christ-on-a-stick

Calzaer, Define "extreme situations" in a way that everybody can agree on as a working definition and we'll be all set, eh?

long winded fool

I agree with you Calzaer. Logically, lawful snitching is never a wrong action, though one's motives for snitching could be selfish. Failing to "snitch" is failing to fulfill one's duty as a member of a given society. Even in extreme examples, as long as you are a willing member of a society, it is your duty to report any unlawful behavior to the authorities even if you disagree that the behavior ought to be illegal. If you are an unwilling member, (i.e. being detained against your will like the Jews in Nazi Germany) you need not obey laws you feel are unjust, but you ought to abandon the society the first chance you get. Unjust laws must still be followed by all members of a society so long as they are laws and so long as they are members of society. If you can't, you must leave the society. When you feel a law should not be on the books, your only logical choices are to obey it absolutely until you get it repealed and report those who are not obeying it to the authorities, or live someplace else. If you like where you're living, you must obey all laws if you are rational. A society can't survive with powerless laws. Cultural indivisualism is a good thing, but legislation must apply to all. To take individualism to the point of following your own set of morals above the laws of society is anarchy. If you disagree with something to the point where you cannot possibly obey laws allowing it, don't live in a society that makes it legal, and vice versa. If you like marijuana, go live where it's legal. Don't use it where it's not legal and expect law-abiding members of society not to turn you in. Snitching is the only honorable thing to do when witnessing any crime.

christ-on-a-stick

Would you apply that as well to Alonzo's example of the person hiding Jews in Nazi Germany?

Calzaer

He addressed that in the body of his post. The answer was "yes".

Nickle

Thanks for the Frontline link. How atrocious.

long winded fool

Good question. If I personally would not do this, then I would be obliged by reason to remove myself from the society that places a segment of the population into concentration camps. If I were physically forced to remain a citizen of Germany under Hitler's rule, I would be an unwilling member of society and would not be honor-bound to obey its laws. (Of course, I would understand and accept the harsh consequences that result from breaking the law though I may disagree with them.) If, on the other hand, I had absolutely no intention of leaving the society, then yes I would have to snitch on the person hiding the Jews from the authorities, even though said authorities would harm them and even though it pained my conscience to do so. My conscience is obviously not pained enough if I would willingly remain under such rule. This is how societies work. When an unjust law is passed and enforced, either the legislation is overthrown, or those unwilling to do injustice simply leave for another society where they will not be required to. A society with unjust laws cannot survive for long. That is why dictatorships are poor and generally short-lived, (though the dictators themselves might be rich.)

Of course, in reality people don't have enough courage to collectively abandon a society in a mass exodus when an unjust law is passed. It is far more practical (and equally courageous, in theory) to pressure the government until it repeals the law, though to be completely rational the unjust law must be 100% obeyed until the law is repealed.

A very similar argument can also be used to show that refusing military conscription in an unjust war is still a cowardly and irrational act, despite motives. If your society gets into an unjust war, you ought to leave it. If you don't, then you ought to be prepared to protect your neighbors' sons and daughters who are fighting an enemy, even if said enemy is otherwise innocent and peaceful. If you are willing to live in a society that "lawfully" kills innocent people, then you must be willing to kill innocent people yourself, should you be called upon by your neighbors to do so. If you can't change an unjust legislation, it is much better to leave the society than to simply ignore it and remain. As long as you are a member, you must obey. The only choice of action any human has is whether or not to be a member of a society. There is no (logical) choice of obeying laws once you're a member. You can try to change laws while obeying them to the letter in the mean time, but you can't just ignore them and remain in the society if you are rational. Doing this is my definition of cowardice. Leaving the society and its unjust laws or unjust wars is courageous. If every human being did this, there would be no power left for the greedy and unjust to control anyone, since everyone would always be someplace else. But, since most people are easily intimidated, (IMO,) we get the intelligent and greedy who can use this inherent fear and ignorance to manipulate the masses into giving them power. Without our most often irrational instinct of fear, there would be no intimidation, no intimidators, and thus no injustice in the world.

Wow, sorry for the long-winded response. I guess the op just seems to conjure up in my head critical reflection on logic and reason and why they are so important to the survival of the species. I could go off on a number of loosely related tangents here but I won't. I know it's considered rude to hijack a thread.

Dr. Retard

long winded fool:

How exactly are you supposed to leave the Soviet Union? Maybe that regime was "short-lived" to you, but the rest of us aren't ageless vampires.

Maybe people could "physically remove themselves" by suicide. In your book, would that be better than failing to dutifully report the whereabouts of your dissident buddies?

This makes no sense to me.

Alonzo Fyfe

Long Winded Fool:

Your argument seems to suggest that people must either be entirely in society or entirely disown society.

What do you say to the homosexual living in one of 35 states where sodomy is a crime? What do you say to the abolitionist in 1850 who ignored the requirements of the Fugitive Slave Act (which required all citizens who had information on escaped slaves to report them) -- which was widely ignored in North. What do you say of civil disobedience such as Ghandi's trip to make salt and Martin Luthar King's march to Selma, Alabama?

long winded fool

How do you leave any society? If the society keeps you a member by force, you are not morally responsible to follow the laws and hence do not have to report anything. You will be punished by the society of course, but you will essentially be a prisoner in an unjust society either way. If you remain voluntarily under an unjust law, you must obey the unjust law to the letter.

Any American should report anyone who engages in sodomy in one of the 35 states. If he or she doesn't like this, it is more honorable to move to a state where sodomy is not a crime than to ignore the law. Protest is fine as long as it's legal. Civil disobedience is cowardice as it undermines the backbone of society which is law. If a society doesn't allow its people to democratically change the laws as they see fit, the people ought to either leave, or obey. If neither of these is possible in any way, then you have become a prisoner in a society that is not your choice society and are thus not bound to honor your captors’ laws, though you may be physically bound to. A POW is not honor-bound to obey his captors. A citizen is always bound to obey the legislation of his government for as long as he is a citizen under said government.

Jamie_L

To me, the OP evokes thoughts of situations other than legal ones. It evokes thoughts of morality and ethics.

What the OP evokes is the idea that "snitching" is somehow immoral or unethical, and that a snitch is weak.

Imagine the situation where a child witnesses bullies beating up on some poor kid in the school bathroom. The teacher later asks the class who bet up Mikey. If the witness speaks up, he is tarred with the epithet "snitch". But what has he done wrong? Yet, culturally, there is an odd support for this notion that the witness really is comitting a negative act by telling the teacher who did the beating.

Even more thorny, imagine the situation where a person witnesses his friends doing something wrong. Now you've got an ethical dilemma: loyalty to friends vs. revealing the truth of a wrong to authorities who can correct it. Again, turning in your buddies is often viewed negatively as "snitching". But really, who has committed the wrong act? It's an abuse of loyalty to try to get someone to go along with something they feel is unethical.

Jamie