kamenhero25
The Masked Writer
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2015
- Messages
- 5,411
- Likes received
- 91,582
Because it doesn't matter. Allowing your friends to do something you know to be wrong because you don't want to break your word is always wrong. There isn't a single situation that Taylor isn't in the wrong for not turning the Undersiders in for the bank robbery. Stealing is always worse than not keeping your word. It doesn't matter who she's stealing from or what she promised.
You're still doing the EXACT SAME THING. Your just saying, 'nope, law is right because law' and ignoring the circumstances. Circumstances always influence decisions and you continue to insist that I'm wrong for no actual reason other than you say I'm wrong. Which isn't true. There are plenty of situations where it is not morally wrong to break the law. You keep insisting that's not true. So I'm going to pose a moral dilemma that my first, and best in my opinion, ethics professor gave me.
A man has a wife who is sick with a very rare fatal illness. He can purchase a medicine that will save her life from a local pharmacy. However, the man is poor and cannot afford the medicine. The pharmacist cannot afford to sell him the medicine for less money since he also can't afford to lose money on it. However, the man sees an opportunity to steal the medicine and save his wife's life. So what is morally right? Should the man break the law and save his wife's life, or should he not break the law but allow his wife to die? What is more important, human life or the rule of law? And for the sake of the argument, the pharmacist cannot agree to give the man the medicine for an affordable price or for free. The two options I've provided are the only options. And I understand that you're going to say, 'human life is a different case' but I'm attempting to establish the point that it can be morally right to break the law.
----------------------
Another related argument because I have a thought. It's time for Ethics 102 with your returning lecturer Professor Kamen.
The concept of social contract theory is a very old, but very intrinsic part of moral reasoning. The basic concept can be summarized by saying that a person's moral and political obligations are defined by a 'contract' or unwritten agreement that they have with the society in which they live. In turn, society promises that they will receive the benefits of membership: protection from harm, fair treatment under law, and all rights defined as part of the society. This can also be applied on an interpersonal level, with agreements between two people being a more personal form of the same agreement. So a promise is essentially the same kind of contract, just between two people instead of one person and society as a whole. So by being a member of a society (in Taylor's case, being part of American society), she has the obligation to follow their rules and laws and in exchange society has the obligation to treat her fairly and keep her safe from harm.
However, in the case of the bank robbery, Taylor is in two social contracts. One to society as a whole and one to the Undersiders as a group. Except for one thing. Society has already violated their side of the contract with Taylor. For Taylor to have a responsibility to society to follow its laws, society has to fulfill it's obligation to keep her safe. The thing is, it hasn't. In fact, society is actively breaking the contract because the corruption of authority has actively harmed her. Because the PRT's corruption has allowed Sophia to repeatedly attack her, harm her, and ultimately almost kill her. Even if Taylor is unaware of this, is she obligated to fulfill her half of a contract that has already been invalidated by the other party actively refusing to uphold their half of the contract? And in that case, why is it wrong to uphold the contract where the other party has upheld their end of the deal?