<p>How can you get a fake ID?</p>
<p>
So basically you’re saying “good” is an empty meaningless word and nothing else, that we define it each individually as we choose to do so. Surely you must have some definition of “good”, otherwise you could use it to mean “cat” for example. What is your definition, or criteria for definition of good?</p>
<p>It was “good” from Hitler’s point of view to torture and kill Jews, Blacks, etc. Some may view it as good to nuke the entire planet. I say this is bad, absolutely.</p>
<p>But I think if we’re going to get into a relativity vs absolutism debate, we should probably continue it via PMs since it’s kind of off topic.</p>
<p>Like it or not, this thread is dealing with the absolute question of the morality of false IDs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>False. That is not what I said. I said that we assign it meaning. Similarly, the letters “c-a-t” are meaningless without a definition – otherwise they are just sound. Of course we define good how we want to. That doesn’t make the definition correct.</p>
<p>And this isn’t a relativism vs. absolutism debate – that is certainly one for PM. But, I am an unabashed absolutist, so if that bothers you certainly PM me.</p>
<p>Finally, the holes in your previous statements are still left gaping after having been identified and prodded – close them if you wish.</p>
<p>In the meantime, on the subject of fake IDs, what exactly are the moral questions involved? I see two:</p>
<p>1) Lying – a fake ID is basically a lie every time it is used
2) Breach of laws, at least in the United States</p>
<p>Clearly, by using a fake ID with forethought, you are implicitly acknowledging that not everyone is owed honesty, and not all laws need be followed. It’s as simple as that – either one is okay with those outcomes, or one is not. The practical issues have already been outlined.</p>
<p>eastafrobeauty wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hate to ‘out’ you eastafrobeauty, but in the interest of full disclosure, adults here should know you are 17yo. I’m sure you can get this information elsewhere, however adults should be fully aware of this as they make the decision if they want to be the one to tell you.</p>
<p>
I have no desire to go over details over my statements you misunderstood.</p>
<p>
I agree.</p>
<p>Honesty: Perhaps in the same way you might not feel that a policeman is owed the honesty that you jaywalk. Both jaywalking and false IDs put other people (drivers and bartenders, respectively) at risk.</p>
<p>Lawfulness: Again, perhaps in the same way you might not feel that jaywalking is a just limitation in certain limited circumstances. Both jaywalking and false IDs are against the law.</p>
<p>I’m not presuming eastafrobeauty is asking for herself, she may be just curious as to how easy it may be. I have read many of her posts in the past and she seems level headed. </p>
<p>“Back in the day,” the 1970’s, it was easy to alter your own drivers license, they weren’t plastic and didn’t have holograms. Easy as pie back then. These days, I wouldn’t have a clue, however I’m sure any college student would.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sorry if you want me to read your posts in ways that they cannot be written, but you still haven’t resolved the claim that brought me to post in this thread the first time – that those who have a moral problem with obeying a law that has a morally neutral outcome are “in denial.” You claim that you meant something else, yet have never explained what that something else is. </p>
<p>I am not going to waste my time with attempts at mind-reading or interpretation of your posts in whatever arbitrary way you feel is necessary.</p>
<p>I thought I made that point clear by now. I’ll repeat myself in case you missed the whole point.</p>
<p>I showed logically why you cannot do both of these at the same time:</p>
<ol>
<li>Follow ALL laws blindly forever</li>
<li>Have no potential for doing or supporting things that are generally considered immoral</li>
</ol>
<p>My point was, to think you can do both at the same time, is to be in denial of the truth.</p>
<p>It’s not hard to prove. All you have to do is find some law, some time, that when followed will result in support or action of something generally considered immoral. I provided an example, and you agreed that you would not be able to support it without on some level supporting something generally considered immoral.</p>
<p>Fine. That is what you meant to say. But what you wrote was explicitly NOT that – your entire point about those “in denial” revolved around morally NEUTRAL issues. How you confused that with morally problematic issues is beyond me, but that’s not the point.</p>
<p>And, your statements, of course, taken in one sense are indeed incompatible. In the same way, someone who feels that it is ever acceptable to break a law is “in denial” if he views obeying laws as a moral good (replacing number 1) and believes the two statements at the same time.</p>
<p>In the incident I shared earlier there never was a trial and I really never followed up on it. He could have plead guilty, charges could have been dropped or reduced with a fine and a little community service, etc. I don’t know, but I do know that the jails are very nasty places to have to spend the night. I hope he wasn’t charged with a felony. To me that is major overkill for his “crime.”</p>
<p>Personally, I don’t know why a minor really needs to use a fake ID to buy alcohol in a college town. Beer runs free and there is always someone who is older who will buy it for you. My husband was a big party boy in high school and he never had a fake ID; he never needed it. He has always looked older than he is and was never carded. As a college freshman he had his father get him a meal plan so he could get beer off of it at the campus pub. The drinking age at that time was 19, so he became legal early in his second semester of freshman year. </p>
<p>And for this big discussion about following all laws blindly. I will do that when corruption doesn’t exist among legislators and law enforcement. Yes, law enforcement. When I was an officer I was very young and very idealistic. I was appalled at how many officers had this “I am above the law attitude.” Just like every profession, there are good apples and there are bad apples.</p>
<p>
Correct.</p>
<p>The central idea here is simple: Basing morality on legality is always potentially problematic in the case where legality is corrupted in some way. In the current state, it’s not a huge issue, but grey areas like this always come up of course.</p>
<p>
I think the more common use of a fake ID is to get into bars or clubs. It’s easy to understand why a person under 21 would want to do that. My son was recently playing in a band in a bar–it would have been fun to take my daughter to see it, but she’s too young. (My son is too young, too, but apparently they can let the members of the band in if they are playing.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You raise a good point. The need for fake IDs would be somewhat obviated if admission to bars and dance clubs didn’t have an age 21 minimum. I have never understood why this is done, other than out of sheer laziness on the part of the business owners and law enforcement - no need to check ID for every drink ordered at the bar. For my D the big draw to these places is the music and dancing. There really are not many other equivalent venues for the 18-20 year old set, and this is exactly what they want to do (hear music, dance and socialize) at that age.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>lol. thank you!!! I forgot that google is my best friend to turn to for this kind of thing. Since I can’t…and don’t plan on EVER drinking in my life…i’d probably only use a fake id to get into clubs …</p>
<p>I avoided this thread because I figured it would be an attack on people who use fake ID’s. I figured it would be a bunch of parents saying my kids don’t drink and only volunteer for the less advantaged or are spending their time doing miraculous research in the lab w/ a Nobel prize professor and would never touch a drink. </p>
<p>So I want to cast my vote as a parent whose kids do drink, responsibly, hopefully and have been taught well in school, home, etc. I think D1 had a fake ID, but she is now 22. I do not think D2 has a fake ID. She is 20. She visited D this summer in NYC where D1 lives. Not being 21 was a real hassle for going out. I think she used D1’s old ID. It’s funny becauce, although they are sisters, D1 is 5’5 and D2 is 5’11. D1 has brown eyes, D2 has blue/green. </p>
<p>Anyway, D1’s ID passed for D2. And I had no problem with that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With all due respect, I see what you’re saying, but I believe that I’ve thought it through thoroughly. It’s illegal to drink alcohol under the age of 21. (I think that’s baloney, but anyway…) You are barred from going into clubs under the age of 21 because, if you go in, it is highly likely that you will consume alcohol. Let’s not deceive ourselves; that’s why underage people want to get into clubs 99% of the time. So, the fake ID is intended to gain you access to a situation in which you can break the law. That is such a tiny, tiny step from “a fake ID is intended to break the law” that your argument strikes me as disingenuous.</p>
<p>It’s possible I’m just misreading / misunderstanding your point, but…</p>
<p>
They go in to drink alcohol / party / etc. Even if the sole goal and purpose is the alcohol, the law is just a barrier.</p>
<p>People don’t drink alcohol to break the law. They break the law to drink alcohol.</p>
<p>The problem is that you could say that about any action that breaks a law:</p>
<p>“I didn’t murder my wife to break the law. I did it to get insurance money.”</p>
<p>“I didn’t embezzle the money to break the law. I embezzled it to get rich.”</p>
<p>Sure, your point is technically right, but isn’t it tangential to the larger discussion? A fake ID is a tool obtained for the purpose of obtaining alcohol against the law. The difference between “a tool obtained expressly for the purpose of performing an action that is against the law” and “a tool for breaking the law” is so esoteric as to be moot unless we’re writing a treatise on pure logic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>False, because I reject your notion that there is no implicit moral compunction to follow the legal system. If you acknowledge that there is, then it simply becomes a matter of degree.</p>
<p>Sounds like you’re saying the same thing.</p>