If a tree falls in the woods, and there’s nobody there to hear it, but you chopped it down, is it wrong?
Yes, its still wrong
No, if nobody knows and nobody gets hurt its ok
Select gender and age to cast your vote:
Please select your age
Is it immoral to do something wrong if nobody ever finds out?
Post Opinion
14 Opinion
Like
Share
Follow
What is your opinion?
Add Opinion
Most Helpful Opinions
Anonymous
(25-29)
+1 y
That's a very gray area of a topic to talk about. I'm not taking sides because different scenarios will call upon whether it's wrong or not. This post is interesting because it falls under the "a crime was committed and went undetected." The question, is there still liability and validity to the "crime" even though it wasn't documented?
Example 1: If your partner was cheating on you and you didn't know about it - like you never knew or will ever find out - will that hurt you? Probably not - if you don't know. It's still wrong though.
Example 2: There's a bowl of a lot of candy on the front desk reception area in a office area. There's a sign that says to take ONE only. You pocket 10 or so, but it's hardly noticeable because of the vast amount. No one got hurt. However it's still wrong because you didn't "obey" the noted sign.
Example 3: Speed limit is 35mph and you go 45-50mph. You weren't caught, did not get a speeding ticket and no one got hurt. It's still wrong though.
Although I mentioned 3 different scenarios, one can challenge any of these predicaments and say it's not wrong. In example 1 your spouse is cheating on you and you don't know. But if you're doing the same thing and are hiding it from her as well, then is that justified? What if you are faithful and she's not but you think she is? It's a different perspective. In second example, you could be the one taking the candy, but maybe replenishing it a week or two afterwards. Does this make the person in the act "bad"? In the last example is a very common one. Everyone practically "speeds" and goes above the posted speed limit. However people do this because they figure the regular posted limited is"slow" and need to be at someplace at a "faster" time (all done unconsciously).
The crime or act that was done is still there (although not documented). Does this mean it is wrong still? Yes and a no. However I picked option B, although there should be and option C as there is a middle gray area in certain circumstances
From a purely selfish standpoint, it would generally be a poor decision speaking for me personally for my long-term well-being, since my conscience would not allow me to get away with this scot-free even if I escape the legal consequences.
From the standpoint of social consequences, even if I escape the law, there might be costs imposed on me or my immediate loved ones through legal investigations. Someone might even be falsely charged for the crime, and that would also weigh on my conscience.
From the standpoint of society, it would be undesirable to most of us to live in a society where we, or our loved ones, can be murdered without consequences. Even in my case as an adrenaline junkie type who tends to care little about my own safety, I'd still be very concerned with the safety of my loved ones.
From a practical standpoint, there is never actually a situation where we can predict the future consequences out of actions. There isn't any case where someone can guarantee that they can get away with such actions. Most of the meaning behind morality comes from the fact that we're navigating unknowns. For example, risking our lives to rescue someone drowning only becomes very noble when we don't know for sure that we can succeed. If we knew for sure that we'd succeed, it would diminish a lot of the nobility of such an action. If we knew for sure that we'd fail and both drown, making the attempt would be nothing but suicide. It's why I find moral dilemmas to be largely uninteresting. Real-life doesn't work this way.
[...] From the standpoint of society, it would be undesirable to most of us to live in a society where we, or our loved ones, can be murdered without consequences [as an example, or trees cut down left and right which belong to us for illegal logging to tie it to the question's example] [...]
Absolutely. Your inner judge has to judge you. And if he can't it's a handicap one has to heal. That the others would be upset or angry about you doing wrong things is just a support for the inner judge, the primary cause why and that you don't do wrong things should be within you.
really depends on your own morality, you ever here people say yeah its easy to kill someone but you'd have to live with it for the rest of your life, if you do something and only you knew it just depends on whether you could live with it and your own perception of how ethically wrong it is
Most Helpful Opinions