Let's assume you knew a married couple, non-Catholics who had four youngish children and stable or even a "happy" marriage.

But they were involved with a crime.  What would you blow the whistle on them for, and how would you make the decision ?  What factors would you consider?

Here are some examples of possible crimes of different natures so you can base your justification or demonstrate where and when and why one might tell on them versus when one would not.

1.  They grow dope (Cannabis) in a state where it is illegal and sell it to adults and make a five figure profit (say $20k per year) which they spend on supporting their family.  So they are not getting rich from this but they are subsidising their family.  If you object to cannabis then let's assume they brew beer and sell it without a licence, though as far as you know do it responsibly and with regard to human health.

2.  They run a legitimate business but fiddle their taxes and pay thousands less than they should.  Not simply tax avoidance but tax evasion.

3.  They are engaged in tax fraud where they are creating false IDs and invoices and claiming large amounts from the IRS in say welfare benefits.  Not merely not paying taxes, but stealing by fraud money they have absolutely no claim over.


Finally, assume that they have been convicted and already spent 3 years in jail only to come out and access some squirrelled away stash of at least several hundred thousand dollars, which you are 99.9999% certain is from their crimes since they don't have other jobs.  Do you grass them up such that they go back to jail for second stretch for money laundering or failure to disclose their assets after their previous conviction?

What's the moral basis for making a decision to grass someone up?  Is there something like a just war theory to decide what warrants you snitching on them?  Do you take into account the corruption of the government, justice system and the fact that any taxes paid are more likely to be spent on illegal wars than anything just and and good.

Someone on SD suggested that because money was "imaginary" and the financial system a gigantic pyramid scheme that no objective moral evil was being done by them stealing millions when the government prints hundreds of billions to bail out the banks or at least you had no moral duty to snitch because of the complexities and fraud inherent in the modern financial system itself.  Do you agree with this line of reasoning?

I wouldn't inform on any of the couples you describe.  This would not be due to any moral argument, other than an aversion for snitching, or 'grassing up' people.  

However I would contact the relevant authority if I suspected that someone was being physically harmed or if I knew that an act of violence was being planned.  

So if someone was stealing millions in an organised fraud from the US Treasury, you would not report them?

Would you report a neighbour who drilled into a bank vault and stole several million dollars but did no violence to anyone?  The bank are insured by the Treasury so the net effect is the same.

Why is non-violent theft of public monies a special case?  Or why is violence or physical harm a special case.  Both are mortally sinful acts.  Both against the Ten Commandments.

Why is non-violent theft of public monies a special case?  Or why is violence or physical harm a special case.  Both are mortally sinful acts.  Both against the Ten Commandments.

Probably because many of us see the Govt as a corrupt sham, so if we reported the fraudulent or stolen money it would probably just be covered-up and end up in some official's pocket anyway. I really don't believe it would save the taxpayers any money in the long run. I suspect if most fraud were reported in the way you posit, there would be no notable benefit to the average taxpayers anyway because of said corruption. The money would just disappear somewhere into somebody's Swiss bank account. Not to mention fear of repercussions if the snitch is found out. For those reasons, most of us probably wouldn't have such a twinge of conscience that we would actually report them unless there was danger of violence involved, especially to children.
 
I'm not saying it's right, and it is probably sinful, just the way it is in reality. But I'm pretty sure you had guessed at those types of reasons, so what are you really fishing for here, Greg?

I would not turn them in. However, I would also not ask questions and I generally try to stay out of such affairs. If questioned, I would probably decline to speak on the matter if it were possible. I would be unlikely to reveal new or additional information.

Congratulations, ggreg. This is a provocative moral topic—for a change—and it has already generated some interesting and thoughtful responses, whether one agrees with them or not. The comments here certainly beat the pants off the comments in the Feminism of Men thread, where guys are congratulating one another on how manly they are, on how much they despise long hair and the color pink, and on how much they like to drink. Indeed, readers could do far worse than make it a rule of thumb that any thread where the word "tankard" appears is a thread worth ignoring.

Seems your tankard is full of wine pressed from sour grapes, Claudel. I can't for the life of me figure out what crime PereJoseph could have committed to have merited such lasting, unrestrainable ire from you.

1. They grow dope (Cannabis) in a state where it is illegal and sell it to adults and make a five figure profit (say $20k per year) which they spend on supporting their family. So they are not getting rich from this but they are subsidising their family. If you object to cannabis then let's assume they brew beer and sell it without a licence, though as far as you know do it responsibly and with regard to human health.

The first question is how would you know that they were doing this? If they were doing this openly (ie growing it in the back yard) whether yousay anything or not it is only a matter of time before it comes to the attention of the authorities. People who sell drugs like that are a public nuisance. Even if cannabis were legal the high traffic volume is a nuisance in neighborhoods which are zoned as residential instead of commercial. They also give scandal to their children when they engage in this immoral activity.

Quote from: claudel

Congratulations, ggreg. This is a provocative moral topic—for a change—and it has already generated some interesting and thoughtful responses, whether one agrees with them or not. The comments here certainly beat the pants off the comments in the Feminism of Men thread, where guys are congratulating one another on how manly they are, on how much they despise long hair and the color pink, and on how much they like to drink. Indeed, readers could do far worse than make it a rule of thumb that any thread where the word "tankard" appears is a thread worth ignoring.

Seems your tankard is full of wine pressed from sour grapes, Claudel. I can't for the life of me figure out what crime PereJoseph could have committed to have merited such lasting, unrestrainable ire from you.

Well, don't worry, because I'm pretty sure that Claudel doesn't know, either.  He likes to read cynical meanings into innocent comments.  I will say, though, that for somebody who spends so much time and effort in insulting people, at least he's an elegant writer.  He's turned gratuitous insults into a kind of art.  It's like being a master at mumblety-peg or the knife game :  It's not a noble skill, but one can't deny talent.