# Should I benefit from the illegal actions of my neighbour?



## .   1

G'day culturer@s,
I have a hypothetical question.
Should I benefit from the illegal actions of my neighbour?
My neighbour is watering his garden despite a ban due to severe water shortages.
Wind or poor installation has caused two of his hoses to lay over my fence and are watering a part of my garden.
I can move the hoses but they are brittle and if broken will cause even more water to be made available for my plants.
What is my moral responsibility?
Is there any difference between the Bible or the Koran or the Torah on this matter?

Robert


----------



## boardslide315

Your moral responsibility, IMHO, is to report him. From what I understand, Sydney and other Australian cities are on the razor's edge as far as water resources go. Bans are only implemented by governments when absolutely necessary, and should thus be respected on a moral level. Do you really consider your own garden more important than the well being of the many within your boarders?


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Robert,

I have no idea what the religious books say about hoses, water bans, and such, but I suspect they all teach honesty.

Your dilemma has many facets-

1. Should you confront the neighbor and lecture him on his civic responsabilities, at the risk of an uncomfortable relationship?

2. If you don't confront him directly, face to face or by telephone, should you report him to the municiple authorities?

3. Do you value your plants more than your water deprived community?

Most of us try to avoid confrontation with other people.  It's not comfortable.  Yet the hypothetical neighbor is not only helping your plants and his own, but doing so at the expense of you and other neighbors.

Let's turn the question around--

Of the following, which do you value most highly?

—Community well-being, including a water supply;
—The rule of law for communal benefit--weakened when others see a law-breaker 'get away with it';
—Good relations with a neighbor;
—Health and well-being of your plants, which give aesthetic pleasure and potentially a portion of your food.


----------



## TRG

I am not inclined to take it upon myself to report other citizens for minor violations of public law. In your case, I would ask the neighbor to remove the hoses because the water is getting on my yard and I know I'm not supposed to be watering right now and I'm afraid someone might complain. If you're not willing to go that far, then you're no better than him, which of course we know is not true.


----------



## danielfranco

And here is where you find out what a d**k I am: I would wait until my plants are well watered and then report him to the authorities.

Well, maybe. I probably would have no trouble telling the guy off ONCE. After that I wouldn't bother. I think.


----------



## .   1

The concept of confronting him had not occurred to me because he is a cop.
As earlier stated I have utterly no intention of reporting him hence the hypothetical nature of the question.

I am interested in the opinion that I am considered to be morally equal to him because I do not try to move his hoses.

Robert


----------



## don maico

I can see why you wouldnt wanrt report him as he could make life very difficult for you if he found out it was you, but as you asked what your moral responsability is then the only answer would be to first inform him of his transgression and if he does nothing report him. You will, most likely, be constantly harrased as a result.I  dont religious books would vary much on their teachings on a matter such as this as water is very precious and wastage such as you describe is criminal.

I would not touch the hoses myself, after all if thet break you may be liable


----------



## maxiogee

Cut the first portion of hose which is overhanging your property - perhaps while you are pruning your roses, mending the fence or hanging up a hanging basket.
Tell him that you have accidentally cut his hose.
He will rectify the matter.

Then save your shower, bath and washing-up water into a water-barrel and water away to your heart's content using a bucket or bottle.


----------



## cherine

*Hello all,*
*As Robert said, this "water" question is hypothetical. So why not focus on the core of his question, so that we may have a real interesting discussion, instead of an "advices" thread ?*


. said:


> I have a hypothetical question.
> *Should I benefit from the illegal actions of my neighbour?*
> [...]
> *Is there any difference between the Bible or the Koran or the Torah on this matter?*


----------



## TRG

Clearly you are not as ethically compromised as your neighbor, and I would say not at all since your interest in not offending an obviously ethically challenged cop should trump any desire on your part to correct his behavior. His transgressions would have to be more severe for me to take action, and I cannot tell you where that line is, but it is not petty theft.


----------



## Poetic Device

He's a cop....  That makes it all the more interesting.  I would suggest pulling him aside and talking with him person to person.  I would somehow tell him that you are concerned with his actions and basically you don't want to go down with him.  Ask him if he wouldn't mind moving the hoses so that they don't drip on your land.  

Think of it this way, if he gets caught, they will see the hoses on your side of the fence and drag you down with the guy.  The logic behind this:  since the water is going onto your property and you are getting your plants watered, that is initiative to NOT tell anyone, and therefore they may think you an accomplice.  I doubt that you want a fine for something you did not do.

If he decides not to respect you, then I would contact the authorities.


----------



## ireney

I thought we weren't talking about the specific incident (what with Robert's and Cherine's posts I am quite certain 

My answer is no, you (I, he, she) shouldn't. I have no idea if any Holy book says anything on the matter but I think it morally wrong to benefit from something that you know is wrong.

Of course that may sound a bit hypocritical since I am guilty of buying sometime things that are cheaper without trying to determine where they were made, under what conditions, what was the pay etc. I can only say to my defense that this (the buying example) is more complex and is not illegal (I don't buy things that fall from the back of a truck).

More when I have a chance to fully wake up and think coherently


----------



## Thomsen

Well the Bible says "Love thy neighbor" doesn't it?  I do believe in this case, that would mean expressing your reservations in a non-confrontational way.  But doesn't neighbor also mean the other people in your community?  Therein lies the question of which neighbor you should "protect".

I believe thats the New Testament Jesusy version though, so I'm not sure what the other faiths would have to say on this.


----------



## cherine

. said:


> Should I benefit from the illegal actions of my neighbour?


My opinion is no. Isn't this what we teach our children and each other: if others are doing bad things, this doesn't mean we do like them. In other terms, if my neighbor does something illegal or unethical, this doesn't make that action a legal or ethical one. Nor does it stand as an excuse for me to do the same illegal action; such ahe action remains what it is, and doesn't change of character just because someone did it. 
The problem even increases when it's not just one neighbor that's doing the illegal action, but many neighbors. For example, buying illegal copies of copyrighted materials. Just because many of us do it doesn't mean it's alright. Cheating in the exam is not right, even if half the class is cheating. Taking bribes is not ok just because a fellow worker is acceptin it.... (we can go for ever  )


> Is there any difference between the Bible or the Koran or the Torah on this matter?


I'm not sure, as I haven't read all the texts. But I think that the three Books, while having some differences, agree on the basic ethical points. Stealing is sin. Taking what is not our right is sin.
If my neighbor is stealing, he's committing a sin. If I follow his/her example, I'll be equally guilty.


Thomsen said:


> Well the Bible says "Love thy neighbor" doesn't it? I do believe in this case, that would mean expressing your reservations in a non-confrontational way. But doesn't neighbor also mean the other people in your community? Therein lies the question of which neighbor you should "protect".


This is an interesting point. I hope I replied to it when I spoke of the wider range of "bad examples".
Loving my neighbor doesn't mean benefiting from their illegal actions (which is the title of the thread), nor does it mean seeking excuses, in their deeds, for myself to do an illegal action.

At least, this is how I understand such an issue.


----------



## .   1

Thanks Cherine,
I did not believe you when you predicted that the thread would wander off the point because of my poorly worded question.
Lanugage is weird.  I now see your point but I simply could not comprehend it until I actually saw it.
I am seeking moral and ethical responses to the question of benefiting from the illegal actions of my neighbour.  I have no real interest in water at this point but am using the water analogy to give illustrate my points.  In this vein may I expand my question slightly.
I will remain with the water theme but must emphasise that I seek no actual hydraulic advice.
The country I live in is suffering the worst drought for possibly 1,000 years.
Water restrictions have been enforced by The State.
The State is promoting an international swimming competition early this year where it is building a temporary Olympic sized swimming pool in the middle of a tennis stadium and will dump the water when finished.
My neighbour is watering his garden and the runoff is benefiting my plants.
The hoses causing this run off are still on his property.

My conundrum is that The State is benefiting from the immoral actions of wasting a swimming pool of water to cater to athletes and advertisers.
My neighbour is benefiting from his illegal actions.
If I do nothing I will continue to benefit.
If I take action my the quality of my life will decline to significantly less than it was before my neighbour started to water my garden.
At the moment I gain a miniscule advantage yet I stand to lose a great deal.

Robert


----------



## Poetic Device

Do you feel that it is not right?  You you feel uneasy when you think about it?  I ask these questions obviously to find what your gut reaction to this type if situation is.  If your head and/or gut is bothering you that much and you feel something is a miss then you are better off doing something about the situation.  Far too many times we do not pay attention to what our hearts and guts say to us, and then we end up paying for it in the end.  This, however, is just a small example.


----------



## cuchuflete

Now we have two parallel examples of crime or mischief, depending on your viewpoint.

In the first example, the transgression directly affected two neighbors, and indirectly, a larger community.

In the second, the representative of the larger community, the state, is acting simultaneously both for and against disparate interests of the community.  An international sporting event is apt to attract visitors, and thus help the local economy.  At the same time, there is the waste of the scarce resource in the pool.  The state has seemingly judged the benefit to exceed the cost.  That leaves me uncomfortable, but there are simple avenues for protest, such as letters to the editor of a local paper, asking that the resource be recycled.  Embarassing public officials sometimes helps.

In the neighbor case, the ethical issue is much more difficult—not to decide what is right and wrong, but to deal with the likely consequences.  That underlying question is the most difficult one raised by this thread:  What should one do when witnessing an unethical/immoral/illegal act, and when confronting the transgressor is likely to bring very unpleasant consequences?  Of course it's easy to tell others what is right and wrong, but what about taking the heat from doing the right thing?


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> The State is promoting an international swimming competition early this year where it is building a temporary Olympic sized swimming pool in the middle of a tennis stadium and will dump the water when finished.


This is a one-off action and the costs involved in de-chlorineating the water after the event might well be too high, and the gain too little (how much does it take to fill an Olympic sized pool anyway?) to warrant the effort. 
Your neighbour, on the other hand, is an ongoing incident and is potentially worse, when you add up all the other neighbours in your immediate vicinity who might be doing something similar. In one year he's going to using quite an amount.

As to your position, it all depends on your own morality. If you're comfortable with being the uninvolved, if not unwitting, beneficiary of his illicit actions - let's not worry about his, or the state's morals, yours are the only ones which rightly deserve your primary attention - then I would say sit back and let it happen.
However, as you have raised the question I feel certain that you are not comfortable with the situation and would suggest that you need now to decide how uncomfortable you are.
Would you be content to let him keep watering - do you have a bit of 'the informer' in you?
If you cannot bring yourself to inform and don't want to confront him then I would, some night, de-rig the hose from the fence and see if he re-trespasses. If he does then it warrants confrontation.
If you're up to informing on him then I would suggest that you owe it to him to confront him and let him know that you object. Give him a week to remove it.
After that, you've got to decide whether you really want to inform on him. Morally I don't think you 'need' to, or are obliged to.


----------



## Etcetera

In my opinion, it's certainly morally wrong to benefit from anybody's illegal actions. 
I'm afraid that most my compatriots wouldn't agree with me. I'm also afraid that if it were my own garder, not Robert's, I couldn't resist the temptation to wait till my beloved plants are well watered. 
Yes, here we go again. Do as I say not as I do.


----------



## ayed

So, I could conclude :
--that you won't draw your niehgbor's attention to his elicit action
--that you won't forward a petition letter to local Muncipality asking for settling the problem
--if it is morally allowed to take advantage of your neighbor's leaking brittle hose.

THEN :
--The leaking hose of your neighbor better be infiltrating on your garden than on a small arid spot of area.

Or
--On a notepaper, jot down a few words telling him of his illegal action and that his hose is leaking which may explode on day .


----------



## french4beth

Since any action you take against the hoser [sic] will probably lead to a major hassle (and since you don't plan on either confronting or communicating with your neighbor on this error), I think of it as an error of omission - it'd create more problems if you do anything, so I don't think that it's 'morally wrong' not to report him (and as other foreros have mentioned, if you did try & move the hoses, they could be damaged & you could be held responsible).


----------



## cherine

*Once more, this is the topic of this thread :*
*


. said:



			Should I benefit from the illegal actions of my neighbour?
		
Click to expand...

**Please, don't let the hydraulic example lead you away from it. Let's just forget about it and talk about absolute ideas if possible.*
*Thank you all *


----------



## Poetic Device

The key word in that is *illegal.  *I am sorry, but if you know/feel something is wrong then it probably is.  (See post #16.)


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

What if his plants are dying?


----------



## cherine

Pedro y La Torre said:


> What if his plants are dying?


Why not rephrase this like this : *what if I'll lose something important if I refrain from benefiting from my neighbor's illegal action ?*
This way we can speak of broader examples. Don't you think ?

I'd say that, theoretically speaking, making a gain out of an illegal actions is a cheap gain. It's something I don't deserve to have and ought not have.
Benefiting from my colleague's/friend's/neighbor's... production of illegal copies of copyrighted material is illegal, even if -for example- I'd benefit my acquiring a valuable, expensive and/or important dictionary for free.
To get back to the water example: If plants are dying, then be it, if everybody's plants are dying, or if this is for the greater good: preserving the scarce resources.

Again, not because others are doing bad things that I can take this as an excuse to do bad things to. No, this is not an excuse. Unless, I don't care much about ethical or legal stuff, then why bother if the neighbor is doing it or not.


----------



## Poetic Device

> What if his plants are dying?


That's besides the point. As said before, it's the action and the emotion and thought process because of the neighbour's actions. If his plants are dying then they are dying. I am sorry if I sound heartless or what have you. 

Let me put it to you this way. Let's say there is a wallet full of money and a large garbage bag full of money. You know that you are not supposed to take either one of them. If you take the wallet instead of the bag, isn't it just as bad? It doesn't so much matter the amount or quantity it's the action by itself that matters.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Poetic Device said:


> That's besides the point.



Not if he believes that plants are sacred.

While one aspect of his actions may be in breach of a law (not watering during a drought) perhaps deeper examining may show that his actions were more than mere selfish gain.


----------



## maxiogee

Pedro y La Torre said:


> What if his plants are dying?





Poetic Device said:


> That's besides the point.





Pedro y La Torre said:


> Not if he believes that plants are sacred.



SACRED? They're only f***ing plants for crying out loud!

==================

On-topic
I think the point at issue is that there is an on-going illegality from which someone is benefitting.
That person is aware of this illegality and is doing nothing about it - whether that be to stop their benefit from accruing or to stop the illegal action.
It would be totally different if they benefitted from a one-off illegal act and only found out about it after they had benefitted.

Is there a concept in the legal world where the poster is living of being an *accessory after the fact*? If there is, it applies here, I believe.


----------



## Poetic Device

maxiogee said:


> SACRED? They're only f***ing plants for crying out loud!
> Thank you, Maxi.  You took the words right out of my mouth.
> 
> ==================
> 
> On-topic
> I think the point at issue is that there is an on-going illegality from which someone is benefitting.
> That person is aware of this illegality and is doing nothing about it - whether that be to stop their benefit from accruing or to stop the illegal action.
> It would be totally different if they benefitted from a one-off illegal act and only found out about it after they had benefitted.
> 
> Is there a concept in the legal world where the poster is living of being an *accessory after the fact*? If there is, it applies here, I believe.


 
Well, as far as I know the poster is only guilty of define:  aiding and abetting.That's bad enough, but it's not the worst.  The best thing in my opinion is to express his concern to the person who is doing whatever's wrong.  It should also be done in front of a third party of some sort so that there is proof the confrontation took place and it is not just a "he said, you said" squabble.


----------



## ireney

If he thinks the plants are sacred and it is more important to him to save his plants than not breaking the law, then he should break the law and face the consequences, not try to get away with both not breaking the law and tending his sacred plants.

In other words, if one thinks that a law is against what he/she believes in, he/she should first demand for this law to be changed following legal paths and do everything in his/her power to stop the enforcement of this law either for everyone or people belonging to the same sub-group he/she belongs to.
If everything else fails and he/she still think that it is more important to do what his/her religion/beliefs dictate than the law, then (s)he can choose (though I don't condone it in most cases) to act accordingly. The key word is act. Benefiting from the illegal actions of another is not exactly acting is it?


----------



## .   1

The facts as disclosed will not support a guilty finding on either 'accessory after the fact' or 'aiding and abetting' as there has been no aid requested or offered and there is no form of contract, implied or otherwise, extant.
Ireny is getting close to the heart of my question in a way that I did not consider.
It is obvious that I do not think that this is a fair and just law.
If my neighbour were doing something that I find repugnant I would most certainly take action to stop him no matter how much benefit I may derive from his actions.
My problem here is that the action being considered is not actually destructive.  Many other parts of my society abuse this resource far more than my neighbour and in many cases the particular type of abuse is causing permenant environmental damage.
My emotions are too clouded over this issue and I must move some walls and clear some floorboards in my mind.

Robert


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

maxiogee said:


> SACRED? They're only f***ing plants for crying out loud!



Hindu's believe cows to be sacred animals. Why is it so difficult to believe that someone might hold the same beliefs vis-a-vis plants?


----------



## Kelly B

I hope you'll forgive me for taking liberties with the quoted phrases, and I'm offering more questions than answers....


> It is obvious that I do not think that this is a fair and just law [...] Many other parts of my society abuse this resource far more than my neighbour and in many cases the particular type of abuse is causing permenant environmental damage.


Are you really convinced that the _law _is not fair and just? I do not know - perhaps you are correct - but what I hear so far is that the _enforcement _is not fair. This is not the same thing. This law is intended to avert an environmental crisis. _If it were properly enforced_, could it achieve that, without creating more hardship than it is worth?


> My problem here is that the action being considered is not actually destructive.  If my neighbour were doing something that I find repugnant I would most certainly take action to stop him no matter how much benefit I may derive from his actions.


I suspect that his behavior, multiplied over the thousands of homeowners who probably act just like your neighbor, is very destructive indeed. Many Americans feel equally entitled to hop into an SUV, with nobody else in those other six seats, to drive twenty miles to work on smooth flat paved roads. We're not doing any harm, are we? Not much, not individually, but as a great big group we're making a bit of a mess. He is doing the equivalent. 

Part of the equation, though, is whether you actually have the ability to make a difference. If I suggested to my neighbor that the SUV is really more than he needs, he'd laugh at me, get mildly irritated, hop in, and drive to work. I don't see any point in that, since I don't have the weight of law to back me up. You do, and that gives you additional credibility.
Do you think that an effort on your part would make a difference?


----------



## .   1

When I see megalitres wasted daily by multinationals growing cotton on vast monocultures or by multinationals growing beef in vast feedlots I have difficulty.
When I see rich people being able to truck water in from springs to fill their swimming pools I have difficulty.
A law can not be just and fair if the enforcement is not just and fair.
Large companies are allowed to waste huge amounts of water because they refuse to cover their irrigation channels or pipe the water but merely let it flow in huge open gutters to flood their pasture.
Rice farmers in Australia use flood and drain methods that are ludicrous in our climate yet we produce a sea of water guzzling rice every year.
Companies are allowed to block the flow of water to lakes to allow the planting of occasional crops and city people are made the sacrificial lambs.
The Murray-Darling river system has been reduced to a trickle by indiscriminate over irrigation of flora and fauna that is not suitable to this country.
I guess that Kelly is helping me to understand myself a little better.
A law should only be implimented if it is implimented unilaterally and the moment there is discretion in who can do what others can not do the law causes public resentment and no law can survive without public support.

Robert


----------



## maxiogee

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Hindu's believe cows to be sacred animals. Why is it so difficult to believe that someone might hold the same beliefs vis-a-vis plants?



Oh please! *IF* they were held to be sacred then he'd already be watering them himself, wouldn't he?

By the way, Hinduism does not hold the cow to be 'sacred'. Check it out. It is a symbolically respected creature.


----------



## Kelly B

You are quite right - all of that is a bigger cause of the problem, and it is easy to feel powerless in the face of that. 
The logic, then, is: coal-fired power plants dump a whole lot more CO2 into the air than my car, and the neon signs in New York City waste a whole lot more electricity generated by those plants than my incandescent light bulbs and my twenty-year-old refrigerator. Therefore, any effort on my part is futile, so I need not change anything.
[I freely admit, by the way, that I'm not doing much, except voting for environmentally-minded politicians. So I've no right to push you - it's just for the sake of discussion.]


----------



## cuchuflete

A neighbor does something illegal. 
- A municipality or commercial entity does something legal, but with parallel and greater effect.
--I derive a small benefit from the neighbor's illegal action.
---I am annoyed by the greater ill effects of the legal municipal and commercial actions.

Do I have an ethical right to allow the municipal and commercial matters to intrude on my decision making about the neighbor's illegal act, and my consequent benefit?


----------



## .   1

Kelly,
I accept your discussion in the spirit of open exchange.
Your argument has gone one step past what I am doing,
In my argument I am not reporting the actions of my neighbour I am not actually doing anything myself.  I haven't taken the extra step of watering my garden but physics is forcing me to derive a benefit.

Cuchu,
You have hit the nail right on the head.  This is the question I have been bumbling around trying to find.

Do I have an ethical right to allow the municipal and commercial matters to intrude on my decision making about the neighbor's illegal act, and my consequent benefit?

Robert


----------



## don maico

maxiogee said:


> SACRED? They're only f***ing plants for crying out loud!
> 
> ==================
> 
> On-topic



They may only be plants but that doesnt stop someones entitlement to regarding them sacred
Really its up to the long arm of the law to curtail someones ilegal activities . If one was to benefit from someone else ilegal activities then  being pragmatic is the most obvious answer. By that i mean if one doesnt fall foul of the law oneself ( eg recieving stolen goods) or suffer some long term inconvenience not foreseen at the beginning, then I cant see a  problem.As for the water issue  local businesses ,most notably golf course and water authorities themselves, use and waste far more water than ordinary consumers, so any feelings of shame or guilt over the example given in the OP would not be called for in my view.


----------



## maxiogee

don maico said:


> They may only be plants but that doesnt stop someones entitlement to regarding them sacred


As I said earlier - if they're that special he should be watering them himself - and echoing earlier comments from others, he should be pleading for the laws to be repealed.




> Really its up to the long arm of the law to curtail someones ilegal activities.


The law needs the active support of the citizenry. It cannot be seen as a self-contained unit of society. It's effectiveness is totally related to the support and information it gets from the people on whose behalf it functions.




> If one was to benefit from someone else ilegal activities then being pragmatic is the most obvious answer. By that i mean if one doesnt fall foul of the law oneself ( eg recieving stolen goods) or suffer some long term inconvenience not foreseen at the beginning, then I cant see a problem.As for the water issue local businesses ,most notably golf course and water authorities themselves, use and waste far more water than ordinary consumers, so any feelings of shame or guilt over the example given in the OP would not be called for in my view.


 
The men on a certain street beat their wives in direct relation to the number of the house in which they live.
The man at number 1 beats his wife once a month,
The man at number 2 beats his wife twice a month,
.
.
The man at number 15 beats his wife every second day,
.
.
The man at number 31 beats his wife every day.

Is the man at number 1 to have no feelings of shame or guilt?


----------



## don maico

maxiogee said:


> As I said earlier - if they're that special he should be watering them himself - and echoing earlier comments from others, he should be pleading for the laws to be repealed.
> 
> 
> 
> The law needs the active support of the citizenry. It cannot be seen as a self-contained unit of society. It's effectiveness is totally related to the support and information it gets from the people on whose behalf it functions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The men on a certain street beat their wives in direct relation to the number of the house in which they live.
> The man at number 1 beats his wife once a month,
> The man at number 2 beats his wife twice a month,
> .
> .
> The man at number 15 beats his wife every second day,
> .
> .
> The man at number 31 beats his wife every day.
> 
> Is the man at number 1 to have no feelings of shame or guilt?



Rather extreme examples which bear no relation to the OP as  no personal benefit would be accrued anyway.
Yes of course laws needs the support of the community but I think common sense must prevail
Man at number 15 parks his car on a double yellow line- should I shop him? Nope!
Man at 31 is working and claiming benefits - should I shop him? Nope!
Man at 21 is a policeman who is wasting precious water and I am also a beneficiery - should I shop him,? Nope ! On 3 counts 2  of which are pragamatic :
a) he is a cop and i dont want to p*&% him off because of possible repurcussions and because  I am also a beneficiary.
b)as I stated golf courses waste far more water as do watr authoritiues through untended leaking pipes.We would do far better campaigning against these than worry about a neighbour

However man at 2 beats up his wife and man at 5 abuses his children 
then I would certainly report them. 
I just depends on ones own feelings in each individual case.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

maxiogee said:


> As I said earlier - if they're that special he should be watering them himself



How do you know he's not?



. said:


> My neighbour is watering his garden despite a ban due to severe water shortages.



Looks to me like his plants are included there.



maxiogee said:


> and echoing earlier comments from others, he should be pleading for the laws to be repealed.



Again, how do you know he's not? But in the meantime, if he holds his plants to be sacred surely he would feel that the current law must take second place to his religious beliefs.


----------



## maxiogee

don maico said:


> Rather extreme examples which bear no relation to the OP as no personal benefit would be accrued anyway.


The comment wasn't intend to reflect on the OP, but it was an answer to your suggestion that we as citizens do not have a duty to assist the forces of law and order in their work.



> Yes of course laws needs the support of the community but I think common sense must prevail
> Man at number 15 parks his car on a double yellow line- should I shop him? Nope!
> Man at 31 is working and claiming benefits - should I shop him? Nope!
> Man at 21 is a policeman who is wasting precious water and I am also a beneficiery - should I shop him,? Nope ! On 3 counts 2 of which are pragamatic :
> a) he is a cop and i dont want to p*&% him off because of possible repurcussions and because I am also a beneficiary.
> b)as I stated golf courses waste far more water as do watr authoritiues through untended leaking pipes.We would do far better campaigning against these than worry about a neighbour


I have not advocated stopping any of these people - the only direct involvment I suggested was to see to it that the hose stops benefitting 'me'. Other than that there is a social requirement, if not a moral obligation, to inform the authorities of all the offending actions you list.

I'm not advocating that the 'me' involved needs to do this, I'm advocating that the 'me' involved needs to do this if they are in a moral quandary about it. We all make fine-tuning adjustments to our moral standards when the 'for instance' comes close to home. It's called human nature.





Pedro y La Torre said:


> How do you know he's not?


Because if he were he wouldn't be having scruples about benefitting from some leaking drips from his neighbour's hose.




> Looks to me like his plants are included there.


I don't get the relevance of this comment. Who is the 'his' here? The 'me' or the 'neighbour'?





> Again, how do you know he's not?


a) He hasn't mentioned the sanctity of his plants
b) He hasn't mentioned the anti-PlantsAreSacredism nature of the laws
c) He hasn't mentioned that he has any social justice causes going for him at present
d) He stated his case in his own words and those are the only relevant facts to the dilemma as we must deal with it.




> But in the meantime, if he holds his plants to be sacred surely he would feel that the current law must take second place to his religious beliefs.


That might depend on the religious teachings of his PlantsAreSacred holy writ. Remember that in Christianity there is a stricture to "render unto Caesar the things which are Casear's". Perhaps his holy writ sees the community's requirement for water as taking precedence over his personal plants.

You are raising hares which were not included in the original question and are no long worth chasing. If I thougth for a moment that you were actually arguing a point you felt needed mention then I'd debate it, but I think you're playing my tune


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Because if he were he wouldn't be having scruples about benefitting from some leaking drips from his neighbour's hose.





. said:


> * I have a hypothetical question.*
> Should I benefit from the illegal actions of my neighbour?
> * My neighbour is watering his garden despite a ban due to severe water shortages.*
> Wind or poor installation has caused two of his hoses to lay over my fence and are watering a part of my garden.
> I can move the hoses but they are brittle and if broken will cause even more water to be made available for my plants.
> What is my moral responsibility?
> Is there any difference between the Bible or the Koran or the Torah on this matter?



Perhaps I've misunderstood his post but I wasn't referring to him (the poster) I was referring to the neighbour who is "illegally" watering his garden.




			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> I don't get the relevance of this comment. Who is the 'his' here? The 'me' or the 'neighbour'?



The neighbour!



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> He hasn't mentioned the sanctity of his plants
> b) He hasn't mentioned the anti-PlantsAreSacredism nature of the laws
> c) He hasn't mentioned that he has any social justice causes going for him at present
> d) He stated his case in his own words and those are the only relevant facts to the dilemma as we must deal with it.



As this is an hypothetical question, I am hypothosizing 




			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> If I thougth for a moment that you were actually arguing a point you felt needed mention then I'd debate it, but I think you're playing my tune



What could be more important than arguing about the sanctity of plants


----------



## don maico

maxiogee said:


> The comment wasn't intend to reflect on the OP, but it was an answer to your suggestion that we as citizens do not have a duty to assist the forces of law and order in their work.
> 
> 
> I have not advocated stopping any of these people - the only direct involvment I suggested was to see to it that the hose stops benefitting 'me'. Other than that there is a social requirement, if not a moral obligation, to inform the authorities of all the offending actions you list.
> 
> I'm not advocating that the 'me' involved needs to do this, I'm advocating that the 'me' involved needs to do this if they are in a moral quandary about it. We all make fine-tuning adjustments to our moral standards when the 'for instance' comes close to home. It's called human nature.


I only mentioned it because it was veering somewhat away from the topic ie no discernible benefit to one self. Not that I mind of course but the mods- ( slapped wrist)
The "me" would only do so if he felt it was necessary because of his sense of moral outrage. Social requirements might be one thing but being a busy body and a snitch is another. Bit of a balancing act really.


----------



## Poetic Device

. said:


> My problem here is that the action being considered is not actually destructive.


Stealing a piece of gum isn't really all that destructive, either, however it is still wrong.



. said:


> Do I have an ethical right to allow the municipal and commercial matters to intrude on my decision making about the neighbor's illegal act, and my consequent benefit?
> 
> Robert


 

I know that this iss probably going to be hard to follow, but please bare (sp) with me. I do have a point.

Have you ever seen the sylvester Stallone movie, *Cop Land*? Basically, Stallone is a sheriff in a town that only cops live in, a crime is comitted and the perps think that just because they are cops they will get away with it if they cover it up a little. In the long rung they are caught and they a re punished. My point is it doesn't matter who it is or what authority they hold. Wrong is wrong, and if you had to question it (considering you are an intelligent individual) don't you think that says something?


----------



## .   1

You are dead right.
That was impossible to follow.
Are you trying to tell me that every wrong action will be punished?
What does your comment mean?

*Wrong is wrong, and if you had to question it (considering you are an intelligent individual) don't you think that says something?*

The sentence contains too many codicils and I can not glean your point.

Robert



Poetic Device said:


> Stealing a piece of gum isn't really all that destructive, either, however it is still wrong.


Stealing is stealing and there is never any doubt but thanks for reinforcing that point for me.

The point here is that no one is stealing anything. The water is being paid for and if my neighbour bathed in the water first and then put it on his plants he would be well within his rights. My neighbour is using his water in a manner that has been proscribed but businesses are using water in exactly the same way as my neighbour but in vastly larger quantities.

Robert


----------



## Qcumber

. said:


> Is there any difference between the Bible or the Koran or the Torah on this matter?


Why involve religions from the Middle-East? This is a classical case, and this could occur in every country.

1) As soon as you realize what's going on, you should report your neighbour to the judge, otherwise you become his accomplice.

2) As regards the vegetables that are now ready for consumption, since 
you didn't seek to take advantage of this situation, since the water can't be given back, since you were not your neighbour's accomplice, the vegetables belong to you because they grew in your garden.

3) What you can do is give the poor these vegetables, if you feel guilty, but you don't have to because it is impossible to determine which part of the vegetables results from the illegal watering.


----------



## .   1

G'day Qcumber,


Qcumber said:


> Why involve religions from the Middle-East? This is a classical case, and this could occur in every country.


Could you please show me which religion quoted did not originate in the Middle-East?
The point of including the three different holy books was to illustrate that all three holy books are very, very similar to each other and, as you quite rightly point out, this is a classical case.



Qcumber said:


> 1) As soon as you realize what's going on, you should report your neighbour to the judge, otherwise you become his accomplice.


How am I his accomplice? I have done nothing.



Qcumber said:


> 2) As regards the vegetables that are now ready for consumption, since
> you didn't seek to take advantage of this situation, since the water can't be given back, since you were not your neighbour's accomplice, the vegetables belong to you because they grew in your garden.


This is in contrast to your earlier claim that I am an accomplice.



Qcumber said:


> 3) What you can do is give the poor these vegetables, if you feel guilty, but you don't have to because it is impossible to determine which part of the vegetables results from the illegal watering.


How does giving the vegetables to the poor do anything to assuage my guilt?

In any event you have read more into my post than was there. The water is benefiting a small patch of grass and a couple of drought proof bulbs.

Thanks for your ideas.

Robert


----------



## distille

There is at least one thing to consider with the idea of benefiting of the illegal action of someonelse:

- do you agree with the law which forbid that or this action or do you disagree?

For instance, I don't mind if my neighbour is growing majijuana in his garden...and i mind even less if I benefit from it! This is an "easy" example, but it deals with the question of agreing or not with the official law

- If you agree with the law: do you think the individual citizen should apply it only if the bigger power applies it too?

For instance, would you apply human rights law to war prisonners EVEN IF your enemy does not apply it?


The point is, there is quite a difference between benefiting from the illegal action of someonelse when you think this action is legitimate and benefiting of someonelse illegal action when you think this action is illegitimate.

It is not because someone more powerful than you (or you neighbour) doesn't behave coherently that you should not behave coherently with what you believe in.


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> How am I his accomplice? I have done nothing.


Both the law and religions take the view that there is no great difference between sins of commission and sins of omission.

We can be guilty of inaction in the face of wrongdoing.


----------



## Qcumber

. said:


> Could you please show me which religion quoted did not originate in the Middle-East? The point of including the three different holy books was to illustrate that all three holy books are very, very similar to each other and, as you quite rightly point out, this is a classical case.


I thought you were posing a legal problem referring to the Law of a given country where church is separate from state. Sorry, I hadn't noticed you had a theocracy in mind.



. said:


> How am I his accomplice? I have done nothing.


1) So long as you don't know what is going on, you are innocent.

2) You are your neighbour's accomplice from the moment you do not report him to justice while knowing he is committing something illegal.

3) From the moment you have reported him to justice so that an end should be put to the illegal activity, you are no longer their accomplice.

[It goes without saying that any society would turn into a living hell if everything illegal was reported.]



. said:


> This is in contrast to your earlier claim that I am an accomplice.


It is not. I assumed you realized what was going on once the plants had grown.
[Your brief didn't give dates for the various events reported.]



. said:


> In any event you have read more into my post than was there. The water is benefiting a small patch of grass and a couple of drought proof bulbs.


Sorry.
The quantity of plants benefitting from the illegal water is so small, that the case is worthless. Case dismissed!


----------



## .   1

Qcumber said:


> Sorry.
> The quantity of plants benefitting from the illegal water is so small, that the case is worthless. Case dismissed!


I am still quite happy to hear further points of view.

Robert


----------

