# Can betrayal be a moral attitude?



## pedro0001

Most cultures see the betrayal (in the sense of telling on somebody) as an unmoral attitude. At least in Argentina, for example, as a child one learns to not betray any school friend, no matter what happens. This attitude is then adopted and as adults we still follow this moral rule. But there are cases in which (I think) it is "moral" to betray. I expose an extreme case as example: a friend/relative/someone you trust tells you he assembled a bomb and put it at the train station. The bomb will explode in an hour. Many people will die.

My concrete question is:

At which point it is moral to betray someone?


----------



## Tsoman

You know that feeling where you realize that you don't trust someone anymore? Where you no longer feel like you know this person?


----------



## Victoria32

pedro0001 said:


> Most cultures see the betrayal (in the sense of telling on somebody) as an unmoral attitude. At least in Argentina, for example, as a child one learns to not betray any school friend, no matter what happens. This attitude is then adopted and as adults we still follow this moral rule. But there are cases in which (I think) it is "moral" to betray. I expose an extreme case as example: a friend/relative/someone you trust tells you he assembled a bomb and put it at the train station. The bomb will explode in an hour. Many people will die.
> 
> My concrete question is:
> 
> At which point it is moral to betray someone?
> 
> I apologize for the mistake in the title (I cannot edit it now).


When I saw the thread title, I thought of personal betrayal, and I am still suffering the effects of one that happened in early May this year.
I was brought up with the same view, that to 'grass' on someone (as my BE speaking father put it) is a moral crime, one of the worst it is possible to commit.
The scenario you describe would therefore be a real dilemna for me, especially if it was a relative or a close friend. It should not be, but that's the way I was brought up..


----------



## Tsoman

There are times when it is definitely right to betray someone.

Like if they molest kids or something.


----------



## ireney

But if you don't betray that guy you betray your fellow human beings and  your _other_ moral beliefs (i.e. terrorist acts are wrong, (mass) murder is wrong).

It's a matter of weighting your moral values and see which one is better to uphold I guess. I am brought up not to betray secrets but I hold human life more sacred than a loony's trust and I would certainly betray a child molester before I lost it right there and then.


----------



## cubaMania

Here is a link to an article which addresses this exact ethical issue:
"How Grade School Ethics Got It All Wrong"
http://shakethatethicsbrain.squarespace.com/hey-tattle-tale/

What the author does is make a distinction between
*tattle-tale*: the kid in your class who reports other students to the teacher to get them in trouble
*whistleblower*: someone who prevents something bad from happening by bringing it to the attention of someone who can do something about it

He makes some good points about how to decide if it is whistleblowing:
1.  The wrongdoing has to be serious
2.  Your motivation must be genuinely to right a wrong, not to get someone in trouble.
3.  You report it to the appropriate person or organization, neither spreading it around as gossip, nor for instance going to a major newspaper instead of to your organization's ethics committee.


----------



## maxiogee

I don't see the dilemma.
Ireland has a huge load of historical bagage attached to the concept of 'informing'.
But, that said, one does what is right - what your conscience is comfortable with.

I worked as manager of a video-rental shop. There was a newsagent's close by which sold soft drinks, sweets and other assorted merchandise.
One of my employees had been moaning that she was almost broke and couldn't wait until payday.
Later she went to the shop and returned with several items. I asked her how she had afforded them as she had complained about her finances only a short while earlier.
She explained that one of the employees in the other shop didn't always charge her for everything she 'bought'.
I must have betrayed by surprise at her revealing this to me, as she asked me not to tell on her. I declined to comment.
The following morning I asked to speak to the manager of the other shop and told her what I knew. I then reported my employee to our head office.
My employee later berated me for getting her contact in trouble - I explained that he had got himself in trouble, and my head office berated me for not keeping quieet until they could examine the store's security videotapes to see if she was doing a 'tit-for-tat' deal with our merchandise.

I was stunned by both these actions. I explained to those concerned that, presented with a confession of wrongdoing, I had acted immediately to stop it. No-one, with the exception of the manager of the other store, was happy with me.

I slept peacefully.


----------



## Sallyb36

In the given scenario I would inform the authorities.  As Maxiogee said it has to be what your conscience can live with, we have to be able to sleep at night.


----------



## .   1

cubaMania said:


> Here is a link to an article which addresses this exact ethical issue:
> "How Grade School Ethics Got It All Wrong"
> http://shakethatethicsbrain.squarespace.com/hey-tattle-tale/
> 
> What the author does is make a distinction between
> *tattle-tale*: the kid in your class who reports other students to the teacher to get them in trouble
> *whistleblower*: someone who prevents something bad from happening by bringing it to the attention of someone who can do something about it
> 
> He makes some good points about how to decide if it is whistleblowing:
> 1. The wrongdoing has to be serious
> 2. Your motivation must be genuinely to right a wrong, not to get someone in trouble.
> 3. You report it to the appropriate person or organization, neither spreading it around as gossip, nor for instance going to a major newspaper instead of to your organization's ethics committee.


I quite agree.
We must understand that society can not be policed by police alone.
I would consider any person who did not report the actions as described in the thread opener to be a terrorist.

.,,


----------



## ireney

This is immoral. 

Betraying the trust of a person is to my mind something that depends on the circustances as I mentioned before. Not betraying something that was told to you as a secret is just one of the moral values a person has. You can't judge everything based on one of your moral values only.

If I am not mistaken even lawyers and others bound by the code of their profession not to break trust have to do so in certain, very specific circumstances.

As for the "starving" employee (where did you see that aleechay? I only read that she was "moaning that she was almost broke and couldn't wait until payday". That's very different from "starving" ). I may have handled things a bit differently but I don't think I would let the whole thing just slide by. 
Remember that the employee who gave "freebies" was an employee not the owner. And he wasn't working in a charity organisation. Nor did the owner got the merchandise he was selling for free you know.


----------



## GenJen54

Here is an example, which I hope will finally get everyone back on topic.  It's a true story. 

A police man was privy to a video tape of a store robbery.  He recognized the robber immediately.  It was his son.  He turned his son in and the son was arrested.

Now, given that the man was a police man, did he betray his son?  What if he was not a cop?  Would that have made a difference?


----------



## natasha2000

GenJen54 said:


> Here is an example, which I hope will finally get everyone back on topic. It's a true story.
> 
> A police man was privy to a video tape of a store robbery. He recognized the robber immediately. It was his son. He turned his son in and the son was arrested.
> 
> Now, given that the man was a police man, did he betray his son? What if he was not a cop? Would that have made a difference?


 
It was a VERY hard thing to do, and it was a right thing to do. He had no choice, but even if he had done the opposite, we couldn't blame him... I wouldn't want to find myself in such a "hamletian" situation... Unless he finds some "solomonian" solution, it will be an almost impossible decision... 

I also thing that in some way, it is not so important if he was a policeman or not. If he were a policeman, the decision would be even more morally charged, but the difficult dilemma would still be present. Whatever he decides, I think he will feel some kind of a guilt...


----------



## .   1

natasha2000 said:


> It was a VERY hard thing to do, and it was a right thing to do. He had no choice, but even if he had done the opposite, we couldn't blame him... I wouldn't want to find myself in such a "hamletian" situation... Unless he finds some "solomonian" solution, it will be an almost impossible decision...
> 
> I also thing that in some way, it is not so important if he was a policeman or not. If he were a policeman, the decision would be even more morally charged, but the difficult dilemma would still be present. Whatever he decides, I think he will feel some kind of a guilt...


The police officer would have been sacked had he not identified his son and the son was later identified.
I can only quote the Westminster System of Justice but it is incumbant upon a police officer to report knowledge of an offence and if that police officer fails to report such knowledge the police officer will face criminal and departmental sanctions.
The police officer would have been pragmatic enough to realise that his son would be ultimately identified as he was stupid enough to allow himself to be recorded on video.

.,,


----------



## natasha2000

. said:


> The police officer would have been sacked had he not identified his son and the son was later identified.
> I can only quote the Westminster System of Justice but it is incumbant upon a police officer to report knowledge of an offence and if that police officer fails to report such knowledge the police officer will face criminal and departmental sanctions.
> The police officer would have been pragmatic enough to realise that his son would be ultimately identified as he was stupid enough to allow himself to be recorded on video.
> 
> .,,


 
Although I really wouldn't have anything to object, I consider that in case that the officer decided to protect his son, he wouldn't give a damn about the fact that he could go to prison if his son is discovered.. We are talking here about a parent. I highly doubt that any parent would report his own child only to save his butt...


----------



## .   1

natasha2000 said:


> Although I really wouldn't have anything to object, I consider that in case that the officer decided to protect his son, he wouldn't give a damn about the fact that he could go to prison if his son is discovered.. We are talking here about a parent. I highly doubt that any parent would report his own child only to save his butt...


The police officer would have been pragmatic enough to realise that his son would be ultimately identified as he was stupid enough to allow himself to be recorded on video.
The police officer would have known that his knowledge of having access to the video evidence would become known and thus he was caught on the horns of a dilemma.
As his son was on the video it was only a matter of time before the son was identified. The father would have been able to plead mitigating circumstances for the son and convince the son to surrender and throw himself on the mercy of the court. If the father had supressed his knowledge and the son was arrested by other police the son would lose any benefit he may have been able to obtain by confessing his guilt that the father knew from experience was going to be established in any event.

.,,


----------



## natasha2000

. said:


> The police officer would have been pragmatic enough to realise that his son would be ultimately identified as he was stupid enough to allow himself to be recorded on video.
> The police officer would have known that his knowledge of having access to the video evidence would become known and thus he was caught on the horns of a dilemma.
> As his son was on the video it was only a matter of time before the son was identified. The father would have been able to plead mitigating circumstances for the son and convince the son to surrender and throw himself on the mercy of the court. If the father had supressed his knowledge and the son was arrested by other police the son would lose any benefit he may have been able to obtain by confessing his guilt that the father knew from experience was going to be established in any event.
> 
> .,,


 
I see your point. And I think given the same circumstances, I would do the same, and with the same logic you used.
But, let's try the other way around. What if the father, having access to proofs, takes the advantage of it and decides to protect his son by inflinging the law and steals the tape? Having a cold head, we all would agree it is not moral... But... If you were in his shoes? What would you do? (well, providing you decide to protect your son in this way?) I am sure that more than one parent would decide for this version...


----------



## .   1

natasha2000 said:


> I see your point. And I think given the same circumstances, I would do the same, and with the same logic you used.
> But, let's try the other way around. What if the father, having access to proofs, takes the advantage of it and decides to protect his son by inflinging the law and steals the tape? Having a cold head, we all would agree it is not moral... But... If you were in his shoes? What would you do? (well, providing you decide to protect your son in this way?) I am sure that more than one parent would decide for this version...


I see your point.The problem I have is that after a long association with the Judicial System I have found that the penalties for perjury are severe.
In the past decade the wind has changed in Australia and many cops have arrogently found that the advent of virtually ubiquitous video and audio recordings have resulted in many convictions that would have not been possible prior to common electronic surveillance.
It has now become almost theatrical to confront hoodlum cops with allegations of misconduct or criminal activity and if the allegations are initially denied there is a pause and the offender is asked to consider their position. Then after a short pause there is a better than even chance that the next words the offender hears are something similar to;
"Now Constable or Sergeant I would like you to look at or listen to this electronic recording."
There is a good chance that the offender faints at that point so that proceedings can be adjourned for a moment so that lawyers can be consulted.
There is quite a nasty case going on in Victoria right now and the cops who lie to the Judge will almost certainly receive a more severe sanction than those who actually flogged the suspects.
Judges hate to be unsuccessfully lied to.
I have no moral problem with protecting my daughter and I would do anything that I could to help her were she ever to get in trouble but I have found from bitter experience that standing up and copping it on the chin is the most economical way to deal with any mistake I have made and my daughter is the same.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

aleechay said:


> I can't go with the manager who tattles on his starving shoplifting emplyee--that is a betrayal, and petty as well.



I take grave exceptions to those comments. You were not there.

I can assure you that my employee was by no means starving. 
And not only was she shop-lifting, she was being aided and abetted by an employee of the other store.
I was friendly with the manager of the other shop.

What would YOU have done!


----------



## zebedee

MOD NOTE:

The off-shoot about Cervantes' quote is now in a thread in its own right which can be found here


----------



## aleechay

maxiogee said:


> I take grave exceptions to those comments. You were not there.
> 
> I can assure you that my employee was by no means starving.
> And not only was she shop-lifting, she was being aided and abetted by an employee of the other store.
> I was friendly with the manager of the other shop.
> 
> What would YOU have done!


I think this kind of distinction is exactly what the original question is about. In the specific situation of the video store, I think I would have spoken with my friend, the manager of the other shop, to help figure out how to improve his security. You could imply that you knew that shoplifting was going on without targeting a specific person. Next, in the role of manager, I would keep a sharp eye on an employee whom I knew to be dishonest in one context. If I catch her dipping into the till, then it is part of my job to take action about that. It just seems to be addressing things at a micro rather than macro level to tell on her petty theft, and also to be not specifically your business, but that's just the impression I have. I think we need to beware that with a little authority we take on a judgemental role with others rather than looking at how to improve things overall. Again, I am speaking from a gut level, and don't mean to demean the difficulty of making these decisions.   Aleechay


----------



## maxiogee

aleechay said:


> I think this kind of distinction is exactly what the original question is about. In the specific situation of the video store, I think I would have spoken with my friend, the manager of the other shop, to help figure out how to improve his security. You could imply that you knew that shoplifting was going on without targeting a specific person. Next, in the role of manager, I would keep a sharp eye on an employee whom I knew to be dishonest in one context. If I catch her dipping into the till, then it is part of my job to take action about that. It just seems to be addressing things at a micro rather than macro level to tell on her petty theft, and also to be not specifically your business, but that's just the impression I have. I think we need to beware that with a little authority we take on a judgemental role with others rather than looking at how to improve things overall. Again, I am speaking from a gut level, and don't mean to demean the difficulty of making these decisions.   Aleechay



I was already keeping a sharp eye on all the employees.
There was no way to inform the other manager without giving details - we were both dealing with just a handful of employees. Better to indicate who was at fault than to cast unwarranted suspicion on others, and cause the other manager to waste time checking up on all of them.
My staff knew, from a previous incident, where I stood on 'petty' issues — there are no petty issues! One is either honest or one isn't.
My action in this instance marked a notification that I would act immediately on dishonesty issues.


----------



## .   1

aleechay said:


> I think this kind of distinction is exactly what the original question is about. In the specific situation of the video store, I think I would have spoken with my friend, the manager of the other shop, to help figure out how to improve his security. You could imply that you knew that shoplifting was going on without targeting a specific person. Next, in the role of manager, I would keep a sharp eye on an employee whom I knew to be dishonest in one context. If I catch her dipping into the till, then it is part of my job to take action about that. It just seems to be addressing things at a micro rather than macro level to tell on her petty theft, and also to be not specifically your business, but that's just the impression I have. I think we need to beware that with a little authority we take on a judgemental role with others rather than looking at how to improve things overall. Again, I am speaking from a gut level, and don't mean to demean the difficulty of making these decisions. Aleechay


By nipping it in the bud it is entirely possible that maxiogee saved the thief from far more serious trouble.
Being busted for stealing a few lollies is on a different level of severity to that of stealing money from the till.
This was not a simple case of shoplifting but rather a case of collusion.  It is a well known tactic of thieves and hoodlums to entrap others into the scheme by blackmail.  The mug is invited to steal just a little thing and then just a few little things and then a few not so little things then when the time is ripe the mug is confronted and told that if they do not do whatever the hoodlum tells them then the hoodlum will reveal the theft.

In the case reported by maxiogee the mug was lucky that it was stopped at the lolly level and it is entirely possible that after some reflection the mug will come to appreciate the courage shown by maxiogee.

.,,


----------



## natasha2000

. said:


> In the case reported by maxiogee the mug was lucky that it was stopped at the lolly level and it is entirely possible that after some reflection the mug will come to appreciate the courage shown by maxiogee.
> .,,


 
IF the mug ever realizes it.....


----------



## Victoria32

natasha2000 said:


> I see your point. And I think given the same circumstances, I would do the same, and with the same logic you used.
> But, let's try the other way around. What if the father, having access to proofs, takes the advantage of it and decides to protect his son by inflinging the law and steals the tape? Having a cold head, we all would agree it is not moral... But... If you were in his shoes? What would you do? (well, providing you decide to protect your son in this way?) I am sure that more than one parent would decide for this version...


I have an emotional reaction to this. I know that the right (morally) and correct (logically) thing to do, is for the father to identify the son to his fellow police officers. But even so, I would, if I were him, have a very hard time making myself do that... 

Dilemna. I would not ever 'shop' a family member for any less a situation.


----------



## Kelly B

In the officer example, the son had already betrayed his family by rejecting the values he was taught. In a wider sense, people who have already betrayed the values of their family and the laws of their society cannot expect to be protected out of loyalty. They should _ask _for support, and forgiveness. 

It is understandable for friends and family to try to protect their loved ones in spite of this. I don't think they should be judged harshly, whatever decision they make.


----------



## maxiogee

Kelly B said:


> In the officer example, the son had already betrayed his family by ~



I thoroughly agree with this.
The son's initial betrayal negates all demands he might make on parental loyalty. 
This is not to say that the parent's innate loyalty is an easily-overcome barrier to his making the right decision in turning the son over to the authorities, but the son's betrayal surely makes it easier to get past that barrier.


----------



## aleechay

maxiogee said:


> I was already keeping a sharp eye on all the employees.
> There was no way to inform the other manager without giving details - we were both dealing with just a handful of employees. Better to indicate who was at fault than to cast unwarranted suspicion on others, and cause the other manager to waste time checking up on all of them.
> My staff knew, from a previous incident, where I stood on 'petty' issues — there are no petty issues! One is either honest or one isn't.
> My action in this instance marked a notification that I would act immediately on dishonesty issues.



   Don't agree that there is not such thing as "petty" issues---or gray areas---such as the son of the policeman---it's precisely because these are hard decisions (or should be) that it isn't as simple as black or white. Can't quite follow the projected life of crime that you are saving your employee from, sounds a bit like justifying yourself for turning her in after she confided in you. Obviously you did what you felt best---these are challenging decisions. Aleechay


----------



## maxiogee

aleechay said:


> Can't quite follow the projected life of crime that you are saving your employee from, sounds a bit like justifying yourself for turning her in after she confided in you.


I don't think I said anything about projections. 
I don't need to 'justify' what I did.


----------



## cuchuflete

maxiogee said:


> ...there are no petty issues! One is either honest or one isn't.



Well said and well done.

To those who think that just a little theft is ok, shall we send a couple of dozen "petty" thieves to your home?

Where do you draw the imaginary line between petty theft and serious crime?

Can the word "honest" be modified?  Honestly?


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> Can the word "honest" be modified? Honestly?


Some time ago I was feeling a little jaded about my society and the apparent proliferation of liers.
I discovered that there are more than one hundred ways to indicate a lie but just the one way to say truth.
Truth and Honest appear to have no modifiers that do not turn them into lies but there seems no way to modify a lie to become truth.

.,,


----------



## Kelly B

To me, betrayal is a violation of loyalty, and I think loyalty is similar to respect in that you have to earn it. (Family members are entitled to a large measure of both, just for taking care of - and putting up with - each other.)

It certainly does not look to me like maxiogee's employee had earned the right to expect loyalty, and so I do not view his action as betrayal in the first place. I don't think he can be accused of passing judgment, either. He just reported the facts as he knew them. The legal system can decide if her behavior was justifiable or trivial.


----------



## .   1

aleechay said:


> Don't agree that there is not such thing as "petty" issues---or gray areas---such as the son of the policeman---it's precisely because these are hard decisions (or should be) that it isn't as simple as black or white. Can't quite follow the projected life of crime that you are saving your employee from, sounds a bit like justifying yourself for turning her in after she confided in you. Obviously you did what you felt best---these are challenging decisions. Aleechay


It saddens me that blokes like maxiogee are even asked to justify themselves.  It is funny that you chose the word justify.
Our civilisation would not survive without people like maxiogee or Frank Serpico.
The projected life of crime comes from people like the lolly thief.
Maxiogee gave a scenario of a person with a job stealing for convenience not need.  I would have a hard time with the story if it had been a begger stealing to eat but this was not the case.  Lollies are not food and the thief was in a position of regular income.
This thief was in the habit of stealing simply because it was easy.
The thief was colluding with another thief and nothing in life is free.
It would be obvious that the thief was not on the road to a successful life as a thief but now has a chance due to the bravery displayed by maxiogee.
It should be the thief who is being criticised not the honest person but such is life.

.,,


----------



## la reine victoria

Hear hear .,,!  Very well said.






LRV


----------



## aleechay

Ahh well, I guess I had better concede, if we are invoking Frank Serpico... you guys must truly be without sin, since you are so ready to throw the first rock. I'm just an ordinary, flawed sort of person, less willing to pass judgement or think I know what's necessarily "right" and I don't think it's as simple as "true" or "a lie"----I'm a relativist. But I do bow out, cause I can tell I'm definitely outvoted in this crowd.  Cheers.  Aleechay


----------



## .   1

aleechay said:


> Ahh well, I guess I had better concede, if we are invoking Frank Serpico... you guys must truly be without sin, since you are so ready to throw the first rock. I'm just an ordinary, flawed sort of person, less willing to pass judgement or think I know what's necessarily "right" and I don't think it's as simple as "true" or "a lie"----I'm a relativist. But I do bow out, cause I can tell I'm definitely outvoted in this crowd. Cheers. Aleechay


I am a long long way from perfect but I do know right from wrong.
I do not need to be perfect to see a bad situation and try to right it.
Frank Serpico was not without sin and this did not stop him from trying to improve life for the rest of us.
I am without sin because I do not believe in the concept of vicarious guilt.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

aleechay said:


> Ahh well, I guess I had better concede, if we are invoking Frank Serpico... you guys must truly be without sin, since you are so ready to throw the first rock. I'm just an ordinary, flawed sort of person, less willing to pass judgement or think I know what's necessarily "right" and I don't think it's as simple as "true" or "a lie"----I'm a relativist. But I do bow out, cause I can tell I'm definitely outvoted in this crowd.  Cheers.  Aleechay



I'm far from perfect. I am a broken and deeply flawed individual and have a long history of moral lapses behind me (I'm a recovering alcoholic, so you can guess what sorts of paths I've wandered down in life). I can still have standards though, and do my utmost to meet them.
In reporting that incident I was doing what I knew was the right thing in the circumstances. 
To have only chastised my own colleague would have been to have connived with my friend's employee. To have only reported my friend's employee would have been to excuse mine. 
To have let the incident go - because of some "nobody's perfect" concept - would have been to have licensed the continuance of the scam.

You say you are "less willing to pass judgement" - but you fail to see that I wasn't passing any judgement. I was told of wrongdoing by someone involved in it — no hearsay, no doubts, no judgements — and I informed the appropriate people. To have done less would have been wrong.


----------



## .   1

I don't want to wander off topic so if I do could this thread be split.  
I just noticed something that I had not thought about.
This whole 'he who is without sin may cast the first stone' business.
I had never thought that this is a way of rationalising the failure to report wrongdoing.
Am I to accept that there is a requirement for moral perfection before doing something to stop wrongdoing.
By this logic it is easy to see the rationalising go so far that a hoodlum could say that as no one is morally perfect then it is quite alright to act in a less than moral manner to them therefore justifying crime.

.,,


----------



## la reine victoria

. said:


> Am I to accept that there is a requirement for moral perfection before doing something to stop wrongdoing.
> .,,


 



Absolutely not *.,,. *The whole point of Jesus' words in the story of the woman who was to be stoned to death for adultery, was to indicate to all the bystanders that none of them was without "sin". To make them question their morals and consider the bad things they had done (which we all do, whether in "thought, word or deed").

There can never be a state of moral perfection in the human being regardless of whether or not we are religious. 

(You are right in saying that this is veering off topic and may well be split.)

By our very nature, we can never achieve moral perfection. Even the Pope, the revered, "holy", representative of God in the Roman Catholic Church, is morally imperfect. We are all beset by what the church considers "sinful thoughts of the flesh"; hands up anyone who has never told a lie; hands up anyone who has never indulged in schadenfreude, wished ill on another person, harboured thoughts of revenge when hurt by someone, never been able to forgive someone for a wrong committed against them, never unjustly criticised another person. The list is endless - not merely from a "religious" point of view but from the point of view of the human condition. "Survival of the fittest" and the inbuilt survival instinct, which we all possess, are the things which drive and motivate us - together with the other instinct to reproduce ourselves, which is made pleasurable by the sex act. So pleasurable, in fact, that many, many people can't remain faithful to their chosen partner but go off seeking new experiences with others.

The pleasures of sex cause celibate priests to abuse young boys, cause men to rape women, allow prostitution to flourish, cause young people to indulge themselves and create unwanted babies which are frequently aborted.

I'd better stop here. You are intelligent enough to know that there is no such thing as moral perfection.




LRV


----------



## aleechay

Hello again: briefly, I think what Jesus was trying to do was to keep a mob of people from punishing a woman in a cruel way instead of thinking about their own sins and developing an attitude of tolerance. By the by I am a member of the legions of recovering alcoholics as Maxigee...if you are one of the same fellowship, hello from Marin County....again I can't pronounce right or wrong in the number of instances described......only advocate for tolerance, lack of judgement and a spirit of helping and forgiveness.....not very Frank Serpico...have a great day, Aleechay


----------



## Victoria32

. said:


> I don't want to wander off topic so if I do could this thread be split.
> I just noticed something that I had not thought about.
> This whole 'he who is without sin may cast the first stone' business.
> I had never thought that this is a way of rationalising the failure to report wrongdoing.
> Am I to accept that there is a requirement for moral perfection before doing something to stop wrongdoing.
> By this logic it is easy to see the rationalising go so far that a hoodlum could say that as no one is morally perfect then it is quite alright to act in a less than moral manner to them therefore justifying crime.
> 
> .,,


Absolutely right .,,!


aleechay said:


> Hello again: briefly, I think what Jesus was trying to do was to keep a mob of people from punishing a woman in a cruel way instead of thinking about their own sins and developing an attitude of tolerance. By the by I am a member of the legions of recovering alcoholics as Maxigee...if you are one of the same fellowship, hello from Marin County....again I can't pronounce right or wrong in the number of instances described......only advocate for tolerance, lack of judgement and a spirit of helping and forgiveness.....not very Frank Serpico...have a great day, Aleechay


Nevertheless, Aleechay, I have been giving it a lot of thought, and Maxiogee was right in what he did... 
Jesus was reminding people of their imperfection - but that tendency to sin doesn't mean we must let obvious wrong-doing slide. 
Goodness knows, I am one of the company of the guilty - we all are!


----------



## Tsoman

maxiogee said:


> I'm far from perfect. I am a broken and deeply flawed individual and have a long history of moral lapses behind me (I'm a recovering alcoholic, so you can guess what sorts of paths I've wandered down in life). I can still have standards though, and do my utmost to meet them.
> In reporting that incident I was doing what I knew was the right thing in the circumstances.
> To have only chastised my own colleague would have been to have connived with my friend's employee. To have only reported my friend's employee would have been to excuse mine.
> To have let the incident go - because of some "nobody's perfect" concept - would have been to have licensed the continuance of the scam.
> 
> You say you are "less willing to pass judgement" - but you fail to see that I wasn't passing any judgement. I was told of wrongdoing by someone involved in it — no hearsay, no doubts, no judgements — and I informed the appropriate people. To have done less would have been wrong.



You absolutely definitely did the right thing by reporting the theft. You have no obligation to protect people who break the law. That same person may have stolen from you or me given the chance. In protecting a criminal, you would be doing the opposite for the victims.

I hate stealing so so much, always have. 

I was at this party once and these stupid highschoolers were telling me how they stole cell phones from the mall. They thought they were so cool. The whole time I wished they would go to jail and learn their lesson.


----------



## maxiogee

Tsoman said:


> I was at this party once and these stupid highschoolers were telling me how they stole cell phones from the mall. They thought they were so cool. The whole time I wished they would go to jail and learn their lesson.



There are many lessons to be learned from certain activities.
One to be learned from stealing is that the thief is not always caught.
This lesson apples to those who steal and to those from whom they steal. What a society views as "justice" is not always visited upon the guilty. Rather, hardship may be visited upon the innocent as a result, the loss of the stolen item, compounded by the financial hardship of needing to replace it.

This lesson then brings another in its wake - what level of policing does the injured party wish to see their society adopt. There are financial, and other, constraints, upon a society with a heavy police presence. The more police there are, the more (generally) liberties we tend to lose, even the innocent. So, do we grin-and-bear-it when petty crime is at a certain level, or do we demand more police, and more powers for them.


----------



## Tsoman

maxiogee said:


> There are many lessons to be learned from certain activities.
> One to be learned from stealing is that the thief is not always caught.
> This lesson apples to those who steal and to those from whom they steal. What a society views as "justice" is not always visited upon the guilty. Rather, hardship may be visited upon the innocent as a result, the loss of the stolen item, compounded by the financial hardship of needing to replace it.
> 
> This lesson then brings another in its wake - what level of policing does the injured party wish to see their society adopt. There are financial, and other, constraints, upon a society with a heavy police presence. The more police there are, the more (generally) liberties we tend to lose, even the innocent. So, do we grin-and-bear-it when petty crime is at a certain level, or do we demand more police, and more powers for them.



Unfortunately, it's something you can't do much about. Having more police probably won't deter stealing.

My little brother had some 'friends' who would come over to our house a lot. We found out some time later that they stole so much from us. But there was nothing we could do except to not let them back in. It sucks but that's life.


----------

