Ethical dilemma: hypothetical situations

[Odin]

1. yes (it's the Commie thing to do. )
2. no
3. yes

[Pekka]

1. no
2. yes
3. no (I think killing yourself can be a lot easier)

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Because it still meets the definition of theft, the motive doesn't change that. I see several people here have said they'd steal from drug dealers, would you also steal from the local liquor store owner too? How about tobacco farmers? I'd bet fast food outlets "kill" more people than drug dealers, as long as tobacco dealers aren't included, is it okay to steal from McDonalds now if the money is handed over to Jenny Craig? I see no difference between stealing from a drug dealer and any other person with a product or service for sale.

Not the Slippery Slope again. Can you come up with a better fallacy?

Druglords are different from these other groups of people you have mentioned because they engage in extreme violence to maintain power and control. I am not debating whether their products should be legal or not, I am pointing out that their methods of operation are ones drenched in blood.

The simplistic ways of Liberterians *shakes head*

[David Floyd]

Druglords are different from these other groups of people you have mentioned because they engage in extreme violence to maintain power and control. I am not debating whether their products should be legal or not, I am pointing out that their methods of operation are ones drenched in blood.

But their methods have a lot to do with the fact that drugs are illegal, and in many places carry extremely draconian penalties. Prohibition brought Al Capone to power, and he wasn't a nice guy either, but without Prohibition I doubt we would have seen Al Capone, at least not as he was historically.

[Dis]

OK if drugs were legal there would be no drug lords.

Only business owners.

So yes you can still make the argument that drug lords are different from other groups of people.

[Berzerker]

UR -

Not the Slippery Slope again. Can you come up with a better fallacy?

I mentioned no slippery slope, I said drug dealers are no different than any other group selling a product or service.

Druglords are different from these other groups of people you have mentioned because they engage in extreme violence to maintain power and control.

We're talking about drug dealers, not drug "lords" and I've known quite a few drug dealers in my time who were regular people just trying to supplement their income by providing a service.

I am not debating whether their products should be legal or not, I am pointing out that their methods of operation are ones drenched in blood.

That's a generalisation that ignores that the legality or illegality of the product often produces these methods of operation.

The simplistic ways of Liberterians *shakes head*

So simple, and yet you're confused.

Dissident -

So yes you can still make the argument that drug lords are different from other groups of people.

The hypothetical made no provision for stealing from a murderer, just a drug dealer. You and Urban are adding behavior to the character traits of the person you are stealing from in order to "justify" the theft.

[Adagio]

1) Yes... don't know if there's other stories I don't know about, but if we take a look at the "Steal from the rich, give to the poor", then yes...

2) Only because they don't care... but I'd proberly end up giving the money away (as in 1) ), otherwise I'd feel guilty (YEs.. I know, not many people know that word )

3) I'd proberly do this, even if there's a (not too high) chance of getting cought... but I'd proberly end up giving the money away anyway... as in 1)

[Dis]

actually I would never steal from a drug lord (see my first post). That seems just a little bit stupid.

Stealing is stealing.

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

[Berzerker]

1) Yes... don't know if there's other stories I don't know about, but if we take a look at the "Steal from the rich, give to the poor", then yes...

That wasn't what "Robin Hood" was about, it was a story, true or not, about taking back what was stolen in the first place. Frankly, I'm not surprised to see people robbing others given how many here think stealing is okay when you decide it's okay.

[Berzerker]

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

#2 didn't say the victims didn't consider it stealing, only that the amount stolen was so small they'd obviously lose more money and time having to deal with the theft. How would a person who is stealing $1 each from alot of people know how the victims viewed the theft, much less before committing the theft?

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Berzerker

We're talking about drug dealers, not drug "lords" and I've known quite a few drug dealers in my time who were regular people just trying to supplement their income by providing a service.

If you take a look to the first post, it says explicitely "druglord" there. Someone mentioned Al Capone - he'd fit in that picture of a druglord too. I'm not so much talking about the "product they sell", but the methods - if those drugs were legal, it'd change the thing, yet they're not and that drug money has been gained with menaces and misery, is covered with blood, and generally those druglords are into all kinds of nasty business - they're interconnected with a system that involves crimes in various fields, like human trade for prostitution etc.

Let's say, such a brand of guy was meant in #3, would you still stay with your no?

[Berzerker]

Wernazuma -

If you take a look to the first post, it says explicitely "druglord" there.

Okay, and? You and I might think that applies to Pablo Escabar, but the people running the drug war refer to any successful drug dealer as a drug lord. Hell, some of the people I knew back in the 80's are probably "druglords", but they didn't run around killing people to protect their turf. They were just people like you and me providing a service.

Someone mentioned Al Capone - he'd fit in that picture of a druglord too. I'm not so much talking about the "product they sell", but the methods - if those drugs were legal, it'd change the thing, yet they're not and that drug money has been gained with menaces and misery, is covered with blood, and generally those druglords are into all kinds of nasty business - they're interconnected with a system that involves crimes in various fields, like human trade for prostitution etc.

Then they should be punished for the real crimes they commit, that isn't an excuse to steal from drug lords. If I steal your money, does that mean my neighbor can now steal the money I stole from you? Only if he returns the money to you.

Let's say, such a brand of guy was meant in #3, would you still stay with your no?

Correct, the only justification for "stealing" is to take back what was stolen from you. If this drug lord does bad things to others, then he should be punished. If I steal from him, I should be punished too. After all, the property may or may not belong to him, i.e., he stole too, but it certainly doesn't belong to me either.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Okay, and? You and I might think that applies to Pablo Escabar, but the people running the drug war refer to any successful drug dealer as a drug lord. Hell, some of the people I knew back in the 80's are probably "druglords", but they didn't run around killing people to protect their turf. They were just people like you and me providing a service.

Uh, I think we misunderstood each other. I really think that this war on drugs is a completely idiot policy - hell, a good bunch of my acquaintances would be "druglords", if this applied to small dealers.
So well, we can narrow the topic down to organized crim "druglords".

Then they should be punished for the real crimes they commit, that isn't an excuse to steal from drug lords. If I steal your money, does that mean my neighbor can now steal the money I stole from you? Only if he returns the money to you.

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.

Correct, the only justification for "stealing" is to take back what was stolen from you. If this drug lord does bad things to others, then he should be punished. If I steal from him, I should be punished too. After all, the property may or may not belong to him, i.e., he stole too, but it certainly doesn't belong to me either.

The situation suggests that you find yourself in the position to be able to do "the right thing" much more efficiently than the authorities. But I guess, in reality I'd go to the police with all I've found out. 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?

[Ozz]

I'd do them all, just for the entertainment value alone.
The $$$ would just be the icing on the cake.

Stealing? Not doing anything the Government doesn't do everyday.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Berzerker
That wasn't what "Robin Hood" was about, it was a story, true or not, about taking back what was stolen in the first place. Frankly, I'm not surprised to see people robbing others given how many here think stealing is okay when you decide it's okay.

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

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...