The Robinhood Dilemma

[Logwyn]

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?

Is this an assignment for a Philosophy Class? It sure feels like it, sounds like it, and walks like it.

How am I privy to what happens to the guy after he robs the bank? Why do I feel the need to tail a bank robber to see where he goes and what he does with the money?

Hell if I was that brave I might as well have stopped him before he gets to the orphanage with the bag.

What grade did you get on your homework?

[Crissi]

given these kind of things never exist in isolation, the result of the robbery would still hurt the people (cause taxes going toward compensating the bank for its losses so that customers dont lose their money), not the bank.

report / turn in the idiot for being short sighted (also a crime, yo)

[Deleted]

Is this an assignment for a Philosophy Class? It sure feels like it, sounds like it, and walks like it.

How am I privy to what happens to the guy after he robs the bank? Why do I feel the need to tail a bank robber to see where he goes and what he does with the money?

Hell if I was that brave I might as well have stopped him before he gets to the orphanage with the bag.

What grade did you get on your homework?

Are you serious? I am 31 not a student.
Should change your picture from yoga to a ugly troll.
If you are not interested in this topic just don't get involved.
No one is going to back up your rant.
May the force be with you.

[McFuu]

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?

If the Orphanage uses the services of the bank the guy robbed, was any money actually stolen?

- - - Updated - - -

given these kind of things never exist in isolation, the result of the robbery would still hurt the people (cause taxes going toward compensating the bank for its losses so that customers dont lose their money), not the bank.

report / turn in the idiot for being short sighted (also a crime, yo)

I'm assuming you are referring to the FDIC, that only covers if the bank fails ie: goes out of business.
Banks should carry insurance for theft, God, X-Men, whatever.

[Louisa Bannon]

Money is pure bullshit, but...

Percentage reward = turn him in.

No reward = don't give a fuck.

[Mistame]

In the end, a thief is just a thief.

[Dys]

Why that sounds like a perfect opportunity to ambush a bank robber and make some money for yourself. Since that act would have to be done before he went and offloaded the money, knowledge of intent would be impossible, making it a simple robbery of a robber instead of some attempted moral dilemma.

Not that there would be any dilemma on my part if I followed through with the original asinine scenario, children aren't a compassion trigger for me. I do not give a single fuck about them.

[Guyv3r]

A lion however does not concern himself with the opinion of sheep.

That's rich coming from a Martell ahah xD


---- To OP:

Do you believe they were wrong? If so tell the police. If not, don't. Be the change you want to see in the world.

[Kathandira]

When I was in high school, I actually was sent out of the classroom with another dude because I was making too much noise during some 'religion' class or whatever nonsense it was. First thing the other dude does is going through the pockets of the jackets and bags left outside, hauling in about what would be worth about 200 EUR in cash from idiots who left their wallets in their jackets in the hallway.

First thing I said was: "Hey, give me half of that."

Luckily he agreed. It was one of the most profitable punishments I ever received.

And that started your road to being untrustworthy? Shame on you.

[Z-Man]

In the end, a thief is just a thief.

Unless he owns a bank.

[Kathandira]

Seems a bit like an odd jump.

What does it have to do with trustworthiness? A lot of people usually tell me I'm the most loyal and trustworthy person they know. The military academy used to give me awards at the end of the year for my exemplary self-discipline and sense of duty (which usually meant a bookshop gift certificate and some World War 2 books I never bothered to read).

Seems that I'm pretty exemplary of a human being!

I wouldn't say it is an odd jump to think that someone in school robbed their entire class blind and seems to be proud of it may have grown up to be an untrustworthy person.

[AeneasBK]

I get the impression these sorts of dilemas were made before the proliferation of insurance.

[Kathandira]

I get the impression these sorts of dilemas were made before the proliferation of insurance.

Even without insurance, the bank is not a singular entity. It is a trust of the communities money. If you rob the bank, you robbed your entire town. Which can include anyone from the richest, to the poorest.

[AeneasBK]

Even without insurance, the bank is not a singular entity. It is a trust of the communities money. If you rob the bank, you robbed your entire town. Which can include anyone from the richest, to the poorest.

Maybe I'm naive but I didn't think stealing from my local branch of Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation was stealing from my entire town.

[Kathandira]

Maybe I'm naive but I didn't think stealing from my local branch of Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation was stealing from my entire town.

If you put your money in the bank, and someone robs it, they effectively stole from you, as well as anyone else who keeps their money with the bank.

[Deleted]

If you put your money in the bank, and someone robs it, they effectively stole from you, as well as anyone else who keeps their money with the bank.

Banks are not money storage systems. They're ledger keepers.
When you make a deposit the bank is indebted to you. If they rob the bank, the bank is still indebted to you by the same amount.

If we were talking about a fund sharing community, when they rob the fund, they rob the community. That's as far as property goes: unless you own the thing that is being robbed, you're not being robbed.

[Kathandira]

Not really. Regardless of theft the bank still owes you that money.

Sure. That is true. But consider this, if you left your watch at a friends house, and that house was robbed (including your watch), your watch was stolen. Just because it is at your friends house, doesn't mean it no longer belongs to you. Yes, your friend should be responsible for getting your watch back to you in whatever way it takes. But it doesn't mean it was never yours to begin with.

- - - Updated - - -

Banks are not money storage systems. They're ledger keepers.
When you make a deposit the bank is indebted to you. If they rob the bank, the bank is still indebted to you by the same amount.

If we were talking about a fund sharing community, when they rob the fund, they rob the community. That's as far as property goes: unless you own the thing that is being robbed, you're not being robbed.

I disagree, because money is a physical object. I hand the bank a $100 bill, and deposit it in my account. No matter how I look at it, they are in possession of my $100 bill, and when I need it, they owe it to me. No matter what, it is still my money, not theirs. They are only holding onto it for me.

Maybe this is how banks got out of control. The fundamentals have been obscured.

[Deleted]

I disagree, because money is a physical object.

Money is a social construct. Banks simply keep track of who is owed how much of it.
Coins are the physical object.

They are only holding onto it for me.

They don't hold it. They write in a book, or a computer, that they owe you an amount.

[Manabomb]

Banks rob money from the people, so let them be robbed too.

When the law has been engineered to be biased towards banks through lobbying and corruption, it's hard to wanting to be lawful.

Most people will give a 'lawful' response to this, as that is necessary for a (corrupt) society to function. A lion however does not concern himself with the opinion of sheep.

A lion will also be put down by humans when it threatens their sheep.

[Glorious Leader]

Sure. That is true. But consider this, if you left your watch at a friends house, and that house was robbed (including your watch), your watch was stolen. Just because it is at your friends house, doesn't mean it no longer belongs to you. Yes, your friend should be responsible for getting your watch back to you in whatever way it takes. But it doesn't mean it was never yours to begin with.

- - - Updated - - -



I disagree, because money is a physical object. I hand the bank a $100 bill, and deposit it in my account. No matter how I look at it, they are in possession of my $100 bill, and when I need it, they owe it to me. No matter what, it is still my money, not theirs. They are only holding onto it for me.

Maybe this is how banks got out of control. The fundamentals have been obscured.

Thats actually not how lending works and money is most certainly nkt a physical object anymore than centimeters or degrees celsius are.