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

[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.