1
   

To tell or not to tell

 
 
Ray
 
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 10:12 pm
A person's property was damaged, accidentally, but the person does not know it, and it would cost them money to repair it. The person who damaged it walked toward the building you came out of, but before he or she entered, he or she saw you as a witness. At the same time your bus arrives and you get on. Is it a moral responsibility to report the incident?

I felt guilty for not saying anything when something like tihs happened, but anyways, I was thinking, that it wasn't intentionally damaged and I didn't want to make the situation worse. Actually, I was under the pressure that my family would get involved, and the situation might, as I said, get worse. Was it a moral responsibility?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,077 • Replies: 12
No top replies

 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 10:16 pm
It depends on how well you know the person who's property was damaged, as well as the person who did the damaging, as well as how much damage was inflicted, and to what, and how long it will take them to realize it has been damaged.
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 10:34 pm
Well, I don't think it has anything to do with how much you know a person.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 03:02 am
Ray-

It's a moral responsibility if you think it is and it isn't if you don't.

stuh is being pragmatic which is fair enough if he would be cool about it.

Compare it with seeing a mate's wife underneath a stranger on an office desk.Or underneath another mate.Both those have happened to me.I said nothing.Wives are not property are they?

On a grand scale the environment is the property of the next generation and we are damaging it as well as laying a massive debt on them.

It's a tough one.I think I would line up with stuh.It depends on the social dynamic.How well you know each party,how well off they both are and how much the cost of repair is.

If you know the person who did the damage I think I would ask them to get me off the hook and hope.
0 Replies
 
AliceInWonderland
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 09:27 am
Quote:
I felt guilty for not saying anything when something like tihs happened


Well, if you felt guilt, doesn't that tell you something? Your morals were telling you to get involved. Does it really matter if the damage was intentional or not? If someone damages the property of another unintentionally, but then intentionally walks away without taking responsibility, they've just made it an intentional act, haven't they? You may have a legal responsibility as well, depending upon the dollar value of the damage.
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 10:50 am
Quote:
Well, I don't think it has anything to do with how much you know a person.


I thought you were asking for other people's moral opinions. Your morals may be different, but my morals are not so cut-and-dry, and rely heavily on these kinds of factors.
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Oct, 2005 12:19 am
Quote:
I thought you were asking for other people's moral opinions. Your morals may be different, but my morals are not so cut-and-dry, and rely heavily on these kinds of factors.


Yeah, I am asking for people's opinion on what's the morally right thing to do, but expect to hear mine as well, and that's what I was saying, that I don't see it like that. Note that I did mention "I think" or "I don't think."

Quote:
It's a moral responsibility if you think it is and it isn't if you don't.


Why?

Quote:
Well, if you felt guilt, doesn't that tell you something? Your morals were telling you to get involved. Does it really matter if the damage was intentional or not? If someone damages the property of another unintentionally, but then intentionally walks away without taking responsibility, they've just made it an intentional act, haven't they? You may have a legal responsibility as well, depending upon the dollar value of the damage


You make a good point, but feelings are not always correct. I do agree to what you're saying, but in the occasion that I remembered, there were circumstances that got in the way. I guess I did not want to further complicate something that was not so serious into the point of something serious, and I did not know what to do.
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Oct, 2005 01:04 am
Quote:
Yeah, I am asking for people's opinion on what's the morally right thing to do, but expect to hear mine as well, and that's what I was saying, that I don't see it like that. Note that I did mention "I think" or "I don't think."


Heh, I'm not concerned with the specifics of your wording...I just wanted to be able to think about the moral issue, but without having the important elements of the problem described there is nothing to debate.
0 Replies
 
flushd
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Oct, 2005 01:12 am
I would say something. It would depend on a few factors, but in general I would speak up. Morality for me is flexible: go with what works after weighing the concequences both ways.

How could the situation get worse? Is there a special risk factor for you not wanting to get involved, or are is it just laziness?

If you say nothing:
1) The guy whose property was damaged might get screwed over
2) The guy who did it who has seen you as a witness knows you can be counted on to 'cover' and sees you now as a sucker
3) If the first guy finds out you knew and didn't say anything: you won't look too good in his eyes

If any of the above played out it wouldn't reflect well on you. Just what I think.
0 Replies
 
val
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Oct, 2005 01:17 am
Re: To tell or not to tell
Ray

My perspective is this: if someone damaged your property would you want that person to run away without telling you anything, or would you prefer the person presents herself telling you what happened and taking the responsibility?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Oct, 2005 01:36 am
The interesing aspect for me in this question is that it highlights the fact that "the self" is predominantly a social construction. Ray's dilemma is the result of "the self" having allegiance to different social networks..."society"..."the family"...etc each of which has different protocols, and also which "self" is the chairman of thinking committee. (Presumably a Marxist chairman would resolve Ray's dilemma with the ruling "property is theft "!)

I have in the past acted automatically in attempting to prevent petty criminality and later realized that such actions were perhaps unwise with respect to my family responsibilities. Hopefully, I will think twice before acting again, but this will not prevent a dilemma...for such is the nature of "self". And it is the difficult move to a non-judgemental position regarding "self" that some have seen as a "path to enlightenment".
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Oct, 2005 08:46 am
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2005 12:38 am
Quote:
How could the situation get worse? Is there a special risk factor for you not wanting to get involved, or are is it just laziness?


It's not laziness, I just don't want to get my family involved, and I did not know who to report it to (it was night time, the person who owned the damaged property wasn't there at the time and I wasn't sure how long they were going to be there). Maybe this is some paranoia type thing, but I also did not want a revenge type feeling sparked over something non-harmful (in terms of people).

Quote:
My perspective is this: if someone damaged your property would you want that person to run away without telling you anything, or would you prefer the person presents herself telling you what happened and taking the responsibility?


Yeah, you're right. Hopefully I'll do better next time.

Quote:
The interesing aspect for me in this question is that it highlights the fact that "the self" is predominantly a social construction. Ray's dilemma is the result of "the self" having allegiance to different social networks..."society"..."the family"...etc each of which has different protocols, and also which "self" is the chairman of thinking committee. (Presumably a Marxist chairman would resolve Ray's dilemma with the ruling "property is theft "!)


Not quite, because to me morality is first among many things. It's just that in this case, I have more of a dillemma of whether to pursue something that could explode when there is no real harm involved, or letting it breeze by. Also, the family thing is whether I want to drag someone else into this or not before I know whether they want to be dragged in or not.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » To tell or not to tell
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 11:11:40