Philosophy

[Corsair5]

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

[Klytos]

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.

[Jigen]

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?

[lazygamer]

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.

[Ignus_Draconus]

Family members deserve more forgiveness then strangers.

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.

[Corsair5]

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

[Kailkay]

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.

[lazygamer]

Family members deserve more forgiveness then strangers.

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.

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.

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

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.

[Corsair5]

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.

[Ignus_Draconus]

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.

 

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.

[Corsair5]

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.

[Swift]

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

Btw, this question seems to have been forgotten.

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?

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

[Corsair5]

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.

[Swift]

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.

[Corsair5]

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?