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]

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. :)