On the time dependance of Ethics

Imagine this, a village child is hungry and has a big chunk of cake kept next to her. But she is not havng it - because it does not belong to her. Thats seems like the right thing to do, right? Not taking something that does not belong to you seems correct.

Now, imagine if a few hours have gone by and still no one has come to claim it. Would you call it morally correct that she does not take the cake? Now consider if a day has passed and no one claims it. Would you now call her descision to not take it, moral? Now, if the cake is about to get spoilt and wasted, would you still call it moral correct to not take it?

The only thing that changes in this example is the time frame and it affects our sense of right and wrong.

This is not just a case with perishable goods, it goes for non-perishables as well. If a house is not being used for long enough, its ok to use it, right? But who decides long enough? Is one day enough to decide that the house owner is not going to come back? One month? One year? A decade? Fourteen years? Fifty years? A hundred years? The question is where do you draw the line. Time increases in continous fashion. And our sense of morally acceptable and not acceptable is dependant on two discreet (and ambiguisly defined) lengths of time - Long and Not-so-long.

Our inherent sense of right and wrong is based on our understanding of timeframes and it seems to change with it.

On the ownership of Ethics

Arent there days when you really want to do some good to the society? When you feel the pain of the people around you and want to contribute to the society? I am sure everyone of us has been in such a state before.

Now, imagine yourself to be in such a situation. You see a hungry beggar sitting on the pavment, two steps from you. You offer him the sandwich that you were about to eat. Good deed done, right?

If you had paid for it, indeed. But consider if someone else had paid for it. Then, would it be morally correct for you to give away the sandwich? If you did not have a mandate to give off something you did not own, isnt that wrong on your part to transfer it to someone else?

If you think that its ok to give the sandwich even when you did not own it, think how this can be extended. I could give off anything to anyone even if I dont have a thing. So potentially I could transfer all of Mukesh Ambani's wealth and give it off to my friendly neighbourhood beggar and feel happy for myself that I did a good job today. Or, I could give off all his money to the poor guy that I am, and feel proud of myself.

Charity makes sense only when you can own it up to youself.

Btw, all this money transfers should statestically lead to an equilibrium where every member has the same amount of money. Though this would be extremely unstable as people will like to have a bit more than others which would give them some advantage. Hence to maintain that equilibrium, an external force has to be applied. And now it appears that I am talking about communist governments. Ah, the digressions mind takes, from charity to communism!