3 ms·
This is an argument fallacy. Conflation of: actively committing a crime ("stealing cars") v. passively committing a crime (failing to do something or looking
by pm24601 9y ago
This is an argument fallacy. Conflation of:
actively committing a crime ("stealing cars") v.
passively committing a crime (failing to do something or looking the other way)
Also ignoring intent, People don't unintentionally steal a car. People can unintentionally fill out a form or misunderstand or be unaware of the requirements of the law.
Additionally, theft is ingrained into the fabric of society and religion. Following some sort of government reporting requirement is not included in any religious teaching that I am aware of.
- tptacek 9y agoNo, you're misunderstanding the example. The issue isn't "looking the other way". I am not arguing that someone is or should be criminally culpable for doing workmanlike work at, e.g., administering benefits at a health management organization they happen to know is corrupt. I am talking instead about a situation where an employee knows the organization is corrupt, and then knowingly and actively participates in some of those criminal actions. You can't deliver vouchers you know to be fraudulent. If you do, you are and should be criminally liable. Large-scale organized fraud depends in part on the willingness of every cog in the organization to perpetuate the criminal enterprise.