4 ms·

Unfortunately we've seen that law enforcement in the US is able to get away with doing some rather despicable things in the name of fighting crime. Personally,

Unfortunately we've seen that law enforcement in the US is able to get away with doing some rather despicable things in the name of fighting crime. Personally, I don't believe it's moral or ethical for law enforcement to commit crimes in order to catch criminals. After all, how can we defend our own morals and ethics if we're willing to ignore them for "reasons"?

afarrell 10y ago
> Personally, I don't believe it's moral or ethical for law enforcement to commit crimes in order to catch criminals. I think you want to look at systemic effects and the potential for bulger-style corruption. Distribution of child porn does not do direct harm. It does harm by being a system that supports child abuse and we have collectively decided that child abuse is harmful enough to the fabric of our society that it is worth dismantling the systems that support it. So here, the ends justify a certain scoped set of means, but also impose a duty of competence in deploying those means and a duty to stay within their scope. Note that We don't currently have any penalties for crossing the bounds of that scope.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  > Distribution of child porn does not do direct harm. // IMO it does, both to the user and the subjects of the pornography. It's most likely the lesser harm compared to the original creation; though I'm not sure you could certainly say that in absolutely all situations.
bfuller 10y ago
Isn't that the whole reason it's a drug "war"?
bfuller 10y ago
Isn't that the whole reason it's a drug "war"?
L-four 10y ago
As the saying goes "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster."
jasonkostempski 10y ago
They don't, or rather aren't supposed to, commit crimes to catch criminals. The laws are written with verbiage indicating who can and can't do what and under what circumstances. There is no real law that just simply states "thou shall not kill" that applies to everyone in every role in every situation. And even if law were equal to ethics, I don't think most people hold ethics without exceptions to whatever general descriptions they use to communicate them.

afarrell 10y ago

> Personally, I don't believe it's moral or ethical for law enforcement to commit crimes in order to catch criminals. I think you want to look at systemic effects and the potential for bulger-style corruption. Distribution of child porn does not do direct harm. It does harm by being a system that supports child abuse and we have collectively decided that child abuse is harmful enough to the fabric of our society that it is worth dismantling the systems that support it. So here, the ends justify a certain scoped set of means, but also impose a duty of competence in deploying those means and a duty to stay within their scope. Note that We don't currently have any penalties for crossing the bounds of that scope.

pbhjpbhj 10y ago
> Distribution of child porn does not do direct harm. // IMO it does, both to the user and the subjects of the pornography. It's most likely the lesser harm compared to the original creation; though I'm not sure you could certainly say that in absolutely all situations.

bfuller 10y ago

Isn't that the whole reason it's a drug "war"?

bfuller 10y ago

Isn't that the whole reason it's a drug "war"?

L-four 10y ago

As the saying goes "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster."

jasonkostempski 10y ago

They don't, or rather aren't supposed to, commit crimes to catch criminals. The laws are written with verbiage indicating who can and can't do what and under what circumstances. There is no real law that just simply states "thou shall not kill" that applies to everyone in every role in every situation. And even if law were equal to ethics, I don't think most people hold ethics without exceptions to whatever general descriptions they use to communicate them.