnessed from other in the past that you concluded were wrong. Maybe you think I am wrong here. But why is that wrong? I have attempted to explain why it is right. You belong, the owner of the wallet belongs. Two parts of the same whole. You are preventing a potential suffering in the world. You relate to that suffering and your personal feeling of separate indifference is dystopian and evil. You must be involved and care about others. It is required by objective moral truth. Why do you think that is wrong? Selfishness? Misunderstanding? 
You ask 'is it an ego thing, emotional, religious, etc?' It is most of these. It is the result of my attempt to abandon by ego's desire for separation from everything. I recognize that I am an integral participatory part of everything with a healthy function and an unhealthy potential. I would not classify it as a religious belief because religion to me means an organized group and I refute all such entities as unwise by definition as I detailed in other threads exhaustively (link on request). It is again another moral that I hold to be true: Each individual must put themselves on the path towards objective moral truth. Since your journey is unique and draws from your well of experiences it is useless to join any entity I know of today as a religion. Take any two members of that faith and I guarantee you they have different spiritual or moral beliefs. They are at different places on their personal journey towards objective moral truth. So the umbrella religion only gets in the way, it trivializes their understanding and acts as a crutch so that they can deny personal responsibility in taking forward steps on their road to objective moral truth.

A lot to take in there. I hope I helped and answered you well enough.


----------



## Fluff (Jun 1, 2014)

series0 said:


> You then say that it means nothing what 3rd party opinion is past judgment. This is in error as well. Third party opinion is 1 of only 2 meaningful filters a person has to make decisions from. One filter, the internal filter is your own set of choices. Then you weigh any given choice against your own perception of a 3rd party consensus filter. To suggest this effort has no value is ludicrous. It carries with it an implication that you FEEL that you cannot learn from others, or the wisdom of the masses.


I can understand how my statement may have come off that way, but it's not exactly what I meant. I in no way am suggesting others have nothing of value to contribute when it comes to wisdom or anything else for that matter. What I mean is, when you boil it all down the judgement others pass is derived largely from emotion. I believe emotion unless grounded and understood is often counter productive if anything. If you think I'm "bad" because of your uncontrollable emotions that you don't even understand you aren't doing anything to help your cause..you're just being emotional in the name of your morals.
You can choose to dislike my choices, but I have no concerns for fitting into any particular label you want to give me..that's what I mean by it means nothing.



series0 said:


> As my other thread shows clearly and I will re-iterate here for your consumption, moral truths are accepted in EXACTLY the same way that factual truths are. They are learned. You evaluate them and accept those you agree with into your pool of morals or facts. You may think that the moral(s) I am offering you are not morals at all but just my opinion. But, for now, to me, they are part of my moral truth just like facts are part of my knowledge truth. As indicated, I can change them, just like I can change an accepted fact, but, right now, they have accepted status.


I'm not entirely sure I understand the connection you are trying to emphasis.. as everything is learned.
Morals being an opinion is actually part of my entire argument, so yes. 
Because you mention it here I guess this is also a good place to put it.. the idea that your morals can (and probably will) change, and even if yours don't everybody else's will.. more than likely until the end of days.. is one of my other problems with your claim of "ultimate moral truth" if there is only one correct answer it has yet to be reached, and probably never will be reached.. so how is everyone alive or who has ever been alive anything less than awful people to you? Up until this very moment not a single person can be "right" by your system.

Also, even though you hinted at it in this part. I guess it's also worth pointing out that people like to throw around the word truth like it has some ultimate special definite answer. When truth itself is very.. there are very few things if any at all that are actually an indisputable truth. At least from a scientific perspective.



series0 said:


> Why, You might ask. Because the lost wallet clearly represents potential suffering for its owner. Put yourself in their shoes. Belonging philosophy (my name for my current moral philosophy) requires that you understand that the owner of that wallet could be you. Your hard-earned cash and your credit cards. Your pictures of your new baby girl. Your spare house key. A lucky coin given you by your dad before he died. The value is indeterminate and must be assumed to be priceless. You could indeed be the only person ever to notice the wallet where it is. You cannot determine that. The person missing the wallet would have tons of hours of work cancelling cards, defending themselves from identity theft, etc. Your return of the wallet is actually required of you morally. To shirk this responsibility is to let yourself down. You fail yourself. You are the owner.


Suffering is yours and yours alone. Nobody else is responsible for causing it or fixing it. Although I will admit that's partly my religious teachings speaking.
My personal opinions on the examples you gave though? It's just money, probably the stupidest thing to suffer over, call your bank.. getting the card canceled takes 5 minutes. It's just a picture. Change your key if you're worried, or get a new spare. Material item you're clinging to for emotional reasons, it's unhealthy.. I lost my mother when I was 16, you have to let it go.
It's only required, letting myself down, and failing assuming I follow your set of beliefs.


I'm not trying to pick on you or attack you by the way. I just happen to disagree incredibly with your views.. and I've met very few people like you so I was interested in trying to see where these ideas come from.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Fluff said:


> I can understand how my statement may have come off that way, but it's not exactly what I meant. I in no way am suggesting others have nothing of value to contribute when it comes to wisdom or anything else for that matter. What I mean is, when you boil it all down the judgement others pass is derived largely from emotion. I believe emotion unless grounded and understood is often counter productive if anything. If you think I'm "bad" because of your uncontrollable emotions that you don't even understand you aren't doing anything to help your cause..you're just being emotional in the name of your morals.
> You can choose to dislike my choices, but I have no concerns for fitting into any particular label you want to give me..that's what I mean by it means nothing.


I can understand where you are coming from with this. Thanks for clarifying. Emotion, motivation, is necessary to act. Any act at all. Even standing up takes pride and desire. Your suggestion that they are counter-productive is very T and a little funny. There is no value to experience without emotion. I have to read into what you say to hope to understand you. Otherwise, it sounds a little clinical. I can do that sometimes as well. So I relate.



Fluff said:


> I'm not entirely sure I understand the connection you are trying to emphasis.. as everything is learned.
> Morals being an opinion is actually part of my entire argument, so yes.
> Because you mention it here I guess this is also a good place to put it.. the idea that your morals can (and probably will) change, and even if yours don't everybody else's will.. more than likely until the end of days.. is one of my other problems with your claim of "ultimate moral truth" if there is only one correct answer it has yet to be reached, and probably never will be reached.. so how is everyone alive or who has ever been alive anything less than awful people to you? Up until this very moment not a single person can be "right" by your system.
> 
> Also, even though you hinted at it in this part. I guess it's also worth pointing out that people like to throw around the word truth like it has some ultimate special definite answer. When truth itself is very.. there are very few things if any at all that are actually an indisputable truth. At least from a scientific perspective.


So penultimate truth is indeed unknowable and that is fine and the way it should be. But, progress towards truth can still be measured meaningfully. In much the same way as a modern first world society is aware of many technological truths that are useful and profoundly impact quality of life, whereas an aboriginal tribe might not be aware of them, so to, morals are analogous. The wise are aware of and hopefully demonstrate a greater moral awareness than those who are unwise. In comparing any two individuals, yes, there may be some iota of wisdom that the less wise has that the more wise does not, but on the whole it is obvious which has the greater share. The aboriginal tribe may have some technology the modern society lacks but it is miniscule in the overall scheme of things. I am not trivializing it, just weighing it as ... WHAT? Why the progress towards the total of course. What total is that? Why overall scientific truth of course which is indeed unknowable and yet clearly exists. Overall moral truth is just as obviously an unknowable final truth. 



Fluff said:


> Suffering is yours and yours alone. Nobody else is responsible for causing it or fixing it. Although I will admit that's partly my religious teachings speaking.
> My personal opinions on the examples you gave though? It's just money, probably the stupidest thing to suffer over, call your bank.. getting the card canceled takes 5 minutes. It's just a picture. Change your key if you're worried, or get a new spare. Material item you're clinging to for emotional reasons, it's unhealthy.. I lost my mother when I was 16, you have to let it go.
> It's only required, letting myself down, and failing assuming I follow your set of beliefs.
> 
> I'm not trying to pick on you or attack you by the way. I just happen to disagree incredibly with your views.. and I've met very few people like you so I was interested in trying to see where these ideas come from.


I know you are not picking on me, but thanks for mentioning it. We are relating to each other. All good. I think it is awesome that you are willing to discuss my philosophy with me when you disagree so much with it in some ways. Kudos. There is wisdom there for sure. Hopefully you don't think I am devoid of it. 

But to address this issue there is error here. Suffering is shared. It is an error in moral thinking to divorce oneself from the suffering of others and see nothing, feel nothing. I have to ask, what religion do you think you are following that teaches this. I promise you, it does not. If you will name your faith, I will point out to you the relevant nod to my moral perspective and the refutation of your own personal belief about what you think your religion says, which is, just in my opinion, in error.

You trivialize what for many people can be a devastating experience. I know this. I have lost my wallet once. I have known many others who have. They are mostly not nearly as efficient as you seem to think you would be. They are devastated and feel violated by the loss. They take too much time and it costs them a ton of energy and angst to deal with all the bureaucratic nonsense losing a wallet requires. Invariably, they lose items they care about deeply. Their connection to these items is NOT pathogenic. It's healthy, especially if they are able to let go, but not without a deep feeling related to something they cherish. Your example of 5 minutes is humorous. You'd likely spend more than 5 minutes waiting on hold to get in touch with the rep for the very first credit card of many you own. I could go on and on. This issue involves deep and lasting suffering for most people. If it doesn't for you then merely replace the wallet with a loss of something or someone that would affect you deeply. Then do you understand?


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

i will fuck a dead turtle i don't even care


----------



## Fluff (Jun 1, 2014)

series0 said:


> I know you are not picking on me, but thanks for mentioning it. We are relating to each other. All good. I think it is awesome that you are willing to discuss my philosophy with me when you disagree so much with it in some ways. Kudos. There is wisdom there for sure. Hopefully you don't think I am devoid of it.
> 
> But to address this issue there is error here. Suffering is shared. It is an error in moral thinking to divorce oneself from the suffering of others and see nothing, feel nothing. I have to ask, what religion do you think you are following that teaches this. I promise you, it does not. If you will name your faith, I will point out to you the relevant nod to my moral perspective and the refutation of your own personal belief about what you think your religion says, which is, just in my opinion, in error.


Well I've become very aware over time that depending on the sensitivity of the person I'm talking to I can come off like quite the asshole. I'd be lying if I said this is something that I actually care much about.. I do prefer to avoid unnecessary conflict though.
So for that I prefer to give disclaimers when in any form of debate or discussion.

Don't worry though, I don't. I try not to be so pretentious as to assume anyone who disagrees with me is unintelligent.

I'm a practicing Theravada Buddhist to answer your question, which is often referred to as well..the selfish path if you were to ask a follower of Mahayana. There are variations of course, but the general idea is that you help others if/when you obtain enlightenment compared to Mahayana who believe you have to help others to obtain enlightenment. That's of course a very simplified explanation though.

Overall though, while I don't exactly agree with your way I do understand now a little better your reasoning. Which is all I was looking to do anyway so I thank you for taking the time to explain yourself.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Fluff said:


> I'm a practicing Theravada Buddhist to answer your question, which is often referred to as well..the selfish path if you were to ask a follower of Mahayana. There are variations of course, but the general idea is that you help others if/when you obtain enlightenment compared to Mahayana who believe you have to help others to obtain enlightenment. That's of course a very simplified explanation though.
> 
> Overall though, while I don't exactly agree with your way I do understand now a little better your reasoning. Which is all I was looking to do anyway so I thank you for taking the time to explain yourself.


So, I became curious if there was a correlation in your assertions with your faith after I suggested that there might not be. When you identified your faith I decided to take a look for curiosity's sake. It is staggering what even just a few minutes research into Theravada Buddhism realms, to whit:

In TheravadaBuddhism, an _*Arhat* (Sanskrit: अर्हत् arhat; Pali: arahant; "one who is worthy"[SUP][1][/SUP]) is a "perfected person"[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] who has attained nirvana.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][1][/SUP] In other Buddhist traditions the term has also been used for people far advanced along the path of Enlightenment, but who may not have reached full Buddhahood.[SUP][3][/SUP]_ 

This is an almost exact expression of my idea of a progression towards objective moral truth (Nirvana). Does it help you for me to list these terms as synonymous? They are in my opinion.

Then Wikipedia says this on the teachings of Theravada Buddhism:

*Teachings[edit]*


Painting of Buddha's first sermon from Wat Chedi Liem in Thailand[/LEFT]​
Theravāda promotes the concept of Vibhajjavada (Pali), literally "Teaching of Analysis." This doctrine says that insight must come from the aspirant's experience, application of knowledge, and critical reasoning. However, the scriptures of the Theravadin tradition also emphasize heeding the advice of the wise, considering such advice and evaluation of one's own experiences to be the two tests by which practices should be judged.

It is actually freakishly amazing how EXACTLY similar my approach is to this. In describing my approach to you I identified 2 filters of learning. They are EXACTLY replicated here. 

The very religion you purport to espouse essentially repeats EXACTLY what I was saying in the Wikipedia details of its specificity. Granted, you may have different actual teachings presented in your local chapter or experience, but, the recorded faith is precisely in line with my philosophy. 

Now, if we back up and ask about this specific moral quandary, the source of our original contention, there is no specific example on Wikipedia as to teachings on that specific a topic. More's the pity. Still, it was wonderful to see the detail on a philosophy so similar to my own.

It looks like the key missing element is the inclusion in my philosophy of separation vs belonging. I suppose a Theravada might say that my craving to belong causes me to suffer unnecessarily when any other element of creation is presumed to be suffering. If I eliminate this craving I can eliminate my suffering. But I agree with myself, here. To be in good faith with the universe is to belong and therefore that craving alone is at one with objective moral truth. It takes on all other sufferings as its own. It does not deny that craving for all that is. Perhaps the one difference. But I am reading further ...


----------



## Nightchill (Oct 19, 2013)

Avoid it. IDK what sort of person the owner is; he could say to the police 'but there had been 400$ more; she took them(or someone before me, matters not)' Lawsuit, drama, waste of time and money.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

I was going to post a discourse on morals, but then I noticed the amount of Ti users in the thread and figured, I don't have that much time.


----------



## Fluff (Jun 1, 2014)

series0 said:


> So, I became curious if there was a correlation in your assertions with your faith after I suggested that there might not be. When you identified your faith I decided to take a look for curiosity's sake. It is staggering what even just a few minutes research into Theravada Buddhism realms, to whit:
> 
> In TheravadaBuddhism, an _*Arhat* (Sanskrit: अर्हत् arhat; Pali: arahant; "one who is worthy"[SUP][1][/SUP]) is a "perfected person"[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] who has attained nirvana.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][1][/SUP] In other Buddhist traditions the term has also been used for people far advanced along the path of Enlightenment, but who may not have reached full Buddhahood.[SUP][3][/SUP]_
> 
> ...


It might only be one difference but at least to me, and within my religion it is a very big one. A teacher would probably tell you that your outlook will bring nothing but perpetual suffering. While on the surface they may seem like similar ideas Theravada tradition pretty much aspires in the exact opposite direction of you. 

Your outlook does however, sound EXTREMELY Mahayana. They believe it is their job to assume the burden of helping everyone and that their role isn't complete until they've done so.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

@Fluff 
Even the Theravada Buddhists assume the burden of helping others by participating in the Sangha and teaching laypeople as well.


----------



## Fluff (Jun 1, 2014)

Geoffrey Felis said:


> @Fluff
> Even the Theravada Buddhists assume the burden of helping others by participating in the Sangha and teaching laypeople as well.


That would be a teacher. Which is what I said.
You help others onto the Buddhist path if you reach that level and choose that path for yourself.
It is not the goal or purpose of the average practicer, their goal is to (put it very broadly) improve their self. Riding themselves of the falsities of self and ego, truly unlocking the power of the mind, overcoming human weakness (like the way emotions control most), etc.

It's called the "smaller vehicle" for a reason by other sects. It's incredibly self focused, because that's what is seen as the best way.


----------



## capricious_me (May 31, 2014)

i would try to find the owner or hand it in to the police... i would never dream to take anything from it ...
if it were mine i would hope someone would do the same for me . 
the idea of me being entitled to a reward escapes me ... if the owner wanted to offer one that is up the them but if they didn't i would not be upset or think anything of it.
Simple common decency and consideration are becoming less and less valued while self serving behavior is on the rise ... me me me..
for me this is not so much about personality traits rather having respect for simply basic morals ..​


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Well it depends.
Probably take the money.
It depends on my mood really.
I have no qualms about stealing in an off itself, I might have if the world was a nicer place.
But as it is right now, I don't see the point.
It all comes down to energy, we leech on each others energy on so many levels,
cash is just another level of energy, if I try to do the morally right thing and return energy
on that level just because it is the normative right thing to do, but steal another persons
energy by say pushing a poor ESTPs POLR all day long, how exactly am I a better person.
I still steal energy.
We are born into a world of energy clashes, and the one who manages to
actually conserve or invest the energy best, comes up ahead.
The one who gets it stolen or invests poorly fall behind.
In such a world, my individual actions on such a level as a lost wallet become meaningless.

I'd take the money and make sure that the environment around me become slightly better.
That is a good cause for where I stand, and if your socially condition response is outrage,
well so be it.


----------



## mikan (May 25, 2014)

I'd leave it there.
I don't want to engage myself in unwanted trouble.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

I'd add a few hundred dollars just to mindfuck with the guy.:laughing:


----------



## lemony snicket (May 21, 2014)

I would look for some form of identification and contact the owner directly, or, if there was none, I'd give it to the police. I wouldn't take anything. I don't think I'd deserve a reward for just doing a basic decent thing, especially since I probably wouldn't have to go too far out of my way to do it.


----------



## lunai (Feb 22, 2014)

I would contact the owner to return it. I would not keep any of it because it's not mine. That is what I would want someone to do if I lost my wallet.


----------



## MightyLizardKing (Jun 7, 2014)

If I misplaced/lost my wallet and someone stole something from it I probably wouldn't even be upset, because I kind of deserved it. That said, I have no clue what I'd do.


----------

