Skeleton Jelly 2 Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I'll let the rest of y'all start in on SJ's ethical dilemmas, mostly because I don't really know where to start.Start with this, I guess:When handing out a punishment, do we care who he helped or solely who he hurt?Is stealing from the rich to give to the poor two distinct acts or simply one large act? Do we look at the illegal part and say that is worth X years in prison and just stop right there? Or do we look at the illegal part and say that is worth X years in prison, but all this good stuff here takes off X years?And then how much do we look at intent?Let's say Balloon guy really wants to give a lot of money to an especially needy and worthy cause, but he can't give what he wants IN THIS ECONOMY. So he devises a plan to bilk the super rich from a tiny fraction of their disposable income and then gives most of that money to the Cause (gotta keep some for future fundraising efforts and overhead).And then a couple towns over is vbnautilus who also devises a plan to bilk the super rich out of some of their disposable income. He just didn't think anybody needed to be that rich and he was tired of being harassed by the police about his hippie dogs, so he thought some extra money might ease his pain. But his plan works so well that he has too much money and he decides to donate almost all of that excess money to similarly worthy Causes.Do we deal with them the same way because they ultimately did the same thing?But what if brvheart over here had the exact same plan as BG, but wasn't quite as good at it and only stole enough money to barely cover his expenses and donate just a pittance to the Cause? Brvheart gets a bigger punishment because he's not as good at stealing as Balloon guy?There are probably plenty of holes in my thinking...this is just all off the top of my head without really thinking about it.Edit: tim edited (of course) while I was typing all this out. Link to post Share on other sites
Roll the Bones 74 Posted July 20, 2011 Author Share Posted July 20, 2011 So let's make this a hypothetical example and ignore any real-life details.A guy steals $2b from a whole bunch of ordinary people. He then takes every last penny of that and donates it to various worthwhile charities. Sort of a modern day Robin Hood. Do we label this as "a good thing?" Let's say of that $2b he stole $30k from middle class Dave. And because of this lost money, Dave has to postpone his retirement for five years. But that $30k was used to buy mosquito nets that saved the lives of thousands of African kids. Good thing?What if middle class Dave "invested" this money with Robin Hood because he needed a way to get more money for some radical new procedure that might cure his daughter's life-threatening disease? But that money still helped hundreds of other people. Good thing?Do we simply judge this sort of thing on a case by case basis? Let's say that he stole $250m from uber wealthy Edward. This stolen money did not harm Edward in any perceivable fashion. The money was used to further an untold number of advances in modern medicine, the benefits which cannot even be calculated. Surely this can't be a bad thing, right?When handing out a punishment, do we care who he helped or solely who he hurt?I'm not trying to make this an argument for any real-life people, I'm just interested in the ethics of it.stealing from others is wrong, so it doesn't matter what happens from there on out, whether it was for good or not. It wasn't their right to chose what to do with others money. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,756 Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 stealing from others is wrong, so it doesn't matter what happens from there on out, whether it was for good or not. It wasn't their right to chose what to do with others money.Oh shit. I didn't know Randy was a Republican. Welcome, brother! Link to post Share on other sites
Roll the Bones 74 Posted July 20, 2011 Author Share Posted July 20, 2011 Oh shit. I didn't know Randy was a Republican. Welcome, brother!haha, NO.It's like the stealing Wall Street and the Rethuglicans do. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Of course you are right, there is no motivation to say anything but the absolute truth about any man who just gave you $20 million.Milken paid Walsh $20m? Where and when? If Milken did in fact give $20m to a medical research organization that Walsh was a part of (or heading) [not what you said, but I'll assume it's what you meant], and then that research organization, along with hundreds of others funded by Milken's charity, made huge strides in prostate cancer cures, then no, I don't see a conflict of interests, particularly since Walsh is widely considered one of the top urology and prostate cancer surgeons in the world. And he's not the only one to praise Milken's charities. He's just one of the most well-respected doctors in the field, which is why I quoted him. I do not know if he knows he is supposed to write a thank you note to Milken..or the republican senators who created the tax loophole that made this particular charity worth whileOnce again I love when you give either/or scenarios and both answers are idiotic. The thank you note should go to the doctors who saved his life, quite obviously. Although if he wants to ask his doctors about the practices they used to cure him, and ask where those practices were researched and developed, and if he gets a specific answer, he could also write to the researchers who helped develop his cure and thank them too. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Milken paid Walsh $20m? Where and when? If Milken did in fact give $20m to a medical research organization that Walsh was a part of (or heading) [not what you said, but I'll assume it's what you meant], and then that research organization, along with hundreds of others funded by Milken's charity, made huge strides in prostate cancer cures, then no, I don't see a conflict of interests, particularly since Walsh is widely considered one of the top urology and prostate cancer surgeons in the world. And he's not the only one to praise Milken's charities. He's just one of the most well-respected doctors in the field, which is why I quoted him. Once again I love when you give either/or scenarios and both answers are idiotic. The thank you note should go to the doctors who saved his life, quite obviously. Although if he wants to ask his doctors about the practices they used to cure him, and ask where those practices were researched and developed, and if he gets a specific answer, he could also write to the researchers who helped develop his cure and thank them too.I'm calling Bernie Madoff's attorney, I think I found a way for him to get out of jail, and be called a great man at the same time. The icing on the cake will be when I get someone to write an article about how Madoff didn't really break any laws because people were helped in the long run. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 stealing from others is wrong, so it doesn't matter what happens from there on out, whether it was for good or not. It wasn't their right to chose what to do with others money.TAXES! Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 I'm calling Bernie Madoff's attorney, I think I found a way for him to get out of jail, and be called a great man at the same time. The icing on the cake will be when I get someone to write an article about how Madoff didn't really break any laws because people were helped in the long run.Why did you quote me for this? Nothing you said is related to my post, and you certainly didn't answer the questions I asked you. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Why did you quote me for this? Nothing you said is related to my post, and you certainly didn't answer the questions I asked you.What question?The rhetorical one?Or the one where a guy's pet project is funded by another guy and I shortened the process to say he accepted money from him via a tax break system that is funded by ill-gotten gains? Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,756 Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 http://www.space.com/12421-alien-life-rare...rials-seti.html Link to post Share on other sites
BaseJester 1 Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 http://www.space.com/12421-alien-life-rare...rials-seti.htmlYep. Anthropic principle. There's a selection bias, in that we're observing a part of the universe in which we exist. Link to post Share on other sites
solderz 0 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 http://www.space.com/12421-alien-life-rare...rials-seti.htmlLack of data means unreliable results. With one data point for life, no statistically significant conclusion can be reached on whether or not life exists elsewhere. Analyzing the Drake equation when this kind of conclusion is being sought after, must first start with the beginning data set. In this case, since we are the only origins of life so far (most likely, though not definite since there have been discoveries of sulfur based organisms that may exist from a separate genesis than the vast majority of other life on earth) this kind of analysis is really just a mental exercise.Like sudoku. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 So, wait...why shouldn't we judge a preacher more harshly for defrauding his flock out of their money than we do a standard Wall Street scammer? Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 So, wait...why shouldn't we judge a preacher more harshly for defrauding his flock out of their money than we do a standard Wall Street scammer?We don'tIn fact after both served their 'time' we now hold the wall street scammer on a pedestal and still hate the defrocked preacher. Link to post Share on other sites
BaseJester 1 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 We don'tIn fact after both served their 'time' we now hold the wall street scammer on a pedestal and still hate the defrocked preacher. Link to post Share on other sites
Skeleton Jelly 2 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 I really enjoy that picture. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 I really enjoy that picture.To bad it is completely without context here. Link to post Share on other sites
BaseJester 1 Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 To bad it is completely without context here.The context is this thread. This thread where you've argued for pages that society has judged Bakker too harshly compared to Milken.The outcry over Bakker was disproportionate to the outcry over Milken.Speedz accepts your assertion for the sake argument that this is the case.So, wait...why shouldn't we judge a preacher more harshly for defrauding his flock out of their money than we do a standard Wall Street scammer?The question to you isn't DID society judge Bakker more harshly. The question to you is SHOULD Bakker be judged more harshly and why? And this is your "response".We don'tIn fact after both served their 'time' we now hold the wall street scammer on a pedestal and still hate the defrocked preacher.You re-assert that society judges Bakker more harshly.Are you even reading this thread?You're like a lawyer whose client is facing a tough question from the prosecution and yells, "Hey look! A bird!" and points out the window. And then walks calmly back to his paperwork, fully expecting this to work, greeting any expectant glances with a wide-eyed, frowning confusion. Link to post Share on other sites
solderz 0 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 You're like a lawyer whose client is facing a tough question from the prosecution and yells, "Hey look! A bird!" and points out the window. And then walks calmly back to his paperwork, fully expecting this to work, greeting any expectant glances with a wide-eyed, frowning confusion.Which is exactly what he always does. Every time. Its the chewbaca defense. Confuse and obfuscate, instead of enlighten. It's the only option when the side your on is just plain wrong. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 What question?The rhetorical one?Or the one where a guy's pet project is funded by another guy and I shortened the process to say he accepted money from him via a tax break system that is funded by ill-gotten gains?It still doesn't make sense that you quoted me since your reply had nothing to do with my post. But my question was very clear and concise. It was the first two sentences of my post. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 It still doesn't make sense that you quoted me since your reply had nothing to do with my post. But my question was very clear and concise. It was the first two sentences of my post. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now