5 ms·

It is easy to imagine circumstances in which this is obviously true. Imagining isn't even necessary, if you allow your mind to wander to events and circumstanc

by jlgreco 13y ago

It is easy to imagine circumstances in which this is obviously true. Imagining isn't even necessary, if you allow your mind to wander to events and circumstances in history, though many people seem to find references to history to be distasteful... Once we accept that there are indeed circumstances where the harm of killing somebody is outweighed by the harm of reporting a community to law enforcement, the question becomes "Is this situation one of them." The war on drugs is extremely problematic for a multitude of reasons; are these reasons relevant in this case?

tptacek 13y ago
Wait, exactly who is accepting that there might be circumstances where it's less harmful to kill someone than to have them report others to law enforcement? I'm not within a million miles of accepting that premise. Are you?
- Jach 13y ago
  I can see a rather obvious hypothetical circumstance. Someone from your town finds out you're hiding Jews from the Nazi government, and instead of immediately reporting you he confronts you in an alleyway and demands you hand over your life savings within the hour or else he'd report you. You're armed with a loaded pistol. Ignoring other potential options (such as merely subduing him then moving yourself and the Jews to safety, or paying up and hoping he doesn't report you) is it strictly more or less harmful to kill him (assuming you can get away with it) than to let him go report you to the Nazis and have you and the Jews you're hiding be sent to extermination camps? Could anything at all similar to that hypothetical circumstance happen (or have already happened in history) in real life? I don't think the answer is a definite "no".
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Exactly my line of reasoning; this is an example of an easy to think of scenario where it is "obviously" better to kill somebody than allow them to report something to law enforcement. This example is rather black and white, though it is extreme. Before the inevitable objections to how extreme it is roll in, let me point out that it is suppose to be extreme; it establishes that there is a boundary, somewhere out there. The DPR case is less extreme; is not nearly so black and white. The question we should ask is "How gray is it?".
    - tptacek 13y ago
      The Nazi case is easy to adjudicate because it involves certitude. The Nazis didn't have a "law enforcement" objective; they were executing a genocide. I can't believe there's anyone on HN who thinks that really thinks putting a hit out on a SR snitch is defensible.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        Feel free to scratch Nazis and insert any other example of extreme injustice perpetrated by organizations that considered themselves to be apart of some sort of law enforcement or judicial system. Change the setting to the Underground Railroad and try that on for size: As far as the law was concerned, the people who were transported by the Underground Railroad were property. The law enforcement did not necessarily consider themselves to be apart of some sort of atrocity (although we can of course all agree that they were). They were, undeniably, law enforcement. There is no question in either of our minds that they were acting in a reprehensible manner, but they were nevertheless law enforcement. It would be, unambiguously (in my not so humble opinion, although I can't believe there's anyone on HN who would disagree), justifiable to kill anybody that threatened to bring law enforcement down on the 'operators' or 'passengers' of the Underground Railroad. Note that I am not saying that DPR putting out a hit is justifiable (and to continue to head off the annoyingly standard complaint others here like to throw out: No, I am not saying the Underground Railroad and the Silk Road are comparable in importance, severity, morality, etc). What I am saying is that it sits in a gray area that requires some consideration. I am not willing to write it off carelessly.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        You know what, scratch that last comment. I'll leave it there, but it is shit and I can do better. Let's bring this back down to Earth: "Dan contacts Steve and tells Steve that he has information on drug dealers and users in Singapore. He intends to turn this information over to the government of Singapore. Steve knows that Singapore will execute many of these people, imprison others (some of them for life) and will viciously beat likely all of them." How far can Steve go to ensure that Dan does not turn these people over to the government of Singapore? Is having Dan killed to spare those other people completely off the table?

by jlgreco 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago

Wait, exactly who is accepting that there might be circumstances where it's less harmful to kill someone than to have them report others to law enforcement? I'm not within a million miles of accepting that premise. Are you?

Jach 13y ago
I can see a rather obvious hypothetical circumstance. Someone from your town finds out you're hiding Jews from the Nazi government, and instead of immediately reporting you he confronts you in an alleyway and demands you hand over your life savings within the hour or else he'd report you. You're armed with a loaded pistol. Ignoring other potential options (such as merely subduing him then moving yourself and the Jews to safety, or paying up and hoping he doesn't report you) is it strictly more or less harmful to kill him (assuming you can get away with it) than to let him go report you to the Nazis and have you and the Jews you're hiding be sent to extermination camps? Could anything at all similar to that hypothetical circumstance happen (or have already happened in history) in real life? I don't think the answer is a definite "no".
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Exactly my line of reasoning; this is an example of an easy to think of scenario where it is "obviously" better to kill somebody than allow them to report something to law enforcement. This example is rather black and white, though it is extreme. Before the inevitable objections to how extreme it is roll in, let me point out that it is suppose to be extreme; it establishes that there is a boundary, somewhere out there. The DPR case is less extreme; is not nearly so black and white. The question we should ask is "How gray is it?".
  - tptacek 13y ago
    The Nazi case is easy to adjudicate because it involves certitude. The Nazis didn't have a "law enforcement" objective; they were executing a genocide. I can't believe there's anyone on HN who thinks that really thinks putting a hit out on a SR snitch is defensible.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Feel free to scratch Nazis and insert any other example of extreme injustice perpetrated by organizations that considered themselves to be apart of some sort of law enforcement or judicial system. Change the setting to the Underground Railroad and try that on for size: As far as the law was concerned, the people who were transported by the Underground Railroad were property. The law enforcement did not necessarily consider themselves to be apart of some sort of atrocity (although we can of course all agree that they were). They were, undeniably, law enforcement. There is no question in either of our minds that they were acting in a reprehensible manner, but they were nevertheless law enforcement. It would be, unambiguously (in my not so humble opinion, although I can't believe there's anyone on HN who would disagree), justifiable to kill anybody that threatened to bring law enforcement down on the 'operators' or 'passengers' of the Underground Railroad. Note that I am not saying that DPR putting out a hit is justifiable (and to continue to head off the annoyingly standard complaint others here like to throw out: No, I am not saying the Underground Railroad and the Silk Road are comparable in importance, severity, morality, etc). What I am saying is that it sits in a gray area that requires some consideration. I am not willing to write it off carelessly.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      You know what, scratch that last comment. I'll leave it there, but it is shit and I can do better. Let's bring this back down to Earth: "Dan contacts Steve and tells Steve that he has information on drug dealers and users in Singapore. He intends to turn this information over to the government of Singapore. Steve knows that Singapore will execute many of these people, imprison others (some of them for life) and will viciously beat likely all of them." How far can Steve go to ensure that Dan does not turn these people over to the government of Singapore? Is having Dan killed to spare those other people completely off the table?