Is it morally wrong to know about a crime but not report it?

[jay gw]

Is it morally wrong to know about a crime but not report it?

If it's not wrong, then what types of crimes is it ok to look the other way? All types or only some?

Crime is as prevalent as it is because those that know about it are not reporting it.

[DarkMythril]

Depends on the crime.

[Tricky]

Depends on the crime.
My feelings exactly. I see people speeding every day. If I saw a murder though, I'd report it, even if the murderer were someone I loved. Probably.

[jay gw]

Why is murder a crime to report but speeding isn't?

[HeyLeroy]

If it was a crime with a victim, I would definitely report it.
If it was a victimless crime, like someone smoking pot or something, no.

[AnotherSillyAlias]

If it was a crime with a victim, I would definitely report it.
If it was a victimless crime, like someone smoking pot or something, no.

My first answer too, but there are a few grey areas. For instance, what about if there were potential victims. Suppose you saw somebody who was very drunk walk out of a bar and get into a car. Would you try and find a cop?

[jay gw]

If it was a victimless crime, like someone smoking pot or something, no.

Are these crimes victimless:

Illegal immigration
Drug dealing
A 18 year old male in a consensual sexual relationship with a 14 year old female
Pirating CDs and DVDs
Paying bribes to politicians

[Tricky]

Why is murder a crime to report but speeding isn't?
Speeding is many times less likely to have severe negative consequences than assault or murder. Also there is the matter of intent. Speeders don't intend to hurt anyone.

At what point does reporting every crime or potential crime become like childhood tattling?

[ahoneycutt]

Are these crimes victimless:

Illegal immigration
Drug dealing
A 18 year old male in a consensual sexual relationship with a 14 year old female
Pirating CDs and DVDs
Paying bribes to politicians

I'm missing the point with this one. There's not really a gray line on any of these, so if you're trying to make an argument for all crimes having a victim, I'm not following...

[Ladewig]

Depends on the crime.

In the 1850's, in the U.S., it was a crime to help a runaway slave. I would not report people helping slaves to escape.

[jay gw]

I'm missing the point with this one. There's not really a gray line on any of these, so if you're trying to make an argument for all crimes having a victim, I'm not following...

You missed the point because I didn't make one. I asked if those crimes like drug dealing are crimes with victims or not.

[ahoneycutt]

You missed the point because I didn't make one. I asked if those crimes like drug dealing are crimes with victims or not.

Do you really need someone to answer that for you?

[bruto]

Maybe it would help to decide what a crime is, first. Speeding, for example, is not a crime, it's a traffic offense.

[EvilSmurf]

Are these crimes victimless:

Illegal immigration
Drug dealing
A 18 year old male in a consensual sexual relationship with a 14 year old female
Pirating CDs and DVDs
Paying bribes to politicians

Illegal Immigration - No, not victimless, as theoretically an illegal immigrant can "take the place" so to speak of a legal immigrant.

Drug Dealing - Yes, victimless. All the dealer is doing is providing someone with something they want.

Statutory Rape - No! 99% of 14 year olds are not mature enough to make the decision of whether to have sex or not, the law should protect the 99% rather than the 1% who are.

Piracy - Nope, people pirating force higher prices on those who buy said items legitimately.

Paying Bribes to politicians - The supporters of the other position on the issue the Politician is being bribed about are the victims on this crime.

[Z]

Piracy - Nope, people pirating force higher prices on those who buy said items legitimately.

That's a load fed to the consumer by the RIAA in the hopes of getting away with an unnecessary price increase. The fact is, when 'piracy' first started via internet, record sales increased, significantly, until the RIAA started 'cracking down' - at which point, disgusted consumers, in protest, decided to boycott record purchasing at all. The result is that the RIAA, being greedy and selfish, has caused a price increase because of their own greed.

This, btw, applies to music alone - video piracy DOES, in fact, force a price increase.

What amazes me most, is that the record industry didn't seem to care much in the '80s when I was growing up copying my albums to cassette to distribute for free around the school. I remember a time when copyright law was basically designed so that we could use our purchased music however we liked, as long as we didn't a) make money doing so and b) claim that the work was our own. That's all it was intended for, originally. Now, thanks to corporate fatcats, the purpose of the law has been practically re-written, so that you now have to pay almost every time you HEAR someone's music - and the majority of those profits end up in the pockets of the record industry, NOT the artist.

OK - I'm off the soapbox. Thanks for listening. You may now return to your regularly scheduled program.

[clarsct]

Hmmmmmmmm.

What if you saw someone murder a rapist while the rapist was in the act?

I wouldn't report such a person. Didn't see a damned thing.

The real answer is this: It depends.

As someone mentioned, speeding is a traffic violation. Splitting hairs, maybe...

On top of that, by the time the cops get there, the speeder is gone, isn't he? I mean, he IS speeding...

In general, I would report a crime that threatens the well being of another. Of course, one must consider that I really don't believe that people like rapists and child molesters are truly human.

If I caught someone in the middle of a rape, I wouldn't report him....I'd kill the bastard.

But, that is just my own viewpoint.

[Roboramma]

I think it's wrong to not report a crime if you'd be doing good by reporting the crime.
That sounds like a very wishy washy answer, but not everything is clear cut.

Some actions might be the right thing to do but still be a crime. Other things might have been done and your reporting it not be able to do any good, either for deterence or prevention.
Other times you might do some good by reporting the crime but more harm.

Life's a complicated business that doesn't seem to fit well with grand moral pronouncements. Sometimes murder is justified. Sometimes shoplifting isnt.

[Beady]

Illegal Immigration - No, not victimless, as theoretically an illegal immigrant can "take the place" so to speak of a legal immigrant.

He can take the place of a citizen or legal permanent resident, too. There are a lot of unemployed folks who would've been happy to take the scut-job the illegal has found.

But then, I'm an immigration officer, so my perspective is probably unique, here.

[Tricky]

Maybe it would help to decide what a crime is, first. Speeding, for example, is not a crime, it's a traffic offense.
It is a crime. You can go to jail for it. Also, speeding cases are tried in criminal court. It's just not a "big" crime.

But like the slavery question earlier, committing a crime doesn't necessarily mean doing wrong. Violation of the law is technically a crime, even when those laws are bad laws (according to your own morality).

[Beerina]

Hmmmmmmmm.

What if you saw someone murder a rapist while the rapist was in the act?

Is this possible? I mean, wouldn't you would have the right to run up and plunge a knife into their back, for the purpose of saving the victim? You don't have to issue demands they stop. You don't have to take a risk to your life, or to the life of the victim. You don't know the guy doesn't have a gun and won't whirl around and shoot you.

But I also think you have the right to shoot at someone whose running away carrying stuff of yours they just stole. Is that person's life worth less than some stuff? Sure it is. They took the risk, deal with it.

[Beady]

Violation of the law is technically a crime, even when those laws are bad laws (according to your own morality).

All laws in existence are individually bad, acccording to *somebody's* morality. I think one law is bad, you think another is bad; does that mean that both laws are bad, and we are morally bound to follow neither?

And then there are those individuals and organizations whose morality tells them that ritually killing the innocent is not a crime. Are laws against such acts bad?

My only point here is, you'd better be bloody careful when you start to argue that your own morality overrides the rules by which your society is run. As skeptics, it is an article of faith, if you will, that the individual subjective is an untrustworthy yardstick.

[bruto]

It is a crime. You can go to jail for it. Also, speeding cases are tried in criminal court. It's just not a "big" crime.

But like the slavery question earlier, committing a crime doesn't necessarily mean doing wrong. Violation of the law is technically a crime, even when those laws are bad laws (according to your own morality).

I beg to differ. Under normal circumstances you will not go to jail for speeding, only for failing to pay the fine, which is a separate crime. If you get a speeding ticket, you drive on in the same car with the ticket in your pocket. You can pay a speeding ticket by mail and be done with it, and you will not have a criminal record. Even though the case may be handled by a criminal court (though some states, I think, are changing that also), there is a legal distinction here between a traffic offense and a crime. In states where marijuana use is "decriminalized," this is what is meant. It's still illegal, like speeding or overtime parking, but there is a real difference in how the law sees it.

Even within the range defined as crimes, the law recognizes distinctions, between misdemeanors and felonies, and between degrees of these. I think a reasonable person can also recognize degrees and figure out more or less where to draw the line between being a priggish busybody and a good citizen.

There's a good chance Immanuel Kant would disagree with me here, but he didn't get out much, did he?

[Roboramma]

All laws in existence are individually bad, acccording to *somebody's* morality. I think one law is bad, you think another is bad; does that mean that both laws are bad, and we are morally bound to follow neither?
Either there is such a thing as objective morality, or there isn't.
If there isn't, we aren't morally bound to do anything. If there is, its independant of what I think or what you think, or even what our society thinks.

And then there are those individuals and organizations whose morality tells them that ritually killing the innocent is not a crime. Are laws against such acts bad?

My only point here is, you'd better be bloody careful when you start to argue that your own morality overrides the rules by which your society is run. As skeptics, it is an article of faith, if you will, that the individual subjective is an untrustworthy yardstick.
I sort of agree with you. People (myself included) are imperfect. We're prone to self-deception and justification. Give yourself enough time, you'll be able to convince yourself that anything is right.
Worse still, much of the time the parts of our morality that we're sure are objective might still be wrong.
Okay.

But I'm not convinced that shows that there is no objective morality. Nor am I convinced that because society created a system of laws they necessarily mirror that morality.
Much as a lot of political, social, and religous issues are difficult to determine, and many people have differing opinions on them. That doesn't mean that we should just assume that what our government says about those things is true.
It does however, suggest that we should look as closely as we can into them and with our eyes as open to our own biases as possible.

[Tricky]

All laws in existence are individually bad, acccording to *somebody's* morality. I think one law is bad, you think another is bad; does that mean that both laws are bad, and we are morally bound to follow neither?

And then there are those individuals and organizations whose morality tells them that ritually killing the innocent is not a crime. Are laws against such acts bad?

My only point here is, you'd better be bloody careful when you start to argue that your own morality overrides the rules by which your society is run. As skeptics, it is an article of faith, if you will, that the individual subjective is an untrustworthy yardstick.
Your decision to follow or break a law is based on your own morality and fear of punishment. I obey most laws because morally I agree the vast majority are necessary to an organized societyn and outweigh my personal preferences. I even obey the ones I am annoyed by (like certain taxes).

However, if it came to a major moral objection, such as prohibiting me from helping someone escape slavery, my morality would outweigh the need for an "organized" society. Draft dodging is another iffy area. I didn't dodge the draft during the Vietnam war, and if called, I would have served, even though I didn't agree with the war. However, if I knew someone else was dodging the draft (and I knew several) I didn't turn them in. You can make all kinds of scenarios.

Really though, "It depends on the law and the circumstances" pretty much covers everything.

[Darat]

Either there is such a thing as objective morality, or there isn't.
If there isn't, we aren't morally bound to do anything. If there is, its independant of what I think or what you think, or even what our society thinks.

...snip...

I think you are stating that incorrectly.

Even if there is no objective morality if one has a moral code then it is still correct to say one is morally bound to live by that code.

[Upchurch]

I voted "somewhat agree". In general principle, it is wrong to not report a crime and, lacking any other pertinent details, that is the position I would default to.

However, I willingly admit that there are definitely situations where the legally correct thing to do is not the morally correct thing to do.

[Tricky]

Either there is such a thing as objective morality, or there isn't.
If there isn't, we aren't morally bound to do anything. If there is, its independant of what I think or what you think, or even what our society thinks.
I don't believe there is such a thing as objective morality. You can argue with evidence that certain things are good for humanity and others are bad, but not everybody will agree with that evidence. Still, I will not shrink from defending, physically if necessary, my subjective view of morality. I will also try to have my version morality encoded into law. Although the "tyranny of the majority" can lead to bad laws (IMO), that is the only way you can encode morality. You have to get more people to agree with you than who disagree. (Or you can be extremely wealthy and powerful which lets you override even a majority of disagreeing people.)

I sort of agree with you. People (myself included) are imperfect. We're prone to self-deception and justification. Give yourself enough time, you'll be able to convince yourself that anything is right.
Worse still, much of the time the parts of our morality that we're sure are objective might still be wrong.
That's why I find it best to accept the obvious: My morality isn't objective. Nobody's is. Some have more empathy than others, but that is still a subjective value. Law isn't objective morality either. It is just what has been agreed upon, and varies widely from region to region.

But I'm not convinced that shows that there is no objective morality. Nor am I convinced that because society created a system of laws they necessarily mirror that morality.
Much as a lot of political, social, and religous issues are difficult to determine, and many people have differing opinions on them. That doesn't mean that we should just assume that what our government says about those things is true.
It does however, suggest that we should look as closely as we can into them and with our eyes as open to our own biases as possible.
Though I don't believe in objective morality, I believe that natural selection has provided that certain memes will be more powerful than others. I would say a large number of our laws are based on empathy, or "the golden rule". That is a powerful thread that runs through humanity, yet it is still very very subjective.

In fact, my favorite correction to the golden rule is, "Don't necessarily do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Their tastes may differ."

Instead I would say, "Do that which greatest assures the maximum benefit to humanity." Sometimes that means obeying laws you disagree with.

[Roboramma]

I think you are stating that incorrectly.

Even if there is no objective morality if one has a moral code then it is still correct to say one is morally bound to live by that code.
Hmm... now you're making me think.
I think I'm assuming that if there's no objective morality then there's no morality, though some of us might think there is.
However, maybe that assumption isn't justified.

I'll have to think on this.

[Babe from Missouri]

Hmmmmmmmm.

What if you saw someone murder a rapist while the rapist was in the act?

I wouldn't report such a person. Didn't see a damned thing.

The real answer is this: It depends.

As someone mentioned, speeding is a traffic violation. Splitting hairs, maybe...

On top of that, by the time the cops get there, the speeder is gone, isn't he? I mean, he IS speeding...

In general, I would report a crime that threatens the well being of another. Of course, one must consider that I really don't believe that people like rapists and child molesters are truly human.

If I caught someone in the middle of a rape, I wouldn't report him....I'd kill the bastard.

But, that is just my own viewpoint.
I agree. It doesn't just depend on the crime, it depends on the specific circumstances under which it was committed. In the right circumstance, I wouldn't just fail to report it, I'd help them hide the body.

[Rufo]

Drug Dealing - Yes, victimless. All the dealer is doing is providing someone with something they want.
...that was a joke, right?

How about giving suicidal person a loaded gun? Or, worse, a murderous person? That's also 'providing someone with something they want'. Victimless? Sure, why not, I mean, it's not your fault if they kill themself, or someone else, right? Just because you're actively helping them?
Dealing drugs means - especially when it comes to heavy drugs - putting someones life in a great deal of danger. Sure, the dealer is not the one doing it personally, but he's a link in the chain, and everyone can blame someone else for the mess it ends up with. Victimless? If there is even a tiny bit of logic behind that statement, I've missed it.

[Tricky]

I beg to differ. Under normal circumstances you will not go to jail for speeding, only for failing to pay the fine, which is a separate crime. If you get a speeding ticket, you drive on in the same car with the ticket in your pocket. You can pay a speeding ticket by mail and be done with it, and you will not have a criminal record.
I just said you can go to jail for speeding. Of course, most times you don't. But say you were driving 180 mph on an open stretch of road, going so fast that no cop could catch up with you. Cops might make a judgment call and say that such a person was too dangerous to allow to just drive away, even if they were doing nothing else besides speeding. Yes, speeding is still a crime, though I totally agree that there are many levels of criminal activity and many levels of punishment.

Even within the range defined as crimes, the law recognizes distinctions, between misdemeanors and felonies, and between degrees of these. I think a reasonable person can also recognize degrees and figure out more or less where to draw the line between being a priggish busybody and a good citizen.
Of course. But people differ considerably where to draw the line, based on (there it is again) their own subjective morality.

There's a good chance Immanuel Kant would disagree with me here, but he didn't get out much, did he?
He might not. What kind of car did he drive?

[Marquis de Carabas]

I'm one of the two strongly disagrees. To agree that one is morally responsible to report a legal offense is to give the state moral authority. There may well be cases in which I would report a crime because the state and I happened to agree on something, but I cannot in truth consent to reporting crimes merely because they are crimes.

[Beady]

But I'm not convinced that shows that there is no objective morality. Nor am I convinced that because society created a system of laws they necessarily mirror that morality.

Laws do not reflect an objective morality because, regardless of whether an objective morality exists, laws are designed to deal with local conditions. IOW, they are subjective.

As to whether there is an objective morality, I have seen no evidence of such. If you have seen such evidence, I'd be interested in a demonstration.

[roger]

...that was a joke, right?

How about giving suicidal person a loaded gun? Or, worse, a murderous person? That's also 'providing someone with something they want'. Victimless? Sure, why not, I mean, it's not your fault if they kill themself, or someone else, right? Just because you're actively helping them?
Dealing drugs means - especially when it comes to heavy drugs - putting someones life in a great deal of danger. Sure, the dealer is not the one doing it personally, but he's a link in the chain, and everyone can blame someone else for the mess it ends up with. Victimless? If there is even a tiny bit of logic behind that statement, I've missed it.Well, REI sells me things that put my life in danger, probably more danger than the drugs, all the time. I refer to things like rock/ice/mountaineering gear. Companies like Goodyear sell tires to race car drivers who then use the product in a way that is extremely risky. I don't see a problem with it. I prefer a society where *I* get to decide what I do, not somebody else.

[bruto]

I just said you can go to jail for speeding. Of course, most times you don't. But say you were driving 180 mph on an open stretch of road, going so fast that no cop could catch up with you. Cops might make a judgment call and say that such a person was too dangerous to allow to just drive away, even if they were doing nothing else besides speeding. Yes, speeding is still a crime, though I totally agree that there are many levels of criminal activity and many levels of punishment.

I still disagree. If the cops make that judgment call it is to raise the level of the offense to a misdemeanor such as reckless driving, which is a crime. Speeding by itself is not a crime. It's a traffic offense, in the same category as overtime parking. It may be a technicality, but it's still a technical distinction.


Of course. But people differ considerably where to draw the line, based on (there it is again) their own subjective morality.

True, but I think that's where it belongs, unless the circumstances are so severe (as they often are) that failure to report is itself a crime. In that case, or course, the law takes command.


He might not. What kind of car did he drive?

He wouldn't have needed a car to be a moral absolutist prig, would he? I bring up Kant because as I recall he was inclined that way, pronouncing, for example, that it is never justifiable to lie. I just sort of picture him riding the bus and still saying "Jah, if it's wrong to go 185 miles an hour in a school zone, then it's just as wrong to go 57 in a 55 zone."

[bruto]

I just said you can go to jail for speeding. Of course, most times you don't. But say you were driving 180 mph on an open stretch of road, going so fast that no cop could catch up with you. Cops might make a judgment call and say that such a person was too dangerous to allow to just drive away, even if they were doing nothing else besides speeding. Yes, speeding is still a crime, though I totally agree that there are many levels of criminal activity and many levels of punishment.

I still disagree. If the cops make that judgment call it is to raise the level of the offense to a misdemeanor such as reckless driving, which is a crime. Speeding by itself is not a crime. It's a traffic offense, in the same category as overtime parking. It may be a technicality, but it's still a technical distinction.


Of course. But people differ considerably where to draw the line, based on (there it is again) their own subjective morality.

True, but I think that's where it belongs, unless the circumstances are so severe (as they often are) that failure to report is itself a crime. In that case, of course, the law takes command.


He might not. What kind of car did he drive?

He wouldn't have needed a car to be a moral absolutist prig, would he? I bring up Kant because as I recall he was inclined that way, pronouncing, for example, that it is never justifiable to lie. I just sort of picture him riding the bus and still saying "Jah, if it's wrong to go 185 miles an hour in a school zone, then it's just as wrong to go 57 in a 55 zone, even if you're rushing to the hospital." Maybe I'm being too harsh on old Mr. K. Then again, maybe not.

[Z]

...that was a joke, right?

How about giving suicidal person a loaded gun? Or, worse, a murderous person? That's also 'providing someone with something they want'. Victimless? Sure, why not, I mean, it's not your fault if they kill themself, or someone else, right? Just because you're actively helping them?
Dealing drugs means - especially when it comes to heavy drugs - putting someones life in a great deal of danger. Sure, the dealer is not the one doing it personally, but he's a link in the chain, and everyone can blame someone else for the mess it ends up with. Victimless? If there is even a tiny bit of logic behind that statement, I've missed it.

Sadly, we can say exactly the same about people who sell alcohol, tobacco, or motor vehicles.

[Beady]

Well, REI sells me things that put my life in danger, probably more danger than the drugs, all the time. I refer to things like rock/ice/mountaineering gear. Companies like Goodyear sell tires to race car drivers who then use the product in a way that is extremely risky. I don't see a problem with it. I prefer a society where *I* get to decide what I do, not somebody else.

So, you see a moral equivalence between guns, tires, illegal drugs and mountain gear?

[jay gw]

However, I willingly admit that there are definitely situations where the legally correct thing to do is not the morally correct thing to do.
Like when?

To agree that one is morally responsible to report a legal offense is to give the state moral authority.
The state gets moral authority from tradition, the fact it's an authority and that's enough for most people and thirdly, in democracies, public choice of leaders -- why does it need you to give it anything?

[Ladewig]

...that was a joke, right?

How about giving suicidal person a loaded gun? Or, worse, a murderous person? That's also 'providing someone with something they want'. Victimless? Sure, why not, I mean, it's not your fault if they kill themself, or someone else, right? Just because you're actively helping them?

Murder is not victimless because the murder victim is murdered against his wishes.
Suicide is victimless because the person killing himself has the right to destroy himself if he so chooses. I consider suicide to be moral, although I would try to talk most people away from doing it.

Giving a suicidal person a gun is not against the law.
Giving a murderous person a gun might be against the law depending on the jurisdiction, the conditions surrounding the event, and the whims of the local prosecutor.




Dealing drugs means - especially when it comes to heavy drugs - putting someones life in a great deal of danger. Sure, the dealer is not the one doing it personally, but he's a link in the chain, and everyone can blame someone else for the mess it ends up with. Victimless? If there is even a tiny bit of logic behind that statement, I've missed it.

O.K. Let's talk about the logic behind the statement. If two or more informed, consenting adults (1) engage in behavior that does not harm in any way the people not engaging in that behavior, then the act has no victims. If the law defines such specific acts as crimes, then participation in such acts can logically be classified as victimless crimes. If the buyer of the drugs understands the risks and chooses to perform the act anyway, then there is no victim.

(1) all three words must be present: informed, consenting, adult.

[Marquis de Carabas]

The state gets moral authority from tradition, the fact it's an authority and that's enough for most people and thirdly, in democracies, public choice of leaders -- why does it need you to give it anything?
The state has no moral authority (the authority to decide which actions are right or wrong). That authority rests solely with the individual actor. However, by assenting blindly to the legal authority (the authority to decide which actions are legal or illegal) of the state, one gives over his or her own moral authority, in effect equating legal with right, illegal with wrong.

[jay gw]

The state has no moral authority (the authority to decide which actions are right or wrong).
Yes it does. The public can give it moral authority.

in effect equating legal with right, illegal with wrong.
So no laws come from moral codes?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Yes it does.
Really? Back that up.

So no laws come from moral codes?
Utterly irrelevant.

[jay gw]

Yes it does.
Really? Back that up.

Already did.

The public can give it moral authority.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Already did.

The public can give it moral authority.
And just where does "the public" get any moral authority to give? Morality is a personal issue. My morality is mine. Your morality is yours. Any one of us can give over our moral authority to another--gods, through their religions, are a popular choice here--but it cannot be taken, and it cannot be claimed. Even if every member of "the public" save me ceded moral authority to the state, they cannot give mine. It is, and will remain, my own.

[jay gw]

Morality is a personal issue.

So no moral beliefs are held by more than one person?

[Babe from Missouri]

So no moral beliefs are held by more than one person?

:rub:

[Marquis de Carabas]

So no moral beliefs are held by more than one person?
Yes, that's right. That is precisely what I said. How astute of you to notice.

Here, a free gift, just in case you ever run out...
http://yurgen.com/db2/00161/yurgen.com/_uimages/Straw-Bales-on-Street.jpg

[gnome]

Is this possible? I mean, wouldn't you would have the right to run up and plunge a knife into their back, for the purpose of saving the victim? You don't have to issue demands they stop. You don't have to take a risk to your life, or to the life of the victim. You don't know the guy doesn't have a gun and won't whirl around and shoot you.

But I also think you have the right to shoot at someone whose running away carrying stuff of yours they just stole. Is that person's life worth less than some stuff? Sure it is. They took the risk, deal with it.

I believe as most laws are written, deadly force is allowed to stop a violent felony; of which the first example qualifies, and the second does not.

[jay gw]

So no moral beliefs are held by more than one person?

Yes, that's right. That is precisely what I said. How astute of you to notice.
Then if morals can be held by groups why can't they give their own government the moral authority and power to decide if your actions are morally right or wrong?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Then if morals can be held by groups why can't they give their own government the moral authority and power to decide if your actions are morally right or wrong?
Groups can't hold morals. Groups can contain individuals who hold the same morals, each of whom is entitled to authority over his or her own morals. Do you understand the distinction?

[jay gw]

Groups can't hold morals. Groups can contain individuals who hold the same morals, each of whom is entitled to authority over his or her own morals.

An individual can give authority to a group that shares the same morals and to a state if they choose to.

[Marquis de Carabas]

An individual can give authority to a group that shares the same morals and to a state if they choose to.
Precisely.

[bruto]

Already did.

The public can give it moral authority.

Sorry, but I disagree categorically with this. The state has legal authority, and it can certainly, we hope, coincide sufficiently with moral codes that our obedience to that authority corresponds to moral behavior. But the state never has true moral authority. That is a matter of individual conscience. Do you really think that morality is a thing that can be decided by a political majority? The current crop of radical Christian ideologues would like that to be so, but their own forebears, many of whom died as martyrs to the religious and moral codes of majority religions, would have been astonished at their foolishness and lack of historical perspective.

A majority of the public in some places would like to criminalize homosexual behavior. Good?

In the state where I grew up, until 1962, the "public" through its appointed legislators, outlawed birth control. For a doctor even to recommend a condom was a felony. Good?

Morality is one's own. Legality is something else. If we're very lucky, the two don't clash too much. If we're reasonably lucky, the law does not require us actually to transgress our own moral codes, and the obligation of civil disobedience is spared us.

[clarsct]

I believe as most laws are written, deadly force is allowed to stop a violent felony; of which the first example qualifies, and the second does not.

REASONABLE force..not deadly. AFAIK, the law only gives authority to use deadly force to police officers. If you murder a rapist, you are still a murderer, in the eyes of the law. I guess this may vary from state to state.

I, however, do not term it a murder. If you used a gun, I would think you might be fined for firing a weapon within city limits or somesuch, but I would hardly think it a felony offense.

Babe from Mo:
I think we think along the same lines. I might be willing to give such a person an alibi or somesuch, depending.


But I think MdC might have the right of it here. Reporting a crime for no other reason than it is a crime seems slightly ridiculous to me. If I report a crime, it is for a reason. I think the last time I reported someone to the cops was due to the fact that the rear bumper of their car fell off in the middle of the road. I found it to be a safety hazard and unacceptable. You have a responsibilty to keep your car in better repair.

Well, unless you count being a witness to a car accident. The woman ran a stop sign while talking on a cell phone. Pet peeve of mine.

What if you found out that your friend's wife had let him do her in the arse last night. Would you turn him in for sodomy? It is a crime, after all, is it not?(well, it is in most jurisdictions in the US...town or county if not state...let's assume it is for the sake of argument...)

[Roboramma]

I think you are stating that incorrectly.

Even if there is no objective morality if one has a moral code then it is still correct to say one is morally bound to live by that code.

Okay, I've thought on it, and I'm still not really clear.

Here's my problem. What does moral mean?

I'm assuming morality is talking about "right" and "wrong". Okay.

Now time for the obligatory nazi reference.

Say I'm an SS officer during WWII. I beleive all the arayian propoganda. Is it wrong for me to kill a jew that I see hiding in a cellar?

If there is no objective morality, how can we say that it's wrong for me to do so? According to my morality (as the SS officer) it's right. In fact it would be wrong not to.

Realize that I'm not arguing for objective morality. I'd just like it explained how it's possible that a non-objective morality can exist. Ie. how can I say it's wrong for me to do something if there is no standard of right and wrong to appeal to.

On the other hand, when some of the posters are talking about "moral" they seem to be refering more to "pragmatic" if that's the right choise of word. "It's in my best interests to act in this way through most situations", or "it's in the best interests of the group that I live in." etc.
I have nothing against pragmatism, but I don't see why it should be given moral authority.

Tricky mentioned evolutionary phychology (I think) as an explanation of morality. Again, I agree that this explains why we have these common moral sentiments, why some things feel wrong and others do not. But that doesn't mean that those things are wrong.

Anyway, I've not made up my mind. It's all very foggy right now. But I just can't get my head around the idea of being able to say something is right or wrong for me in a certain situation without being able to say that it is objectively so.
It seems that if I can do that, I can change my mind about what is right or wrong at the whim of the moment.

[bruto]

Okay, I've thought on it, and I'm still not really clear.

Here's my problem. What does moral mean?

I'm assuming morality is talking about "right" and "wrong". Okay.

Now time for the obligatory nazi reference.

Say I'm an SS officer during WWII. I beleive all the arayian propoganda. Is it wrong for me to kill a jew that I see hiding in a cellar?

If there is no objective morality, how can we say that it's wrong for me to do so? According to my morality (as the SS officer) it's right. In fact it would be wrong not to.

Realize that I'm not arguing for objective morality. I'd just like it explained how it's possible that a non-objective morality can exist. Ie. how can I say it's wrong for me to do something if there is no standard of right and wrong to appeal to.

On the other hand, when some of the posters are talking about "moral" they seem to be refering more to "pragmatic" if that's the right choise of word. "It's in my best interests to act in this way through most situations", or "it's in the best interests of the group that I live in." etc.
I have nothing against pragmatism, but I don't see why it should be given moral authority.

Tricky mentioned evolutionary phychology (I think) as an explanation of morality. Again, I agree that this explains why we have these common moral sentiments, why some things feel wrong and others do not. But that doesn't mean that those things are wrong.

Anyway, I've not made up my mind. It's all very foggy right now. But I just can't get my head around the idea of being able to say something is right or wrong for me in a certain situation without being able to say that it is objectively so.
It seems that if I can do that, I can change my mind about what is right or wrong at the whim of the moment.


It certainly is an interesting issue. On the Nazi problem, one might point out that the aryan propaganda, whether or not you believe it, is a lie, and objectively so, and therefore no true morality can be based on it. Obviously that's not a complete answer, and leaves a lot unanswered, including what truths can be depended on to form a basis for true morality, but it could take care of some of the most obvious conflicts of that sort. It doesn't really address the question of individual responsibility. Can an individual behave morally even though the code he's adhering to is repugnant? How do we evaluate the behavior of people whose religion, culture, science, etc. now disagree with our own? How do you evaluate the behavior of someone who goes against contemporary ideas of morality, but is proven right later?

If you get objective about morality you have a problem too, I think. Kant is the most famous advocate of absolute morality, I think. You act on the validity of the maxim, not the consequences of your individual act. If it's wrong to lie, it's always wrong to lie, period. So, back to Nazi storm troopers and the like, let's say you're not the Nazi in the story but the member of the Dutch underground, with a family of Jews in your cellar. The storm trooper comes to the door. He's armed and you're not. He says "I saw some Jews heading this way, do you know where they went?" Kant says you may not lie. You must either tell the truth, refuse to answer or try some other ruse to divert the question without lying. Realistically, the trooper can be expected to know all the tricks, and to have no patience. So any morally permissible way gets you arrested or killed, and the people in the cellar...well, we know what happens to them. On the grand scheme of things for a Christian, of course, we can say that for your steadfast moral conduct and martyrdom you'll go to heaven and the Nazi for his murderous conduct will go to hell, but if you're trying to find a moral stance that is complete "under the sun" this won't do it.

[Piscivore]

I haven't read the whole thread, so at the risk of repeating something someone else has said- especially MdC- let me add that "morality" is a crock of [rule 8]. The concept of "morality" is used to provide a veneer of certainty to one's reactions to different circumstances, circumstances which have been shown in this thread to be variable and often dissimilar- yet treated by "morality" to be identical- and reactions that have been likewise demonstrated as highly subjective and often culturally dependant.

[jay gw]

An absolute yes to the question and reporting everything you see that could be a crime looks like an unpopular answer. Since most people have that attitude doesn't that mean crime continues - especially in cultures that have a bad attitude towards law enforcement.

There are communities where the crime rates are super high because everyone agrees to never tell the police what's going on. Someone thinking about committing a crime won't be persuaded not to if they already know everyone agrees to keep it quiet.

[Piscivore]

An absolute yes to the question and reporting everything you see that could be a crime looks like an unpopular answer. Since most people have that attitude doesn't that mean crime continues - especially in cultures that have a bad attitude towards law enforcement.

There are communities where the crime rates are super high because everyone agrees to never tell the police what's going on. Someone thinking about committing a crime won't be persuaded not to if they already know everyone agrees to keep it quiet.

One of the many problems with this lastest of your simplistic and naive conjectures is that most criminals don't "think about" commiting a crime. Street level crimes are acts of opportunity or desparation, not something cooked up in a back room a la old Hollywood serials. Robberies, assaults, rapes, and kidnappings occur daily in full view of security cameras. If your assertion were even remotely true, the two young men murdered in a Subway restuarant her in Phoenix a few weeks ago would be alive- however their killers didn't give a second thought to the cameras that led to their apprehension, or to their collegue that rolled on them. Why hasn't crime all but ceased, jay, when video surveillance is prevalent and cellphone cameras are proliferating?

And leaving aside the ludicrous notion of "morality"- how do you determine if what one sees is a "crime"? Is the man dragging a protesting teenager from a mall a kidnapper or parent? Is the couple struggling in the back seat of the parked automobile engaged in a rape or a rendezvous? The hand-rolled cigarette the man in the next seat is lighting- is it pot or tobacco?

Shall the police be deferred from important investigations that your infantile principle of "no crime unreported" be universally enforced?

There are communities where the crime rates are super high because poverty and dispair run rampant, where opportunity is scarce and education inadequate or unavailable. In such communities police departments are often overwhelmed and cannot handle the influx of those crimes that are reported, and so such reporting is seen as futile. There are also the areas under control of a powerful syndicate or another, where reporting can be fatal.

But there are also communities where "crime" is so entrenched, where deceit and fraud are so common, that to report the dubious activities of one's neighbor is to expose one's own. And these are not the neighborhoods of the poor and disenfranchised, jay. Did Enron have a "bad attitude" against law enforcement?

Yes, if only everyone reported every crime they witnessed, it would be a beautiful and wonderful happyland. Guess you never read Orwell. Your sort of purile thinking is how Republicans, Communists, and other fascists get into power.

[jay gw]

most criminals don't "think about" commiting a crime.

How do you know what most criminals are thinking?

[Piscivore]

How do you know what most criminals are thinking?

I've personally known a fairly large, and seemingly representative sample of street criminals. I have personally observed persons commiting vandalism, theft, assault, and harrasment without provocation. I have taken loss reports from persons I have known as "honest" clients for years that were clearly fraudulent, either to deflect responsibility for an accident or to inflate an otherwise legitimate claim. I once had reported to me a minor traffic altercation that ended in rape, and another that ended in murder.

I am also acquainted with more than one law enforcement officer and more than a few lawyers with whom I have discussed the behaviour of offenders. I also read, from police reports to news reports to psychology texts. it is from these I have constructed my views of the motivations of extralegal behaviour. I will be happy to amend those ideas, had you any evidence at all.

What is your source for your speculations, such as "Someone thinking about committing a crime won't be persuaded not to if they already know everyone agrees to keep it quiet," especially given the evidence available to the contrary? Has no one ever robbed a bank where the witnesses made a report to the authorities? Are the plethora of videotaped Quickiemart robberies staged?

[Iacchus]

So no moral beliefs are held by more than one person?
Yes, that's right. That is precisely what I said. How astute of you to notice.You don't per any chance wish for him to agree with you then, do you? :D

[jay gw]

What is your source for your speculations, such as "Someone thinking about committing a crime won't be persuaded not to if they already know everyone agrees to keep it quiet," especially given the evidence available to the contrary?

The source is that criminals want their identities hidden from police and there's no evidence you have that they want the police to know what they did and who they are. So the culture that values witness silence in front of police makes a better environment.

[Tricky]

An absolute yes to the question and reporting everything you see that could be a crime looks like an unpopular answer. Since most people have that attitude doesn't that mean crime continues - especially in cultures that have a bad attitude towards law enforcement.

There are communities where the crime rates are super high because everyone agrees to never tell the police what's going on. Someone thinking about committing a crime won't be persuaded not to if they already know everyone agrees to keep it quiet.
Often you see the reverse situation, where crime rates are artificially low because few people report crimes. Usually, crime rates are based on police statistics, and when crimes are not recorded by the police, they never make it to the books.

Some places may use independant sources, but the whole question of "crime rates" is a very iffy one.

[jay gw]

Often you see the reverse situation, where crime rates are artificially low because few people report crimes.

Do you have information for this happening?

[Tricky]

Do you have information for this happening?
I don't want to go into a long web search, but here's one example (http://www.securityoncampus.org/update/v01n26.html) that popped up immediately.

However, the logic is obvious. If you are afraid (for whatever reason, either distrust of police or fear of reprisal) to report crimes then the crime rates will be artifically low.

Some have suggested (and no, I don't have references) that Roe v Wade did not increase abortions, but only reported abortions.

[Piscivore]

The source is that criminals want their identities hidden from police and there's no evidence you have that they want the police to know what they did and who they are. So the culture that values witness silence in front of police makes a better environment.

So "the source" is you just pulling suppositions out of your ass. Again. And once again, you are perverting what I actually said. I didn't say they "want the police to know what they did and who they are"- they probably don't, but those aren't the only two options. Most of the time, they either do not stop to think about the police finding out, or they just don't care. The people that rob convienience stores unmasked in front of cameras- which is a frequent, documented occurence- either want the police to know who they are, or don't care. Drivers who verbally or physically assault police officers when they get stopped- also a frequently documented occurance- since they have given their identification to the officer, they obviously want the police to know who they are, or don't care. Rapists who leave DNA in their victims- them must want the police to know who they are, or don't care. All these facts contradict your "source," how do you respond to that?

With cameras, and physical evidence, and SCIENCE, the role of the "witness" in law enforcement is fortunately beginning to lessen- although thanks to the peculiarities of our court system I doubt you'll see it disappear entirely. I am exctied for the day when our culture not so much "values witness silence in front of police," as "finds it totally f[rule 8] irrelevant." Because this will limit the power of the police, as well as hindering the criminal.

Of course, from my previous correspondences with you, I wouldn't be surprised to learn you have a fondness for the glory days of Salem, or McCarthy.

[clarsct]

On the Nazi question:

The Nazi in question was acting ETHICALLY, but not necessarily MORALLY. Ethics is having a code of rules that you act by, and following them scrupulously. Morality is determining whether the acts commited were right or wrong.

Just picking a nit.


(At least this is how my prof in Ethics taught the difference. Feel free to discuss.)

[bruto]

On the Nazi question:

The Nazi in question was acting ETHICALLY, but not necessarily MORALLY. Ethics is having a code of rules that you act by, and following them scrupulously. Morality is determining whether the acts commited were right or wrong.

Just picking a nit.


(At least this is how my prof in Ethics taught the difference. Feel free to discuss.)

No argument to above, but in Roborama's hypothetical case, we have, it appears, not just a rule-following trooper, but a true believer in the Nazi ideological package; thus, to his mind, he is not only doing what is proper, but what is "right."

I never dipped much into ethics as a discipline, so please take this as a question, not a challenge: taking your definitions as I see them, am I right in assuming that there could be more room for debate in morals than in ethics? It seems that for questions involving conflicting moral claims (such as whether one should lie to save someone else's family from persecution), it would be necessary to figure out the "net" effect of one's actions, rather than simply following the rules.

[jay gw]

With cameras, and physical evidence, and SCIENCE, the role of the "witness" in law enforcement is fortunately beginning to lessen-
That doesn't change the question of whether it's right or wrong to witness a crime and not report it.

[clarsct]

No argument to above, but in Roborama's hypothetical case, we have, it appears, not just a rule-following trooper, but a true believer in the Nazi ideological package; thus, to his mind, he is not only doing what is proper, but what is "right."

I never dipped much into ethics as a discipline, so please take this as a question, not a challenge: taking your definitions as I see them, am I right in assuming that there could be more room for debate in morals than in ethics? It seems that for questions involving conflicting moral claims (such as whether one should lie to save someone else's family from persecution), it would be necessary to figure out the "net" effect of one's actions, rather than simply following the rules.

Well, this is not to say the two are not tied in some ways. We define our ethics by what we find moral. This German guy had already made up his mind that Jews were sub-human, and thus killed the Jews. No ethical quandries there. Now, if he was just 'going along' and didn't truly believe in the 'cause', as it were, and found himself in that situation and pulled the trigger, then no, we was being unethical, in the extreme.

The moral question is "Is it right to consider Jews sub-human?". Most people would answer no, it is not. And yet in my above posts, you will find that I believe that very thing about rapists and child molesters. Well. Is that a moral stance to take?

From a certain point of view, one may say that their actions are reprehensable, but that they have a right to live. I personally believe that such people are animals, and dangerous ones at that. I view it as putting down a rabid dog. Regrettable, perhaps, but better for the common welfare.

Now, please note that I am not including those who use a 'rape fantasy' in their lovemaking. This is, at its base, consensual. It just allows one of the partners the illusion of being forced, and thus eliminates some of the guilt our society seems to put on a very natural action. Strange, but the human mind is a strange place.

I digress.

If it were only easy and simple. If only our morals could be gotten from one place, like a book, that we could all agree upon. We could use such a model to help concrete our society. It would be nice if everyone had one BIBLE that could dictate morality. But unfortunately, this is not that case, obviously.

The most we can say is that something seems immoral to us. Like classifying the Jews as sub-human. Laws are based on the morality of the majority of people in our society. They are not perfect, and I don't think such a thing is possible. But to say there is ONE objective morality, and everyone must conform to it seems the beginnings of tyranny to me.

Yes, morality is far more debatable. This is due to the abstract nature of the subject. Ethics is much, much easier to deal with.

[Roboramma]

The moral question is "Is it right to consider Jews sub-human?". Most people would answer no, it is not. And yet in my above posts, you will find that I believe that very thing about rapists and child molesters. Well. Is that a moral stance to take?
I guess my question is, is it possible for me to say, "No, it is not right to consider jews sub-human. But it is forgivable in certain situations where people lack adequate knowledge. However, it is never right to treat them as sub-human."
Or could I only say, "I do not consider jews sub-human. Some people do, however, and I cannot judge their views or actions as either right or wrong."

This I what I mean by an objective morality.
I'm not suggesting that we need to be able to say that we know our own viewpoint is correct, just that if it is correct, it applies to everyone.
Our uncertainty about our understanding of morality is a good reason not to try to impose it on others, but that doesn't mean that whatever is right and wrong doesn't apply universally.

But I'm still very open to an explanation of how I can claim that something is wrong for me personally, but not for someone else in an identical situation who just happens to have a different perspective.

The most we can say is that something seems immoral to us. Like classifying the Jews as sub-human. Laws are based on the morality of the majority of people in our society. They are not perfect, and I don't think such a thing is possible. But to say there is ONE objective morality, and everyone must conform to it seems the beginnings of tyranny to me.
I don't think that believing that there is an objective morality necessarily suggests that one should try to enforce one's own veiw of what that objective morality is. For the simple reason that you can't know if you've got it right or not.

Some people believe God will send non-believers to hell. If they're right, they'd be "right" to do everything they could to convert us. But many don't. Why not?
I think the only moral justification (and a very good one) is that they can't be sure they're right. They're sure enough that they'll live their life in a certain way, but not enough to start attacking other people.

And I think morality can be viewed the same way.

[jay gw]

Laws are based on the morality of the majority of people in our society.

Is this true?

[gnome]

If you get objective about morality you have a problem too, I think. Kant is the most famous advocate of absolute morality, I think. You act on the validity of the maxim, not the consequences of your individual act. If it's wrong to lie, it's always wrong to lie, period. So, back to Nazi storm troopers and the like, let's say you're not the Nazi in the story but the member of the Dutch underground, with a family of Jews in your cellar. The storm trooper comes to the door. He's armed and you're not. He says "I saw some Jews heading this way, do you know where they went?" Kant says you may not lie. You must either tell the truth, refuse to answer or try some other ruse to divert the question without lying. Realistically, the trooper can be expected to know all the tricks, and to have no patience. So any morally permissible way gets you arrested or killed, and the people in the cellar...well, we know what happens to them. On the grand scheme of things for a Christian, of course, we can say that for your steadfast moral conduct and martyrdom you'll go to heaven and the Nazi for his murderous conduct will go to hell, but if you're trying to find a moral stance that is complete "under the sun" this won't do it.

I think you've got Kant somewhat oversimplified... the categorical imperative suggests you look at the results if your actions are mirrored in large numbers. If it were good for lots of people to lie in that situation (which clearly it was) that would be considered a good act.

[jay gw]

It's interesting that everyone polled thinks it's morally wrong to know about a crime but not report it.

[bruto]

I think you've got Kant somewhat oversimplified... the categorical imperative suggests you look at the results if your actions are mirrored in large numbers. If it were good for lots of people to lie in that situation (which clearly it was) that would be considered a good act.

I must confess that it's been a long time since I read Kant in any detail at all, and I don't intend to rummage him up again in a hurry, but I think you may be the one oversimplifying him, as there's a good deal more to his ethics than the categorical imperative. I think you'll find Kant was quite firmly opposed to utilitarian ethics. "Lots of people" would not have done for him, I surmise.

The risk you run here if you're to adjust absolute morality to specific situations, is that you will end up reclassifying various situations as separate moral issues, and ultimately subdividing them, until you end up with no absolutes at all, or rather an atomistic morality of unique absolutes, or perhaps a monadic version of situational ethics, in which every situation is a unique one, but defined as not technically relative to any other.

[Z]

It's interesting that everyone polled thinks it's morally wrong to know about a crime but not report it.

It's interesting that you can't read poll results. Says a lot about why you are often so very, terribly, absolutely wrong.

Five 'strongly disagrees'.

Hmm.

[gnome]

I must confess that it's been a long time since I read Kant in any detail at all, and I don't intend to rummage him up again in a hurry, but I think you may be the one oversimplifying him, as there's a good deal more to his ethics than the categorical imperative. I think you'll find Kant was quite firmly opposed to utilitarian ethics. "Lots of people" would not have done for him, I surmise.

The risk you run here if you're to adjust absolute morality to specific situations, is that you will end up reclassifying various situations as separate moral issues, and ultimately subdividing them, until you end up with no absolutes at all, or rather an atomistic morality of unique absolutes, or perhaps a monadic version of situational ethics, in which every situation is a unique one, but defined as not technically relative to any other.

I don't know if it's either-or. You could define an ethics that ceases to break it down at a certain level, or in addition, collections of "unique" situational ethics may yet have similar solutions.

[bruto]

It's interesting that you can't read poll results. Says a lot about why you are often so very, terribly, absolutely wrong.

Five 'strongly disagrees'.

Hmm.

I tried voting, but it put me in the "flame war - balloon game" thread. I think there may be something wrong here.

[bruto]

I don't know if it's either-or. You could define an ethics that ceases to break it down at a certain level, or in addition, collections of "unique" situational ethics may yet have similar solutions.

I agree that you could, and probably should. I just have a sneaking suspicion that Kant would not agree.

[Bob Klase]

What amazes me most, is that the record industry didn't seem to care much in the '80s when I was growing up copying my albums to cassette to distribute for free around the school.

The difference there is that when you copied your album to a cassette, then that cassette was copied to another cassette, it didn't take too many generations of copies before it sounded like crap. With a CD the sound doesn't degenerate each time another generation is copied- the 100th generation of copies are still exact duplicates of the original and sound exactly the same. So that would explain why the record industry seems to care more now.

[Z]

The difference there is that when you copied your album to a cassette, then that cassette was copied to another cassette, it didn't take too many generations of copies before it sounded like crap. With a CD the sound doesn't degenerate each time another generation is copied- the 100th generation of copies are still exact duplicates of the original and sound exactly the same. So that would explain why the record industry seems to care more now.

But we're not passing around CDs - we're passing around MP3 files - which DO degrade (though not as badly as cassettes did). And, actually, I've heard that, although greatly improved, CDs don't have infinite cloning generations either.

Also, sales went up - NOT down - when filesharing started. Sales only took a downward turn AFTER the RIAA started going after Napster. And being one of those responsible for their sudden losses, I can tell you what it is: protest against unfair attacks by the corporate fatcats. I've only bought three CDs since this began, as compared to an average of one per month, and each of those were from independent labels only. OK, I'm mistaken - FOUR CDs, and the last one was that damned Crazy Frog thing. But that was a very rare exception, any more.

[gnome]

I agree that you could, and probably should. I just have a sneaking suspicion that Kant would not agree.

Agreed, he might not. It would be marvelous to be able to converse with past great thinkers about ideas that came after their time. If there is a heaven, I hope that is one of the attractions.

[jay gw]

Ok another question, number 2: is it right to punish someone for NOT reporting a crime when you know with certainty that they were aware of the crime?

[Z]

Ok another question, number 2: is it right to punish someone for NOT reporting a crime when you know with certainty that they were aware of the crime?

Depends on the crime and the circumstances, of course.

[jay gw]

Depends on the crime and the circumstances, of course.

I love these well developed answers.

[Z]

I love these well developed answers.

Sorry, Jay, but that is the best answer, under the circumstances.

For example, asking, 'Do you like food?' is going to get the answer, 'Depends on the food' or possibly, 'I'm addicted to food.'

If you want a better answer, define your question more precisely. For example, I don't particularly think someone should be charged with 'abetting' if they witness someone else speeding, for example, and fail to report it; but witnessing a rape or child abuse is a different issue, altogether. Likewise, if it's a crime to, for example, plot against your government, yet your morals require you to take part in such a plot, I don't think it's wrong - within the paradigm of your morals - to not report such a plot. Obviously, it's wrong within the paradigm of the national laws. See?

So, yes - the best answer is: it depends.

[teacher]

Haven't read all posts here, but did a search for the word 'priest' on this thread and didn't find it, so I assume, surprisingly, (unless I missed the angle being examined here) that this hasn't been raised yet.

Priests have a confidentiality clause and so can know of crimes, even serious ones and not report it. Of course they would try not to put themselves in that position and/or persuade any confessor to report it or allow it to be reported. This seems unethical, but in the longer term or overal scheme of things (very utilitarian in fact), there is method in the madness.

If the confidntiality did not exist or was known to be abused, thousands of people who respect this code and utilise it would otherwise have not confided and gone on to commit offences. It can be demonstrably shown to have avoided crimes, rapes, death et al as the priest has managed to prevent it or talk the people round. Apprently the number of lives saved far excedes what would be expected if this clause did not exist or if it weren't taken seriously.

So, an example (and a religiously born one ironically) of knowing about a crime and not reporting it being used ethically.

[gnome]

Lawyer confidentiality, for example, extends to past crimes, but not to impending crimes. That is, if you tell your lawyer you're about to rob a bank, that is not confidential and he is obligated to report it.

Does the same extend to clergy?

[Skeptical Greg]

Ok another question, number 2: is it right to punish someone for NOT reporting a crime when you know with certainty that they were aware of the crime? If it's the law it is..

[Skeptical Greg]

Is it morally wrong to know about a crime but not report it?

It is morally wrong to do anything that violates your morals..


Otherwise no.. It might be a crime though, which would make it wrong, whether it was immoral or not..

[teacher]

Point of interest.
Name something that is against the law and punishable by death in some countries, and is common and not even against the law in another country.
Adultery.
In Islamic states, a person can be put to death, (e.g. by stoning) in cases of adultery, though whipping is often a result. In most Western nations, it is common place and legal (and widely advertised in magazines), though still generally considered unethical by most.