Hero6 Forums

Ok, I knew taking this Philosophy module would come in useful sooner or later.

I'm going to quote a scenario from my lecturer. Please read through this and post your thoughts about this problem. Thanks.


"Should a son (child) prosecute his parent for murder (or for anything)? The simplest way to approach may be to ask yourself: under what circumstances would you turn your father or mother in to the authorities, if you thought he/she was guilty of a crime? So: answer the question. Really. Think about a range of cases. Now: why did you give the answer you did? Search your soul and find out what your reasons for action are. What rule or principle are you following in deciding, as you do, concerning a range of cases."

Tough question. Should the child? Yes. Would the child? Probably not. It depends on how the child was treated by his parents, and what his temperament is.

I would, as calmly as I could, explain the situation as I knew it, and then ask them why. They'd probably present a different side of the story to what I heard, etc, etc.

If it were in cold blood, with the victim's back turned, without hostile intent, etc, then I would at least tell the authorities, but I doubt it would get anywhere, because I probably wouldn't testify.

The reason? It's hard to compromise between the letter of the law and paternal love. One person who was singularly devoted to the law, or who cared nothing for his mother/father, could testify, etc, easily. One who was consumed in blind love would not be able to. While I would LIKE to find out the truth and pursue it, I would LIKELY not, and, instead, give a limp grasp at the law. That's just an honest representation of what I would probably do.

That's a good answer, Corsair, and I encourage you to continue posting in this manner in the future. Keep it up.

Now to address your points. You raised some valid points in your post, especially the part where it's hard to compromise between the law and family. We'd all like the law to be impartial, to protect the innocent and to punish the guilty, but when faced with a situation where our loved ones did something wrong, we feel obligated to protect them from the law.

That is a contradiction. A lot of us have views which contradict with each other, and this is one such view, that the law should be impartial and yet we feel that certain people should be above the law. It's pretty much because we tend to feel that we owe it to our family and friends for their devotion, and to turn them in can be viewed as an act of betrayal.

So, with all that in mind, is there any way out of this problem?

No. But, then again, in the case of a DA or a Judge, or a member of the jury having a connection to the Defendant, then they are required to recuse themselves.

However, a son or daughter will feel a desire to protect their families, especially with popular media often portraying cops as the bad guys, and, while you can't blame the problems on that, it certainly doesn't HELP matters any.

The law is always gonna be flawed, there's no way around that. All you have to do is try to minimize the amount of flaws and cover them enough that people hopefully wnon't notice.

Your first paragraph is true. As for your last, let's not jump to that conclusion yet, but explore it together.

I ask everyone to come forward with their views on this topic. What are your views? Which should come first, family or the law? Is there any way to seek a resolution in this case, or is it as Corsair suggested, a hopeless case?

I can only answer this question by saying that: if I discovered that my mother, or my father, had commited a crime. I would niether prosecute nor turn them into the authorities. I owe more to the man and woman who raised me as best they could than to the state that would throw them in prison while it lets Christopher Skase go free.

To this I add the truth about the law and rules in general: A person has never been punished for doing the wrong thing, only for getting caught.

Knowing my parents as only I do, I know that nothing they could bring themselves to do would be done without some pretty d@mn good justification, and if that justification requires the breaking of a law here and there, then I support it.

That's for you, Jigen. And for me, probably, too. But a lot of people have parents that never cared for them, neglected them, literally beat them until their flesh began to strip off their backs, etc.

And you claim that no one has ever been punished for doing the wrong thing, only being caught. What? When you get caught doing the wrong thing, you're being punished for doing the wrong thing. It's not like it's "You made a messup in this robbery, you're going to jail." It's "You Robbed this Guy. You're going to jail."

But if you get away clean you don't get punished. See where I'm going with this.

They may say they're punishing you for the crime you commited. They may even mean it. But the fact is: Had you gotten away you wouldn't be punished.

Aladdin says it himself: 'Trouble? You're only in trouble if you get caught.' Then (after a quick song and dance) he gets away. He only gets caught later because Jafar coincidentally required him.

*Grin* Which Jafar?

But, Seriously. Of course you only get punished by the law if you get caught. Would you prefer after a crime, they went out and killed a couple dozen people? I mean, your point is moot.

Actually, his point does have merit, and that will be the topic for next time, but since we're on this path right now, I want to explore some points you've raised.

It's true that if the parents treat the child well, it may be harder for the child to testify against them, as you've pointed out. But if they ill-treat the child, or never showed him/her love, and if the child testifies against them for a crime they'd supposedly commited, will it be done out of the need to see justice done, or because he/she wants to "get back at them" for neglect or punish them for it. Think about it. If he/she has a grudge, would his/her testimony be unbias?  

Suppose the crime was commited without malice, that the parent had killed someone in self-defence. Would it be right to prosecute the parent then? Would the child's motivation to testify be purely for justice's sake, or for vengence? This is an important point.

Now I'm going to bring up a possible solution to the problem. This was recommended by Socrates, a greek philosopher who was concerned with this family vs law problem, which is labelled as a "Euthyphro" problem, after a priest who prosecuted against his father.

In Plato's Republic, Socrates defends the view that, in an ideal political system, children should be taken away from their parents at birth and raised in communal nurseries. So parents don't know who their children are. And children don't know who their parents are. Advantage: Euthyphro-type dilemmas generated by family loyalty versus the dictates of impersonal justice cannot arise. Can this work, or is there a problem with this solution?

That makes all of no sense Corsair.  Try again

It wasn't supposed to make a whole lot of sense. I was pointing out that your own point, that you only get punished if you get caught, is pointless. Moot.

Ok, to address this point now. Consider our legal system. Can you think of any such case where people were tried and found guilty, only to be found innocent years later? This is a perfect example of being punished for getting caught.

True enough. There have been failures of legal systems in the past, and there are a lot more to come. Some criminals are smarter than the cops, and can make a perfectly innocent guy look like a black sheep. But I don't get where you're going with this whole "You only get punished if you are caught" string.

Point is, in theory, only the guilty are caught and punished for their crimes. In practice, nobody will punish you if you did something wrong and weren't found out. If you did something wrong and were caught for it, you'll be punished. If you are innocent, but people think you're guilty and arrest you for it, you'll also be punished. If you did something wrong but weren't caught, you got away with it. That's why some believe that you only get punished for getting caught.

A rather pessimistic view, but I suppose not everyone can be a "Glass Half Full" kind of person.

I think this comes down more to your personal moral code than a matter of law and / or family responsibility.

Personally, I don't know if I can give a definite answer to this question never having been in that situation. But thinking through a few scenarios I suppose that in itself would be a major contributing factor. Would I be more likely to brush it under the carpet if it was a less serious crime than I would be if it was something like murder? Yes I suppose I would.

Actually, I think unless someone else died due to their actions I don't think I'd dob them in. It's just something that I couldn't live with.

Well spoken (or typed) Klytos.

And Corsair, don't make me laugh. 'Glass half full kind of person'... honestly is that the best you can do?

I would put family before law to an extent. Family members deserve more forgiveness then strangers. If a family member did something that I find far too evil to forgive, or they repeatedly commit serious crimes(and it bothers me enough), or maybe the family member treated me like sh*t too often, then in these cases I would put the law first.

Just because murder is against the law doesn't mean I'm going to go out of my way to make sure the law is upheld. The way I see it, not all murders are created equal, and not all first degree murders are created equal either.

and why is that. what makes family better than everyone else? I can understand emotional attatchments, but it that were all that mattered, our prisons wouldn't be near as full as they are.

Personal attachments shouldn't negate the law. Though I suspect they have often enough.

Oh boy. *cracks knuckles*

Yes, the child should testify against the parents. No, the won't. Nine times out of ten, the child will accept what their parents are doing, or at least learn to deal with it. Many develop psychological blocks that prevent them from feeling any negative feelings towards the events. Perhaps the guy deserved it, in their eyes, for they look through their parents eyes.

If the action is way outside the parent's normal (as far as the kid knows) way of life, and there has been a gradual sliding from the way the child remembers the parent as acting in general, then yes, chances are that the child may prosecute their parents, or, more likely, at least seek some sort of help in this situation.

Then, there are the abused children, the children whom have grown up to hate their parents beyond reason. These children grew up with values forced on them, values the couldn't accept, such as beating their children. Unfortunately, over time, many of these children begin to understand that beating a child is the way to set them right. After all, who really thinks of themselves as a failure on their parents' parts, save the enlightened few that come to realize this for themselves, that come to realize that perhaps they aren't really contributing to society because of the way they were raised.

But then again, a lot of the time, this can actually lead to severe hatred of self and parents, in which case, yes, out of spite, the child will prosecute the parents for heinous crimes.

My opinion of whether or not they should? It needs to be strongly justified, in my opinion. The child has to recognize whether or not the father/mother would save the kid's hide in a viceversa situation. The child has to recognize whether or not the crime commited was a serious detriment to society, or if it's just leaching off the rich blokes that make millions regardless. Is the parent feeling huge regret over the actions taken, or have they crudely shrugged all feelings of guilt off their shoulders, and are these feelings justified? Another major factor is, was the child an accomplice in the act, or an innocent witness?

Unless the child views the parents in a negative light, they will not testify against them, unless it is to save their own hide. I hate the society we live in, personally, but I hate my parents a lot more. If my mother or father were ever caught doing terrible things, I likely would testify against them, provided it wasn't a total waste of my time.

So to the question proposed, I have to say yes, if the parents have commited something such as murder, rape, or grand theft. If the parents have commited petty theft, or copyright infringement, then no, not at all. Terrible offense: Yes, Weak/Not so terrible offense: No.

Unless it's my parents. Charge them for anything. Absolutely.

It's not just emotional attachment, it's worthiness. Strangers haven't done anything for us, family members, particularly our parents(maybe not Kailkay's :)), have been a great help throughout life.




Well not in all circumstances. The way I see it, the law is not always fair and is quite flawed. That doesn't mean it should be scraped or totally ignored, but it does mean that it's not worth worshipping as an ideal to blindly uphold.

You know what happens when that happens? Family members of people in power can be exonerated at the touch of a button. The entire law system is negated. Your logic is flawed, Lazygamer.

do not even the publicans so?


well of course the laws are flawed. they were designed by people and upheld by people. and we all know that there are people who will use any flaw to get around the law, or through it.

You can't expect anything perfect from people who aren't perfect. But if we're anything less than uncompromising involving breaches of the law, then the law system falls apart.

Lovely, guys. Keep it up. I like how everyone is discussing it rationally.

Btw, this question seems to have been forgotten.




Perhaps you'd like to consider this carefully and comment whether it can work or not.

Won't ever happen. And, to be honest, I think that's best. Having every child in a country raised in a practical orphanage? Wouldn't work. Not for a year. I might fix the problems with conflicts of interest in law, but you'd have people protesting it left and right, no matter their race, creed, or political views.

Ok. Could you at least state why it won't work? So far you only said that it won't work, but you haven't given the reason.

Okay. You honestly expect a woman to give up her child after holding her in her belly for 9 months, then having to go through hellish pain to bring this baby into the world, then give it to some civil services person? In addition to the affection the mother would have, well, Swift, would YOU trust these people to feed and clothe your child blindly?

If we were all raised in communal nurseries, then it's quite possible for mothers to willingly give up their children for they would see it as a norm.

And as I've never been a mother, I can't say for certain whether I wouldn't willingly give up a child after carrying it to full term. Directing this question at me is pointless.

However, don't give up yet. You could be on the right track. Also, there are other reasons why this method won't work. Think about it.

Also, this solves one problem, but creates a slew of others. Maybe after it went on for a decade or so, people would settle down, but what do you think will happen when people suddenly have to give their babies up to some nursery, whether they want to or not? Protests! Protests all over the country, all over the world! Liberals, Republicans, Blacks, Whites, Asians, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus...none of them would appreciate this!  

You've already made that point Corsair and at least last time you were brief.

Even in a society where such practice was the norm, one would have to wonder about the environment the children were being raised in. We've all had good school teachers and bad school teachers fair enough, but these kids would be being raised by these people. The potential for child abuse is significant, but the potential for genuine affection (espescially if implimented in our currently paranoid climate) is extremely slim. Kindergarten teachers aren't even allowed to hug a crying child anymore, what ridiculous restrictions would these carers be placed under?

The result is an entire generation growing up without love.

I don't even want to think about what that could cause.

Interesting point, Jigen.

What do you think, Swift?

I think that this idea is rather rediculous, as it completely destroys any semblance of actual family. perhaps if all the families came together once a week to talk and to let their children hang out together, it might work.

Actually Ignus, I think that was the whole point.

The family is a myth, created to make us feel better and more organized.  Much like the concept of God.



Bt
 

I guess it depends on your ethics, and your stand. In many cases, people are unable to detach themselves from the emotions involved with the bond that they share with their parents and thus, any judgements or even criticisms they make might be clouded with prejudism(either against or for).

And I know some might rebuke me for saying this, but to quote a friend indirectly:"Just because they are your parents does not mean that they are incapable of doing wrong."

To put it this way: if a criminal has been committing crimes like murder, burglary, etc. ever since he was a child, even if he gets married and has children, the marriage and bonds do not guarantee a positive or negative or even a neutral outcome. To summarise: he could change for the worse or better or simply not change at all.

Edit: And another example: Just because one has been a good parent, that does not mean he or she is free to start abusing his or her own child.  

The potential for child abuse and the lack of affection is a very large problem even with our current family system.

Let's philosphiz on this: WHy does a miror reflect left to right and right to left,  but not up to down and down to up?

Why not do as was said- seperate child and parents- but instead of making it a compleate seperation- have the children raised by the community as a whole?- This would mean there are more people the child can trust and goto for advice should someone in the community commit a horrible act- and would slightly negate that feeling that you must protect your 'flesh and blood' because you are more likely to be loyal to the people of the community as a whole.

Which might include criminals. And this would be a dream come true for pedophiles and that savory sort.

Point taken- although I would have thought my idea would allow such things to be brought to light and likely dealt with quicker.

According to statistics, children are often sexually abused by people they know (usually a parent or a relative).

Yeah. But for an entire generation?

Let's assume that everybody agrees to give this "communal raising" that Socratese suggested a try. No fuss. No protests. No nothing. Everybody simply nods their heads and agrees to try. And I mean for as many generations as it takes to either prove or disprove it works, not just the first generation.

The problems I saw in that discussion is thus: it is an inherent instinct for all people to form attatchments to those they are around and interact with often. It is a given: we are social animals, and crave contact with others. Therefore, the seperation of children from parents wouldn't work, as we would simply form new attatchments of equal strength to whom ever raised us (unless, of course, all of those people were cruel and abusive and we knew it: then we'd have even worse problems). They would, in essence, have become our parents all over again.

Then lets say that we take the whole "raising children by adults" factor out. We simply place all children in a large building at birth with other children. They have a computer terminal to use to learn about the world, and at a certain age they are taken out (harsh, I know, but it's hypothetical). It STILL wouldn't work, because they would STILL form attatchments with each other. However, instead of forming attatchments as a "parent/teacher", now they've formed attatchments of "brother/commrade". It is proven that those of equal rank who are thrown together and have nothing else to rely on but themselves will either parish or will form bonds so strong that almost nothing can break them. So, basically, they've just formed an equal (and maybe even a stronger) bond then with the parents and teachers because they've had no choice.

Don't try putting the children by themselves. They will go insane. End of story.

The ONLY real way I could see this sort of situation work is if every child were taken, isolated, and put into a holographic chamber (a la Star Trek) and raised by holograms randomly generated to look like nobody that could possibly be real. Maybe even have the holograms shift every day or so. But, as you may have no doubt guessed, this will definitely have problems of a Psychological nature, which would probably do more harm then good.

The only true solution I see with no worse consiquences: Humanity simply outgrows or "evolves" past the point of forming attatchments.

Edit: You know, this is actually the first time ever that I've posted my opinion on something anywhere. Kinda cool, actually.

Out of curiosity, how many people here have actually been in this situation?

Not me. The worst crime any of my family has committed is getting a traffic ticket or three.

Let's see, I've been slammered for curfew violations and aiding rioters. Never spent more than 24 hours in jail for any of those. I did go to drug and alocohol rehab and looking back, I'd have preferred jail. Initially, a 72 hour suicide watch lockdown in a cold, padded room, with the lights always on, a big window high in the door, a kevlar covered foam mattress(the kind studios have on wall) to keep you from trying to eat/choke it, supervised eating/bathroom breaks 4 times a day, for ten mintues each, only allowed to wear underwear, five minute checks, a normal ######-on-Earth. This is all to give your body time to go through withdrawl cycles before they do anything with you.  Like I could actually kill myself, everything gurt, the inner weebing on my toes even hurt, my eyelids hurt. It sucked.  Then after that, detox meds, group therapy at the times when most addicts wanted to score the most, bad food, and mean, violent orderlies who didn't discriminate between mental patients and recovering addies(this rehab was in a loony bin), and didn't mind tossing you around or being rough to make oyu complacent. So take it from one whos painfully been there, kids, and don't do drugs.

You were on a suicide watch? Geez..

 

Well, considering I tried to escape before I even got there, and then threatened to slit my throat if they didn't let me out, as my "interventionist" were still leaving, I'm not suprised in retrospect.

Actually, this won't work because the world is a mixed bag.

There are orphanages, where the people either treat the children fairly or abuse them. However, just because the children are treated fairly, does not mean that they will not have any religious values, beliefs, stereotypes, etc. imposed onto them. (I'm not trying to say that "bad orphanages" are good, though!)

And, we all also do know that abuse usually leads to irregularities in the person's character, especially when he grows up. This could even be followed by insanity, whether in slight, moderate or extreme amounts. Incidentally, Hitler as a child, was beaten so badly that soon, he was no longer able to feel the beatings. And in the end, "you reap what you sow". The failings of society usually lead to a massive bout of problems for the future generations. (Referenced from http://www.primal-page.com/childabu.htm (http://www.primal-page.com/childabu.htm) )

According to the 1st para(in my post, not the site), this is one of the reasons why if I ever have any children, I will not send them to a religious school. Religion is good but I'd rather my children be able to think and select a religion for themselves, rather than impose a religion onto them. I find that a lot of people who fall under the category of "having a religion imposed onto them" will blindly cling to it, even when their actions contradict their beliefs. I believe this is because they neither fully understand the impact of their actions, nor truly comprehend the teachings of their religion.  

In a lot of cases, you're right, Yuri. It's not uncommon for a person who was molested as a child by someone he trusts, like a parent, to do the same thing when he gets older. Not in all cases, there are exceptions to everything. But at least sometimes.

To Corsair: Well, that's indeed true, isn't it? There are some people who manage to become enlightened either through reading or thinking and so on. But these people are far and few.

And hmmm... about my family, let's just say that I have a PPO against one of my parents. Too bad that I couldn't apply for both.  :P Yes, I wish they could have gone to jail instead but hey, 'cos they were my "parents", they got away with it instead. Yeah, I'm pretty sore about that.  

I'm sorry to hear about your family situation Yuri  :(  

Geez, and I thought not having a girlfriend sucked.

Or 'doesn't suck', as it were *immature giggle*

*fries Jigen for that remark*