Hitler's Wallet Dilemma

[Koldo]

I find your question a little confusing. Legalization of theft would still be theft. Just because something is legal to do does not mean that I consider it right to do. I do not make a determination that something is automatically OK to do, just because there is no law prohibiting it. I think people are supposed to use their brains.

It sounded odd. But it was a consistency check.

Jailing people that have committed crimes (that cause harm to others) is a valid reason for jailing people, IMO. (There are some issues and types of "crime" that I would argue against jailing people.)

It is necessary to take steps to halt destructive action. So, no, my personal sense of integrity is not violated by my participation in a society that structures laws/punishments to protect the innocent from those whose actions show they are bent upon causing harm to others.

Do you agree that it is wrong to unlawfully ( and intentfully ) confine people without their consent? If yes, then let us continue.

The only distinction between unlawfully confining people without their consent for a crime they committed and lawfully confining people without their consent for a crime they committed is the law.

Now, let us get back to the OP. The only distinction between unlawfully getting money from people and lawfully getting ( as in taking money from your bank account without your consent or making you pay a fine ) money from people is the law. Which is why i asked if the legalization of this theft would make it acceptable to you. You said 'no', then how do you reconcile this position?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

You said he should do something. If it is not an ethical obligation, from where do you derive this obligation?

The same place someone might derive turning on a light in order to see: for any desired goal there is a most efficient route to it. Given the extent of drama in the last thread, talking isn't helping. Therefore action is most likely the swiftest solution.

 

[9Westy9]

"You are in Berlin, 1933. Somehow, you find yourself in a position where you can effortlessly steal Hitler's wallet. This theft will not affect Hitler's rise to power, the nature of WW2, or the Holocaust. There is no important identification in the wallet, but the act will cost Hitler forty Reichsmarks and completely ruin his evening. You do not need the money. The odds that you will be caught committing this act are less than 2 percent. Are you, in your opinion, ethically obligated to steal Hitler's wallet?"

Nope.

 

[MatthiasGould]

I'd do it. Don't know why.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You might try stealing his wallet, and then returning it. This act of human decency and kindness might have a positive impact. Then, use the situation to try to befriend Hitler and engage him in positive and productive dialogue in order to challenge his ideas and possibly change his worldview. If, after awhile, it didn't appear as though he was going to improve, then put a bullet in the back of his head.

 

[9Westy9]

You might try stealing his wallet, and then returning it. This act of human decency and kindness might have a positive impact. Then, use the situation to try to befriend Hitler and engage him in positive and productive dialogue in order to challenge his ideas and possibly change his worldview. If, after awhile, it didn't appear as though he was going to improve, then put a bullet in the back of his head.

I like it. Thinking outside the box. If stealing the wallet or not stealing the wallet will have an effect then do something different that will have an effect. frubals to you good sir.

 

[4consideration]

Do you agree that it is wrong to unlawfully ( and intentfully ) confine people without their consent? If yes, then let us continue?

This is taking the conversation from the personal ethics discussion, to the discussion of the ethics of law.

It is wrong for me, as an individual, to unlawfully confine a person without their consent. Yes. I think it would be ethically OK for me to confine a person without their consent for reasons of protecting them, or others, from harm -- like in the situation of a mentally disturbed person, a person "chemically out of it," or someone that I had valid reason to believe presented some actual threat of danger -- but, I would consider that probably a lawful purpose, even if some court might not actually agree later on. I would likely be responding to an immediate situation of danger, and would not likely do legal research on the particulars prior to acting.

The only distinction between unlawfully confining people without their consent for a crime they committed and lawfully confining people without their consent for a crime they committed is the law.

I agree that the distinction between behaviors, according to how they are defined, and whether or not they are considered lawful or unlawful actions, is what is used to determine whether or not some action is considered a "crime," which is a legal distinction, and is a matter of law.

Now, let us get back to the OP. The only distinction between unlawfully getting money from people and lawfully getting ( as in taking money from your bank account without your consent or making you pay a fine ) money from people is the law. Which is why i asked if the legalization of this theft would make it acceptable to you. You said 'no', then how do you reconcile this position?

We are discussing what I think it is OK for me to do. I do not need to reconcile it with laws, like fines, that I may or may not agree with. I disagree with the overall validity of applying a legal distinction to a personal ethics matter, which is what we are discussing.

There is a major difference between what I recognize as an ethical action for me to do and what a governmental entity may legally do (even if I disagree with the politics, or the law itself as being right and beneficial.) I may wholeheartedly disagree with a particular fine that may be imposed, but that does not mean that I translate my allowance for that action -- through a recognition that I live in a community where a lot of other peoples' will also comes into play, through the forming of mutually applicable laws -- into some sort of personal authority to "fine" other people, and take their money without their consent.

If an action that I believe to be harmful to myself (or another) becomes suddenly legal for me to do, that does not require me to do it.

While it is outside of the scope of this discussion, my reasons for not stealing include respect for the property of others, as well as the spiritual, mental and emotional ramifications of doing something I believe to be wrong. The place that I find reconcilation on this matter is not only within logic and "the law" but within my understanding of the total expected impact of the action, according to the situation as I understand it to be. In the scenario that was presented in the OP, the justication for stealing seems to be offered as ok, and possibly compelling, since it is stealing is from a bad a guy, and that one would not expect to be caught. That is not valid justification for me. To simply add, now let's say it's the same action, only legal, does not change it for me.

(Additionally, I don't even know if Hitler had actually killed anyone (except during WW1) by 1933. I don't think so. So, I don't think I could use his murdering of huge numbers of innocents as logical justification, since it probably hadn't happened yet. If I bought the line of thinking that I was somehow obligated to take inconsequential and minute revenge, that wouldn't even apply for actions that had not happened yet. A lot of what Hitler did was legal. He just changed the laws to make it "legal." It was still terribly, terribly WRONG.)

 

[Willamena]

"You are in Berlin, 1933. Somehow, you find yourself in a position where you can effortlessly steal Hitler's wallet. This theft will not affect Hitler's rise to power, the nature of WW2, or the Holocaust. There is no important identification in the wallet, but the act will cost Hitler forty Reichsmarks and completely ruin his evening. You do not need the money. The odds that you will be caught committing this act are less than 2 percent. Are you, in your opinion, ethically obligated to steal Hitler's wallet?"

The moral choice depends on your personal ethics. I am in no way obligated by my ethics to steal--just the opposite. I am obligated to not steal.

 

[Willamena]

The thing that makes me wonder about this dilemma is, what's the point if it changes nothing and the money has no personal value to you?

There is never an instance when a choice you make for no other reason than to define what it means for you to be human changes nothing. It changes what it means to be you.

Ethics is those things that have personal value to you simply because you are human (however you define that). If "not stealing" is one of those things that as a human you want to define you, then that is the moral choice.

 

[Koldo]

There is a major difference between what I recognize as an ethical action for me to do and what a governmental entity may legally do (even if I disagree with the politics, or the law itself as being right and beneficial.) I may wholeheartedly disagree with a particular fine that may be imposed, but that does not mean that I translate my allowance for that action -- through a recognition that I live in a community where a lot of other peoples' will also comes into play, through the forming of mutually applicable laws -- into some sort of personal authority to "fine" other people, and take their money without their consent.

If the government can ( lawfully ) take money from a person ( for doing something ) without ethical implications, why are there ethical implications to a commoner ( unlawfully ) taking money from a person ( for doing something )?

Assuming, certainly, we are talking about the same person, and that it is not some kind of tax.

 

[Willamena]

If the government can ( lawfully ) take money from a person ( for doing something ) without ethical implications, why are there ethical implications to a commoner ( unlawfully ) taking money from a person ( for doing something )?

Assuming, certainly, we are talking about the same person, and that it is not some kind of tax.

Governments are human entities on a much larger scale, where "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" (even corporations have more personality than governments because of their unique identities and concise goals). Their ethics similarly have to embrace a generalized human form rather than a distinct one.

I disagree that governments can act without any ethical considerations or implications, but they are certainly different ethical considerations that take into account as many of the relevant people as possible. One example is the resolution of a recent land deal with the Metis in Manitoba that granted them a 140 year old promise of lands. Both governments, historical and present, had obligations that dictated their decisions--for the present government, the decision of inaction was a "wrong" one.

Supreme Court sides with Metis in historic Manitoba land claim dispute | CTV News

 

[Koldo]

Governments are human entities on a much larger scale, where "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" (even corporations have more personality than governments because of their unique identities and concise goals). Their ethics similarly have to embrace a generalized human form rather than a distinct one.

I disagree that governments can act without any ethical considerations or implications, but they are certainly different ethical considerations that take into account as many of the relevant people as possible. One example is the resolution of a recent land deal with the Metis in Manitoba that granted them a 140 year old promise of lands. Both governments, historical and present, had obligations that dictated their decisions--for the present government, the decision of inaction was a "wrong" one.

Supreme Court sides with Metis in historic Manitoba land claim dispute | CTV News

Would someone behaving according to "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" be in the same situation as the government on regards to ethics?

 

[4consideration]

If the government can ( lawfully ) take money from a person ( for doing something ) without ethical implications, why are there ethical implications to a commoner ( unlawfully ) taking money from a person ( for doing something )?

I wouldn't put it quite like that. I don't think that the situation is entirely without ethical implications for the government to take money from a person without their consent. Ethics are at the basis of the law, behind the reason for it, and also are pertinent in how enforcement of the law is carried out. However, I don't think that just because the government does something that I think is wrong that means that I personally have the authority to do that same thing -- especially if I think the law is wrong when applied to me.

But, for this discussion, we are talking about the personal ethics behind a person's reason for stealing, or not stealing, Hitler's wallet. It is about personal action, not the action of government.

Assuming, certainly, we are talking about the same person, and that it is not some kind of tax.

Are you talking about a fine? I think a fine and a tax could be covered in the same discussion -- but that would be one about the role of government, or how far it can go, and not really about whether or not a desire for revenge against a mass-murder justifies, or compels, stealing the wallet of that person at all, and especially at a point in history before those murders actually occurred.

 

[Willamena]

Would someone behaving according to "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" be in the same situation as the government on regards to ethics?

Not if that is their particular intent.

 

[Koldo]

I wouldn't put it quite like that. I don't think that the situation is entirely without ethical implications for the government to take money from a person without their consent. Ethics are at the basis of the law, behind the reason for it, and also are pertinent in how enforcement of the law is carried out. However, I don't think that just because the government does something that I think is wrong that means that I personally have the authority to do that same thing -- especially if I think the law is wrong when applied to me.

That's not exactly where i was trying to get at.
For the sake of the discussion, imagine a situation where you think it would be right for the goverment to take money ( under those restrictions i mentioned in the last topic ) from a person for doing something, and wrong for a commoner to do it with this person.

Why do you consider it right for the government to do it, but not for the commoner? That's the question.
If you can't imagine this situation, say so.

I merely mentioned the 'law' because the only distinction i see between both situations would be the 'law'.

But, for this discussion, we are talking about the personal ethics behind a person's reason for stealing, or not stealing, Hitler's wallet. It is about personal action, not the action of government.

Why do you find the distinction between personal action and government relevant when we are talking about ethics? This is exactly the point i would to explore.

Are you talking about a fine? I think a fine and a tax could be covered in the same discussion -- but that would be one about the role of government, or how far it can go, and not really about whether or not a desire for revenge against a mass-murder justifies, or compels stealing the wallet of that person at a point in history before those murders actually occurred.

Indeed the fact that he hadn't mass killed people yet would be sufficient to grant a different perspective on this topic. But for the sake of this conversation, let us not get into this point. At least for now.

And yes, i am talking about a fine.

 

[Koldo]

Not if that is their particular intent.

Why? Considering the government is composed of individuals.

 

[Willamena]

Ethics puts you, as a particular, in relation to humanity as a whole, with the goal of outcomes like civilization, law and order, peace and properity, "truth and justice for all," etc. Whatever "face" you, in particular, want to be on the whole determines how you will relate to circumstances and situations in your actions and ideals.

Governments have a unique relation to the whole, to humanity, that not only has nothing to do with any particular that they are composed of, but any particular that they govern. Their ethical considerations are as themselves as municipalities, provinces or states, and countries. (I guess I could throw in corporate entities now.)

Particulars and governments wear different hats.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

You might try stealing his wallet, and then returning it. This act of human decency and kindness might have a positive impact. Then, use the situation to try to befriend Hitler and engage him in positive and productive dialogue in order to challenge his ideas and possibly change his worldview. If, after awhile, it didn't appear as though he was going to improve, then put a bullet in the back of his head.

Interesting. I have never thought of that before.

 

[Alex_G]

"You are in Berlin, 1933. Somehow, you find yourself in a position where you can effortlessly steal Hitler's wallet. This theft will not affect Hitler's rise to power, the nature of WW2, or the Holocaust. There is no important identification in the wallet, but the act will cost Hitler forty Reichsmarks and completely ruin his evening. You do not need the money. The odds that you will be caught committing this act are less than 2 percent. Are you, in your opinion, ethically obligated to steal Hitler's wallet?"

What i would do and what i should do arnt the same thing, even if they perhaps ought to be.

In your example i dont particularly think its morally defensible, nor do i think i would actually steal it. In the way you've phrased it you've pretty much removed any motive of gain, besides the causing of inconvenience, which i dont really operate to.

It being Hitler as opposed to any other human being doesnt change the moral details of why stealing it is wrong, nor does it incline me to want to do it here as opposed to an identical situation with anoyone else.

Of course being in 1933, one is before the history and crimes that makes Hitler who he is in our history books. Back then that’s not actually who you'd be stealing from, at least not yet. Thus what the name 'Hitler' means to everyone today is not the same as what it would mean to a 1933 version of me, or anyone else. So motivations to make this crime of stealing in this particular case ok based on who Hitler happens to be, don’t really equally translate to a version of me back then, but also even if it did, it wouldnt change my answer

 

[Willamena]

I have never thought of that before.

I would hope not.