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

[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.