Ethical dilemma: hypothetical situations

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
Yes
Yes
Yes

I've seen enough people so shamefully rich to feed their dogs with caviar and silver forks

I ethically object to feeding regularly dogs with caviar.

They do not like caviar that much.

[Berzerker]

Wernazuma -

Of course they should be punished for their real crimes and best, their money should be given to those who were the victims - keeping it, as I've said, would be immoral, IMO. That's why I put the "donate to drug-cure program" ad-on to the hypothetical situation. That's what comes closest to giving it back to the victims.

The people who buy drugs are not victims, if the druglord has not stolen any money, stealing his money cannot be justified except if the druglord murdered someone, then his assets can be taken to make restitution to the victim's family.

The situation suggests that you find yourself in the position to be able to do "the right thing" much more efficiently than the authorities.

We are dealing with what we would do, if we have justification for our actions, then government has justification to act on our behalf.

But I guess, in reality I'd go to the police with all I've found out.

Only if real crime was involved, I wouldn't help the police bust a drug dealer just for dealing drugs.

But let's say, you live in Columbia and the police most likely will shoot YOU for giving that information and get bribe money from the druglord instead. Let's say, only you have the chance to enforce justice by taking the dirty money away and giving it to the victims, because the "authorized" institutions, jurisdiction and executive force, are corrupt. Wouldn't it be more immoral to keep playing the game with them by doing nothing and not taking the chance to do something?

Depends on what the druglord did. "Vigilante" justice can still be just, but we'd prefer not having to resort to that since mistakes become easier to make. But if the authorities are corrupt, then vigilante justice is a valid option.

[Berzerker]

ADG -

Ok, well that's an even better reason to steal from them then...

I'm not very familiar with all the details of the story, but I believe it was about a guy (and his merry band) standing up to a local bigshot who had been stealing from the peasantry, a seemingly common practice in medieval England. They were not technically stealing since the bigshot was himself a thief and Robin and the gang was ostensibly returning the property to the rightful owners.

I don't say stealing (in general) is ok, but when you can "hurt" (economical) people who "hurts" others, and help the victims, by giving back what rightfully belongs to them, then I'd say it's ok... but of course: people who would do this (give money back to their rightfull owners), are very seldom on this planet...

Yeah, I suspect Robin and the gang were living quite nicely on what they were taking. But I don't know how you define "hurt" in your argument.

[Adagio]

My definition on "hurt" is (in this case):

When someone takes most/all of an other persons money, but returns nothing. This "hurts" economically

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The people who buy drugs are not victims, if the druglord has not stolen any money, stealing his money cannot be justified except if the druglord murdered someone, then his assets can be taken to make restitution to the victim's family.

Drug addicts are victims (we keep talking about the more dangerous drugs, like Heroin or Crack, right?).
Very often, children - especially in the puberty - are already tricked into drug addiction. And don't tell me, that they can really evaluate what dangers taking the drugs mean. Thus, they are double victims, as generally other bad experiences and a desolate social/family situation come before drug addiction. Those, who sell the drugs to them do know it, but they don't care as long as they get the money they do everythings to keep their "customers" coming.
To me, those druglords are murderers, even if they did not shoot anyone in his face.
With your kind of reasoning, most white collar crimes wouldn't be crimes.

Depends on what the druglord did. "Vigilante" justice can still be just, but we'd prefer not having to resort to that since mistakes become easier to make. But if the authorities are corrupt, then vigilante justice is a valid option.

I wouldn't support such self-justice or "vigilante" justice in most of possible situations either, because we know that people would often hang the wrong man, just because they thought they had their man... (here we're back at the war on drugs ). The hypothetical siutuation plays a bit with the fact that generally we don't extend this scepticism completely on ourselves. The hypothetical situation want to suggest that you know that this guy is a bad-ass, who would get away, if you don't act. If you don't have anything against druglords, take someone else instead.

Maybe I can construct another situation for you (although, as a true libertarian, you'll probably won't find this example convincing):
You know that a CEO dumps toxic waste into a river that causes a cancer rate in the area that is 10 times higher than elsewhere. You know that the CEO is aware, that dumping his waste there means a significant death toll, but he prefers his extra dollars. Yet doing this is either not forbidden, or the CEO, as usual, gets support from the mayor and governor, because he contributed to the last elections etc. Now you can safely take away money from him, no one can notice. You could donate it to a local cancer program, would you?

I fear you'd still call it theft.

[Ben Kenobi]

I only voted for #2, because if the person does not report you or consider it stealing, then it can't be stealing right?

Dissident:

So morality only matters if someone catches you?

You still know what you did. If it is stealing when someone catches you, it should still be stealing when no one else witnesses.

If a gang broke into your house and stole from you, would you not be the worse off, even if you did not see the perpetrators?

[Berzerker]

Wernazuma -

Drug addicts are victims (we keep talking about the more dangerous drugs, like Heroin or Crack, right?).

I disagree, we are responsible for our own actions and I tried "crack" a few times and freebased cocaine a dozen or so times without even buying from a dealer. I did not become "addicted", so how many times does a person have to use a drug before they become addicted and are supposedly no longer responsible for their own actions? They were responsible for the behavior that led to addiction, not the drug dealer. A family member died of alcoholism, but I don't blame alcohol dealers.

Very often, children - especially in the puberty - are already tricked into drug addiction.

"Tricked"? Perhaps peer pressure led them to experiment, but even they made the decision to continue using. When I was a teen, no drug dealer tried to induce me to use drugs.

And don't tell me, that they can really evaluate what dangers taking the drugs mean.

Why not? Are we not flooded with information and propaganda designed to "educate" us about drugs? Teens are not oblivious to the reality that using certain drugs can be harmful.

Thus, they are double victims, as generally other bad experiences and a desolate social/family situation come before drug addiction.

That's the rub of the matter, drugs are often a symptom of already existing problems. If all the people who "enable" the psychological needs of troubled people are guilty of something, then apply that standard consistently and you'll see millions of guilty people, many of whom have no idea they are contributors. How does McDonald's know the fat person they are serving is fat because of emotional problems and that McDonald's is just another enabler like the drug dealer who sells the emotionally distraught temporary pain relief. Why is the drug dealer who provides this pain relief a bad person? What if the person they are serving would commit suicide if not for the drugs making that period of their life bearable? There are too many gray areas for generalisations.

Those, who sell the drugs to them do know it, but they don't care as long as they get the money they do everythings to keep their "customers" coming.

How do they know? Most people merely experiment with drugs and may be casual users without ever becoming addicted.

To me, those druglords are murderers, even if they did not shoot anyone in his face.

Then apply that standard to everyone who sells a product that can be abused, from alcohol and tobacco to fast food.

With your kind of reasoning, most white collar crimes wouldn't be crimes.

You'll have to make that link because I sure haven't said this.

Maybe I can construct another situation for you (although, as a true libertarian, you'll probably won't find this example convincing): You know that a CEO dumps toxic waste into a river that causes a cancer rate in the area that is 10 times higher than elsewhere. You know that the CEO is aware, that dumping his waste there means a significant death toll, but he prefers his extra dollars. Yet doing this is either not forbidden, or the CEO, as usual, gets support from the mayor and governor, because he contributed to the last elections etc. Now you can safely take away money from him, no one can notice. You could donate it to a local cancer program, would you?

The short answer is no for the following reasons. Your hypothetical lacks information critical to my answer. Is the money I'm taking his or the company's? Does he get a tax write-off or exemption for the loss? Is he insured against theft?
Let's assume the money being taken is his and no one else's, and allow me to change your hypothetical because it would be stealing if you gave the money to a cancer treatment program since not everyone with cancer got it from his action, it would not be stealing if you knew his action caused person A to get cancer and only person A got the money. But this is not analogous to drugs, the dealer didn't slip toxics into my drinking water.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Ny solution to all three of these is to Attack Iraq.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I did not become "addicted", so how many times does a person have to use a drug before they become addicted and are supposedly no longer responsible for their own actions? They were responsible for the behavior that led to addiction, not the drug dealer. A family member died of alcoholism, but I don't blame alcohol dealers.

We argue from very different angles on the topic and every post I discover a new misunderstanding of one of us. I never intended to say that drug addicts are not to be held reponsible for their actions, but we we have to understand why they're acting like they do: destroying themselves, drug-related crime and eventually persuading other persons to take drugs (so they can sell it to those newbies for high prices or "cut away" a bit - that happens all the time, don't know if you have ever had to deal with a bunch of heroin-junkies).
But again, it's not those small dealers I blame. It's the big druglords, where drugs are only part of a big game of power, violence and organized crime - people without any moral code, just thinking about their money, pushing aside everybody who comes in their way, no matter how many lives remain on the way.
The big drug producers don't have any moral code. They sell bad products/ "dirty drugs" (don't know the word - impure drugs).
They are also absolutely aware, that many of their "customers" are children and we know that children/adolescents are not fully capable to comprehend what they're doing - that's why we have laws to protect children from exploitation. That's also why giving alcohol to children is forbidden (in most nations anyway, US laws are too rigid however)
If drugs were legal, as I've said, it would be different. Only then, your analogy with alcohol would work. And of course I would blame an alcohol dealer if he would try to make children buy his stuff. As I've already said, Al Capone would perfectly fit my picture of a drug lord.

Why not? Are we not flooded with information and propaganda designed to "educate" us about drugs? Teens are not oblivious to the reality that using certain drugs can be harmful.

But they don't fully comprehend...


Don't have more time right now. See you.