WWYD, part 2?

[Steve]

You land your dream job. Everything about it is great...at the beginning.

Slowly, you find yourself drawn into illegal activities, activities which profit you, directly, to a small extent, but which also serve to benefit large numbers of disadvantaged people.  If you are caught, disgrace, fines, and possible jail time are in the offing.  If you are not caught, you will live a comfortable life and thousands of other people, mainly poor and uneducated, will be able to better their lot in life and their children will have a real chance for economic security, if not prosperity.

No drugs or violence are involved in the illegal activities and no individuals are directly harmed.

Do you expose your employer and report the illegal activities, or do you believe the ends justify the means and that the benefit to others far outweighs any personal advantage to yourself?

[Aria]

Apart from benefiting others, I would find it sad that apparently the only way I could help these people would be by doing something illegal.

[Techie2000]

What are the nature of these illegal activities? Why are they illegal?

[Steve]

You could, through charity or direct giving, help a couple of people; but, by continuing this illegal activity, you can help thousands.

[Steve]

Techie, it could be anything, it doesn't matter. The activity itself is irrelevant, beyond the fact that it's illegal.

If you must have something more concrete, pretend it's white-collar computer embezzlement.

[ditch]

Originally posted by Techie2000
What are the nature of these illegal activities? Why are they illegal?

I'd need an answer to this also before offering a reply to your question.

[Steve]

ditch and Techie, your question implies that some illegal activities would be OK?

Beyond my answer above, no drugs or violence are involved. Other than that, it's just illegal, and you'll end up in prison if caught.

[ethics]

No brainer for me. Expose and risk the consequences.

[Techie2000]

Yes. My ethics, are different from what the legal system considers acceptable. Illegal is a very broad term. I could be doing anything from computer hacking, to smuggling, to going 5MPH over the speed limit, to killing people and taking money...

[ethics]

Techie, he mentioned no violence nor drugs.

[mikeky]

I'd have to consider it. After all, other activities that helped people were illegal, from the Underground Railroad to hiding Jews.

[Steve]

The simplistic version of my question is:

"Is it OK for a man to steal to feed his starving family?"

[ethics]

Nah, that's different than your first post's assertions of serve to benefit large numbers of disadvantaged people..

Large numbers mean more than a hundred for me, at the very least.

[Steve]

Well, OK, if you accept relative morality, then the number of people benefitting from your crime does come into play.

If, however, you adhere to absolute morality, then 1, 100, or 1,000,000 makes no difference; any crime is wrong.

[BigDeputyDog]

Sorry, but to me it is black and white... Illegal is illegal... I probably would not place myself in a position to be involved in illegal activities in the first place... but, if I did find myself at that point, I would step forward and bare all...

That's just who I am...

BDD...

[ethics]

Stevent, large numbers is over a hundred. The whole entire scenario is displaced by that one statement. I don't know too many immediate families that have at least 100 members in them. So while I would say yes to your original question, I would say no to the more refined one.

[ditch]

Would I break the law to help feed my family? Of course. Would I break the law to help the disadvantaged but with the added bonus of a small personal profit as your original question says. Yes. It does not nessecarily follow that what is legal is therefore moral. If the disadvantged benefit from some illegal activities then maybe the laws need to be changed. The better more honourable thing to do would be to lobby to have the law in question changed so the disadvantaged can benefit from activities that are legal.
Its such a complex answer thats required here. There are so many things that the disadvantaged would benefit from that it really impossible to give a definitive answer.

[jfcjrus]

An interesting thread, with some great posts.
To me, the posts requesting a defination of the 'illegal' supposition are on the right track.

In our history;
- it has been 'illegal' to hide Jews from being collected and killed.
- it has been 'illegal' to speak out against the rulers in Iraq.
- it has been 'illegal' to posess and/or imbibe whiskey.
- it has been 'illegal' for women to vote.
- etc, etc.
So, if I find myself in the quandry of:
Slowly, you find yourself drawn into illegal activities, activities which profit you, directly, to a small extent, but which also serve to benefit large numbers of disadvantaged people. If you are caught, disgrace, fines, and possible jail time are in the offing. If you are not caught, you will live a comfortable life and thousands of other people, mainly poor and uneducated, will be able to better their lot in life and their children will have a real chance for economic security, if not prosperity
Well, I guess I'd consider the source of 'illegal'.
But, getting myself <i>jailed</i> isn't going to help anyone.
So, if I thought I'd be clever enough to avoid persecution from those that deemed my acts in helping folks out 'illegal', I'd certainly do it.

But, the lack of specific circumstances do make it hard to post a specific response.
Like everything else in life, we have to judge our response to a situation on it's particular merits.

Regards,

[Violet1966]

Not being selfish here, but my own family is more important then any other always. If something I was doing would remove me from them, which would in turn hurt them, I wouldn't do it no matter who it benefits. Jail isn't a nice place to live, I hear ;)

[IamZed]

I also obey my heart and not the law. Total obedience to the law renders you a mere tool, that can be counted on for such things as the aforementioned persecution of the Jews. Everything is my call.

In the embezzlement example above, I would be blowing the biggest whistle I could find. In the past such acts have been looked on as relatively harmless. At Enron, at WorldCom, etc. This is today, and it has been made quite obvious the accounting must be treated as a more sacred thing.

Let me postulate one: It breaks the no drug rule, but I hope that was in reference to recreational drugs. Your grandparents and all of their friends are eating cat food so they can give up every dime for medicine. That very same medicine can be had in Mexico for 1/20th the cost. Due to US patent laws it is illegal to import it. It would greatly enrich your grandparent’s life and that of over a hundred of their friends if you imported it. You can get a $120 prescription for $6. You charge $10 to cover the risk and distribution efforts on your part. If it was my family, I would do it for them, and having made the decision to do it at all I would cover their friends as well.

If the reasons I gave seem enough, to me they are not. I hate American drug companies and layers. I can understand how a pill that costs 2 cents to make has to go for a great deal more at first to pay for the research it took to develop it and bring it to market. Profits must also be made to pay for the development of future drugs. But the price does not go down when these needs are met. The price will not go down without government intervention. I also believe they gouge. If a drug company spends $100 million to develop an acne preventative that will sell at moderate prices, but only spends $30 million to develop a drug that peoples lives may depend on, that drug will market at ten times the cost of the acne product.

Everything on a case by case basis with me.