Two Questions of Ethics

[forsyth]

Is it more important that the guilty get punished, if it means innocents will be punished too, or that the innocent don't get punished, even if it means some of the guilty will go free?

Is it more important that we prevent people who don't need help from getting it, if it means that some of those in need won't get any, or that we ensure all of those in need get help, even if it allows more free riders?

I know my answers, which I'll put, along with some reasoning, in a comment. But I'm curious what others think. I suspect people's answers to these questions would correlate with a large number of other opinions.

Comments

[rev-tobias.livejournal.com]

1b. it's more important that the innocents go freely

2a. it's more important that potential receivers get it.

Then again, it's a 01:00 am in the morning and I I've had a quart of vodka (due to other reasons).

[evilcarp.livejournal.com]

"Ethics" questions like these are useless. Ethics aren't made up of "either or" questions. To be an ethical person, you need to take each situation that comes to you individually, you need to get as many facts as are available to you, and you make an informed decision based on the unique circumstances. Asking questions like these is more likely to get people to come up with ideas about what are right and wrong in generalized terms, and that belief becomes solidified in their mind, and increase the chances that they'll make a poor decision when a real, dynamic situation comes up.

[forsythferret.livejournal.com]

True, very few questions in life really are binary. You do have to look at every situation individually, because there's always specifics that can change things. But would you agree that rules of thumb can come in handy? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, work off the assumption that it is a duck, and not a cleverly disguised squid, until you find the tentacles squirming from behind the mask on closer investigation?

Politicians are often very good at duck masks, it's true. But don't you need some kind of basic guidelines to evaluate things from?

These aren't hypotheticals really, or chosen at random. One of the most common arguments I hear against any kind of welfare is Reagan's mythical "Welfare Caddilac Queens". If they even existed, would it matter? Are the millions helped more important than the few who game the system? (Which isn't an argument against having people to investigate gaming the system, either. But there's always going to be some gaming of the system, no matter what.)

And likewise, there are many pundits and books and politicians out there that try and stir up fear and anger at "all these criminals getting off on technicalities" or somesuch. Which has resulted in ridiculously harsh sentencing and laws that end up with many innocent people locked up, until DNA or something else finally clears them, if it ever does. And innocent people even being executed. Not to mention all the minor crimes that "three strikes" crap makes into 25-life jail sentences.

Every situation is unique, but not always so unique that general guidelines can't help. This kind of a question is more of a measure of people's attitudes. I suspect conservatives are more likely to want to make sure the guilty get what they "deserve", and that people aren't getting "handouts they don't deserve". So obviously my friends list is probably not the best place to test this theory. :)

[megpie71.livejournal.com]

My take on those two questions tends to be informed by a few different factors:

* Truth is quite capable of being stranger than any fiction.
* People will lie about the strangest things.
* If there are rules, there are people who will figure out how to subvert or avoid them.
* Sometimes, the compassionate thing to do is to allow someone to think they've fooled you, if it allows you to give them assistance they need.
* The majority of people hate discovering that they have made a poor judgement, and will tend to react badly in such circumstances.
* Where possible, unalterable decisions should be deferred until there is as much proof as possible to support the decision. If it can't be undone, don't do it unless you're positive it's the only option.

All of these combine to make me more likely to support the second option in regard to both questions. Then again, I'm in a country which appears to be doing quite nicely with a largely socialised health system, and a social security system which is fairly broad-based - there's a cultural acceptance here of a certain amount of care for one's neighbours and mates.

[forsythferret.livejournal.com]

Okay, here's my answers. The second one is far easier. It's far better to ensure those in need get assistance, even if there's a few more free riders. The only "harm" that comes of the free riders is a little extra money gets spent, and and if someone is so borderlin3e that playing with numbers or whatever can get them onto the rolls for something like Medicaid or whatever, they could probably use the help anyway. This is why I'm for Social Security, and expanded national health care and that sort of thing. Though obviously things can reach a point where so much of the benefit is going to those who have no need of it, that it's pointless. See: Bush Tax cuts, which went more than 60% to the top 1%. But that's kind of the very extreme edge.

The first is a little tougher, because there are times when letting the guilty go free allows them to do more harm. Or at least the possibility of more harm. However, it depends a lot on the KIND of harm, and I find it hard to justify definite actual harm by the potential for more harm. Besides, our entire system is based on the presumption of innocence.

[dirkdada.livejournal.com]

1) More important that the guilty go free. No matter the crime. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Better an innocent suffer at the hands of a maniac, than at the hands of her government.

2) Avoid waste and fraud as much as possible, but err on the side of helping people.

Compassion is the overriding motive for both of these answers.