The Glade 4.0

A group of roommates decide to throw a party, and they invite several of their friends, specifying that everyone is expected to contribute some beer to the cooler. In addition, a couple of random people crash the party, pretending to be invitees, but they do bring some beer with them. Thus, there are three groups of people at the party - the hosts, the invitees, and the crashers - all of whom have contributed some beer.

As the party goes on, certain members of those groups behave as follows:

• One of the hosts steals some money from his roommates.
• One of the hosts drinks more beer than he contributes.
  
• One of the invitees steals some money from the hosts.
• One of the invitees drinks more beer than he contributes.
  
• One of the crashers steals some money from the hosts.
• One of the crashers drinks more beer than he contributes.

So, how would you rank the morality of the behavior exhibited by those people? Are all the people in that list equally culpable, or is there a spectrum? Are some culpable and some not? Etc.

Bad government analogies are still bad.

_________________

Stealing the money, from strangers, friends, or roommates is wrong.

Unless the rule of the party is BYO, then those drinking more beer than they contribute are violating no ethical boundaries. Without BYO rules known to all attendees, beer at parties is communal and open to drink.

And what Khross said.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

I disagree. Every analogy has flaws, of course, but I think they can be very helpful in bypassing preconceptions and teasing out inconsistencies.

Other than the matrix you've assembled is entirely too simplistic, you're still approaching the dilemma with a presupposed moral system that closely aligns to your political ideology. There's nothing in good faith about the scenario you've presented.

_________________

How so?

The stealing of the money is wrong doesn't matter who did it. The money was not offered into the community chest.

The crashers should be thrown out for being crashers and arrested fir stealing money.

As far as the consumption of communal beer I don't find any fault in that (other than my general aversion to alcohol, but I realize the beer isn't about beer)

It could be argued that the system needs to be reexamined and changed next party, but unless or until that happens there is not a lot that can be done

Those hosts and attendees who want to speak out for beer policy change should certainly be free to do so.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

In all cases the ultimate theft is of monetary value. Whether it be cash, beer or furniture so they are all equally wrong.

Its equivalent to asking if it is more or less morally reprehenisble to steal a case of beer from Walmart or $6.99 from the register.

_________________

yeah, stealing is stealing. Taking more than you're entitled to is not in the same category, and people who do are asshats, not criminals...up to the point where asshattery IS criminal for some reason or other, but then your postulate falls apart.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Stealing is stealing whether it's beer or money, and whether you're an invited guest or not.

As I see the set-up, the parameters call for a house party; in that situation, the hosts of the party should keep strict control over the beer supply, remove the uninvited guests, and only allow those who are invited and brought beer to partake, but only up to the amount of what they brought. They should then decide amongst themselves (the roommates) who they think should be allowed to have any extra beer.

The party I'd rather see is not set up in someone's home, but rather in an open field. The people who brought beer keep their own beer and share it with whom they wish, and they get to decide amongst themselves what music to play.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

and hookers! In fact forget the beer and music!

_________________

I generally don't share my hookers until I'm finished.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

The morality in respects to stealing or consuming more than you brought are the same between the groups. The morality of crashing vs being invited is a seperate issue and basically un-related to the stealing/consuming.

Rangerdave,

The specifics of the offense are not important, although obviously some are more greivous than others.

The hosts will inevitably agree to a set of "house rules" that will govern the party.

If a host breaks a house rule, he will be punished or forgiven in accordance with the rules and/or whims of the hosts. He had a stake in forming these rules, and therefore agreed to abide by them.

The invitees were chosen by the hosts to appear. This is likely due to the fact that they meet certain requirements or traits that the hosts are looking for in partiers. They have agreed to abide by the house rules by accepting the invitation. The offending invitee will be punished or forgiven according to the house rules and the hosts will decide if his offense is sufficient to be removed from the invite list. They may indeed be held to a higher standard due to the fact that they should act as polite guests and the hosts are not forced to put up with them as they are forced to put up with the other hosts.

The crashers did not agree to the rules, nor have they shown respect for the house rules right off the bat by crashing. These individuals may or may not provide any use to the hosts as partiers, as they may or may not have characteristics the hosts are looking for. However, even though there was disrespect for the house rules, they at least illustrated that they are trying to overcome this and play by the rules by bringing the beer. Hosts may extend an invitation as a response. However, the crasher should fully expect to be punished severely for an offense and be tossed out. The other non-offending crashers should fully expect to be tossed out, though they may hope for an invite to stay.

I will play along since I'm not sure how you're going to lay this out exactly.

I'll say a spectrum. Stealing in all cases being worse than drinking more then they contribute. Drinking being worse among crashers, then invitees and finally hosts.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

Hosting a party where you share beer, don't police crashers, and let **** take more than contribute and steal from you makes you the most egregious violator.

Following the analogy, then, the host or "government" (since they're running the show they're clearly the analog), is the greater transgressor.


Make people bring their own damn beer, police crashers, and if you do have any community property, stomp anybody who violates it.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I don't really see the purpose of this discussion... Given that morality is simply a form of social conditioning, it's even less relevant to rank things in terms of it.

I'd just wait for the inevitable noise complaint and issue a ticket.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yeah see I dont get why the "host" is the government. If you're a host, you're paying for wherever it is you're hosting this party right? Your house, apartment, some hall, whatever. You're paying for the mortgage or rent from your own pocket. That to me is a host. Government isnt paying from earnings, they are spending money brought in from taxes.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

Yeah, the parallel I envisioned was to immigration, with the hosts as citizens, the invitees as legal immigrants, and the crashers as illegal immigrants.

Ok then I stand by my answer =p

Are the hosts fascists and racists for kicking out the crashers?

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

Only if the hosts are nazis or kkk members, and the crashers are jews and blacks.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Absolutely. In fact, they're fascists and racists if they don't provide imported beer in order to make the crashers feel more at home.

So anyway, my view on the OP scenario is that both the directness of the harm (i.e. theft of money vs. drinking more than one contributes) and a person's status (i.e. host, invitee, crasher) are factors in assessing moral culpability. I'm just not sure how it all shakes out.

The people actively stealing money are, in my opinion, all worse than the people who simply drank more beer than they contributed. I get that beer costs money, so taking too much beer is similar to taking money, but it just doesn't seem the same. That's more a gut feeling than a reasoned position, but like I said, directness of harm seems relevant to me. In terms of ranking the thieves based on their status, I'm inclined to think the host and invitee are worse, but I'm not certain of that. Unlike the thieving crasher, the host and invitee who stole money also betrayed the trust of someone to whom they were connected, but on the other hand, since the crasher was already in the wrong for crashing, he owes a special moral duty to be on his best behavior to sort of make up for it. Hard to say which argument wins out for me. (As an aside, this is one point on which my reaction to the OP scenario and the immigration issue diverge. I react with greater condemnation toward immigrants who commit crimes than I do toward citizens who do the same thing.)

Among the guzzlers, I think the crasher is clearly in the wrong, while the host and invitee who drank too much are not. Again, the crasher should be on his best behavior to make up for his original transgression, and taking more than he contributes ain't cutting it. The host and the invitee who drank too much, however, are covered by the "bonds of friendship" and the social contract of the party, so as long as they aren't consistently and blatantly mooching (behavior which falls outside the OP scenario), I don't see anything terribly wrong with having a couple more drinks than they brought.

So, ranking from worst to best (most immoral to least immoral), then:

1. Host who stole money
2. Invitee who stole money
3. Crasher who stole money
(Note that the order of items 1-3 are reversed for me when talking about real-world crime and immigration.)
4. Crasher who drank too much
5. Host & Invitee who drank too much

One last note: As for the crashers who contributed more beer than they drank and generally behaved themselves, I'd still kick them out, but I wouldn't feel any particular anger or moral opprobrium toward them. They shouldn't have crashed the party, but meh, no harm, no foul. Ditto in terms of illegal immigrants.

I see your point on the hosts betraying a trust but that's because you're holding them to a higher standard. It's certainly more disappointing when people you know steal from you, but I'm more likely to beat the *** of the guy who crashed and then took money on top of it.

As for the drinking more than they contribute, I give that more of a pass since it's less transparent. You can say "they brought a six pack but drank 14 beers" and that's fairly obvious, but when you're talking consumption of public services and taxes it's a lot more nuanced. They pay 4,382 in federal taxes but consumed 7,837 in services!

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

The degree of immorality of the thefts (including drinking) is all the same.

The degree of social violation is what is different. A person one cohabitation with is expected a higher degree of trust than a person invited, which has a higher degree of trust than a crasher (whom also commits trespass).

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville