3 ms·

I think maybe a more nuanced rephrasing of "never talk to the police" is "talking to the police will only make you more likely, not less likely, to be convicted

I think maybe a more nuanced rephrasing of "never talk to the police" is "talking to the police will only make you more likely, not less likely, to be convicted of a crime". If your values system is to minimize your chance of being convicted of a crime above all other things, then you'd say "I will not answer without a lawyer" in this situation. But if you're a compassionate human being and want to help others, even if it sometimes means a minor risk to yourself, then there are plenty of situations in which you should talk to the police, including this one. Possibly an issue here is that the lawyer in the video is giving both a legal recommendation and a moral recommendation. I certainly have no objection to his legal assessment of the outcomes of talking to the police, but I don't think he has any authority to say that I should be a selfish person.

candiodari 9y ago
You are talking as if not talking to the police is by itself a moral abomination, but there's a lot of points you're not considering. a) Odds of getting into that situation are a million to one, against. b) Odds of your information helping to find said baby are a million to one, against (and even that is very optimistic I would say) c) Odds of a police officer asking you that question because they want to have someone to blame for the crime are low, but significantly higher than 1/1e12 So I think that both on moral grounds, and on legal grounds, you should say something evasive first, and if the officer doesn't go away at that point you definitely should say the "any question you can send to my lawyer, and we will do our best to answer as soon as possible" line. And, by the way, your lawyer will be angry if you do anything else. More generally I would encourage you to think about the role of the police in a society. Not in the "the state is right and absolutely moral" way you seem to be stuck in. A state is fundamentally unjust. No matter how democratic, no matter how well it's going economically. I have worked as a consultant at a ton of "high" state organisations and I guarantee you, a month at any of them is enough to cure anyone of the notions you have. At best, states are a necessary evil. They make some necessary things happen that would otherwise not happen. The police are their enforcers. Like any other power structure, they give ego-satisfying perks and social status to their enforcers, and so you can imagine the kind of person and motivation that a police officer generally is. And if there's one thing that can be absolutely guaranteed, it's that there is no just way to use violence to resolve situations (but a few good looks at the law will quickly absolve you of the notion that they're just, or even intended to be just). The state is not your friend. And especially the police is not your friend. And I realize this point is contentious, but have you ever thought about how arrogant it is to assume there is a single "just" system at all ? There's many models of morality, from natural morality, to utilitarianism, to the various religions, to ... Important to remember is that they're all different, conflicting and self-contradictory.
- alangpierce 9y ago
  We obviously have very different perspectives on this, but a few thoughts: > Odds of getting into that situation are a million to one, against. It's a thought experiment. Within the thought experiment, it already happened, and the chances are 100%. "This is an unlikely scenario for me find myself in" probably shouldn't affect your decision-making. You can argue that it's not a worthwhile thought experiment because it's unlikely, but it doesn't sound like that's what you're arguing. > Odds of your information helping to find said baby are a million to one, against It's unclear if you're saying it's a lost cause or if the direction the kidnapper went wouldn't be useful, but according to https://www.parents.com/kids/safety/stranger-safety/child-abduction-facts/ https://www.parents.com/kids/safety/stranger-safety/child-ab..., 80% of children are found alive in nonfamily abductions reported to NCMEC, so my impression is that information soon after a kidnapping has much higher than a one in a million chance of helping. Alternatively, you could adjust the thought experiment to be "At what probability of saving the baby's life should I give an answer?". "Never talk to the police under any circumstances" (the quote from the video that people seem to be defending literally) means you say nothing even if your chance of saving the baby's life is 100%. > Not in the "the state is right and absolutely moral" way you seem to be stuck in. I didn't say that, I didn't imply it, and I don't believe it. This is both a straw man argument and a false dichotomy. You seem to be putting a very high amount of weight on the fact that the person trying to stop the kidnapping is a police officer. I would try to help regardless of who it is. You really should not be using theory about the role of the state to decide whether or not to help a human being trying to save the life of another human being in an urgent situation.

candiodari 9y ago

You are talking as if not talking to the police is by itself a moral abomination, but there's a lot of points you're not considering. a) Odds of getting into that situation are a million to one, against. b) Odds of your information helping to find said baby are a million to one, against (and even that is very optimistic I would say) c) Odds of a police officer asking you that question because they want to have someone to blame for the crime are low, but significantly higher than 1/1e12 So I think that both on moral grounds, and on legal grounds, you should say something evasive first, and if the officer doesn't go away at that point you definitely should say the "any question you can send to my lawyer, and we will do our best to answer as soon as possible" line. And, by the way, your lawyer will be angry if you do anything else. More generally I would encourage you to think about the role of the police in a society. Not in the "the state is right and absolutely moral" way you seem to be stuck in. A state is fundamentally unjust. No matter how democratic, no matter how well it's going economically. I have worked as a consultant at a ton of "high" state organisations and I guarantee you, a month at any of them is enough to cure anyone of the notions you have. At best, states are a necessary evil. They make some necessary things happen that would otherwise not happen. The police are their enforcers. Like any other power structure, they give ego-satisfying perks and social status to their enforcers, and so you can imagine the kind of person and motivation that a police officer generally is. And if there's one thing that can be absolutely guaranteed, it's that there is no just way to use violence to resolve situations (but a few good looks at the law will quickly absolve you of the notion that they're just, or even intended to be just). The state is not your friend. And especially the police is not your friend. And I realize this point is contentious, but have you ever thought about how arrogant it is to assume there is a single "just" system at all ? There's many models of morality, from natural morality, to utilitarianism, to the various religions, to ... Important to remember is that they're all different, conflicting and self-contradictory.

alangpierce 9y ago
We obviously have very different perspectives on this, but a few thoughts: > Odds of getting into that situation are a million to one, against. It's a thought experiment. Within the thought experiment, it already happened, and the chances are 100%. "This is an unlikely scenario for me find myself in" probably shouldn't affect your decision-making. You can argue that it's not a worthwhile thought experiment because it's unlikely, but it doesn't sound like that's what you're arguing. > Odds of your information helping to find said baby are a million to one, against It's unclear if you're saying it's a lost cause or if the direction the kidnapper went wouldn't be useful, but according to https://www.parents.com/kids/safety/stranger-safety/child-abduction-facts/ https://www.parents.com/kids/safety/stranger-safety/child-ab..., 80% of children are found alive in nonfamily abductions reported to NCMEC, so my impression is that information soon after a kidnapping has much higher than a one in a million chance of helping. Alternatively, you could adjust the thought experiment to be "At what probability of saving the baby's life should I give an answer?". "Never talk to the police under any circumstances" (the quote from the video that people seem to be defending literally) means you say nothing even if your chance of saving the baby's life is 100%. > Not in the "the state is right and absolutely moral" way you seem to be stuck in. I didn't say that, I didn't imply it, and I don't believe it. This is both a straw man argument and a false dichotomy. You seem to be putting a very high amount of weight on the fact that the person trying to stop the kidnapping is a police officer. I would try to help regardless of who it is. You really should not be using theory about the role of the state to decide whether or not to help a human being trying to save the life of another human being in an urgent situation.