The Robinhood Dilemma

[Deleted]

'Mental harm' is that like some women claiming they got traumatized because someone cat-called at them on the street?

Maybe she got a gun held to her head and was treataned to be killed?
I don't see how and why you would bring this up, armed robbery/cat-calling.

[Deleted]

There's a legal obligation to turn in criminals here, so naturally I wouldn't tell anyone and just mind my own business.

Why put that load onto me? There's a lot of consequences that come out of informing on something like this, even if it is legally the right thing to do.

[I Push Buttons]

Depends on the grounds you want to base your argument. If we're saying that legal accountability is more important than morality, then you obviously turn him in. If it's on moral philosophical grounds, then the answer is murkier and would depend on which action creates the most good and least harm.

Utilitarianism is shit tier morality.

Say someone has a rare mutation in their body and that mutated tissue can be used to cure a terminal disease, but harvesting it would kill them. If there are two people who have the disease, is it ok for society to kill that person and harvest their mutated tissue to save those two people? Two people living is better than one person living, one person dying is less harm than two people dying...?

By your utilitarian logic right there, the moral thing to do is murder the person with the mutation and harvest his mutated tissue.

[TITAN308]

Nice to see the usual pro-crime MMO posters are about today.

[Serpha]

Aren't banks insured by government? I have no clue, totally ignorant.

[Tijuana]

Moral Dilemma, this is the given situation, curious what you would do and the reason behind it:

You are an eyewitness to a crime: A man has robbed a bank, but instead of keeping the money for himself, he donates it to a poor orphanage that can now afford to feed, clothe, and care for its children. You know who committed the crime. If you go to the authorities with the information, there's a good chance the money will be returned to the bank, leaving a lot of kids in need. What do you do?

Me personally i would turn him in.
Why, i can be fairly sure he treatened and traumatised good people in the proccess.

What would you do?

This is basically the Democrat agenda played out on smaller terms.

- - - Updated - - -

Aren't banks insured by government? I have no clue, totally ignorant.

Yes, in the US the FDIC insures deposits of individuals.

[Deleted]

Correct course of action is generally to lobby to change legislation, rather than act judge and executioner yourself.

[Kathandira]

Moral Dilemma, this is the given situation, curious what you would do and the reason behind it:

You are an eyewitness to a crime: A man has robbed a bank, but instead of keeping the money for himself, he donates it to a poor orphanage that can now afford to feed, clothe, and care for its children. You know who committed the crime. If you go to the authorities with the information, there's a good chance the money will be returned to the bank, leaving a lot of kids in need. What do you do?

Me personally i would turn him in.
Why, i can be fairly sure he treatened and traumatised good people in the proccess.

What would you do?

First, lets look at how Banks get that money. Initially, the money comes from you and me. The bank then takes that money and invests it to turn a profit. While you may not see any of that investment money, that is the money that keeps the bank funded and able to provide loans and pay their employees.

So ask yourself, if someone is stealing from the bank, who are they really stealing from? I may have put the only $100 I have to my name in the bank. I may be just a tiny step above those poor people who the thief is giving the money to. By taking money from one poor person, and giving it to another poor person, there was little to no effect. He just replaced one poor person with another.

I would turn him in without question. The bank is not a single person, it is a community of people.

[I Push Buttons]

Aren't banks insured by government? I have no clue, totally ignorant.

In the US, FDIC doesn't cover theft.

- - - Updated - - -

Is this virtue-signaling?

He says as he goes on about how morally superior his position is.

[Kathandira]

Banks are insured by the government here so the taxpayers would wind up paying for the thief's donation.

And with this said, the thief is double screwing the community.

[TITAN308]

Is this virtue-signaling?

I don't care what you perceive my comment as.

MMO-C never fails to amaze. From closet pedophiles to pro-crime. This place is an endless pit sometimes.

[Deleted]

[QUOTE=Kathandira;47376008]

Banks are insured by the government here so the taxpayers would wind up paying for the thief's donation./QUOTE]

And with this said, the thief is double screwing the community.

My thoughts, what a circle

[Deleted]

I would report him. While his motives might be benevolent, it's still no justification for such a course of action and breaking the law.
If he wants to help, he can donate his own money. But in this case, it's not his to take and give away.

Plus, like Hubcap said - in the end, it would not be the bank who'd have to pay for his self-righteousness, but the people.

[RaoBurning]

Buy him lunch. Banks are insured so it's not a huge loss, really.

[Kathandira]

Buy him lunch. Banks are insured so it's not a huge loss, really.

But what happens when you use your insurance? Generally your rates go up. The entire thing will have rippling effects all the way down to our very own pockets.

[TITAN308]

Oh no, what a horrible cesspool this place must be!

Thankfully they isolated a lot of it to the political sub-forum. I'll give MMO-C staff credit for that.

[Twix]

Turn him in. Stealing is never a solution. That money belongs to people who have bank deposits. The charity should raise funds legally to help the children. Maybe instead of stealing, this thief could help organize activities to raise funds for the foundation.

[Darkeon]

It's a good tale about a very specific scenario that can't really work in today's western world and society.

[Alydael]

What if, and I am just thinking here, you turn him in but don't mention the orphanage?
In that case I still believe the so-called robinhood would take the fall and not mention the orphanages since the robbery itself was based on moral intentions not personal gain.
Can you agree to that scenario?

I think they would still seek to recoup that money. I also do not think it would be hard to figure out where the money went, money is easily traceable.

Whether or not I turn him in would depend largely what I thought of this man.

If this man, walked by the orphanage everyday and was just disgusted at the poverty of the children and was driven to action and decided to rob this bank to care for these children (and no one was hurt in the robbery) - I would not turn him in.

If he just robbed the bank to grab a little for himself, but gave some to the orphanage to soothe his conscious- I would probably turn him in.

Also, if anyone was seriously hurt in the robbery - I would turn him in.

[Deleted]

I think they would still seek to recoup that money. I also do not think it would be hard to figure out where the money went, money is easily traceable.

Whether or not I turn him in would depend largely what I thought of this man.

If this man, walked by the orphanage everyday and was just disgusted at the poverty of the children and was driven to action and decided to rob this bank to care for these children (and no one was hurt in the robbery) - I would not turn him in.

If he just robbed the bank to grab a little for himself, but gave some to the orphanage to soothe his conscious- I would probably turn him in.

Also, if anyone was seriously hurt in the robbery - I would turn him in.

Sounds very logical.
This and above comments show how diverse people would react even with the smallest changes to the scenario.