This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Ethics Question of Your Day

13

Comments

  • I'm in no way excusing the rapist. Of COURSE the victim is not responsible for their rape NOR any prior or subsequent rapes. That's a given.

    Still, the victim's report has the potential to prevent all potential subsequent rapes by that offender, and that's where the moral imperative comes from. It's not about assigning blame, it's about living in the real world.
    Is Superman morally obligated to rescue everyone he can possibly save? Just because you have the ability to do something good does not mean you are obligated to do every good thing you can do. Doing a bad thing is bad. Doing a good thing is good. Doing nothing is neutral. The only moral obligation is to not do bad things. To use Creamsteak's words, doing good things is commendable, not doing bad things is obligatory.
    The Superman analogy is broken. He could potentially, because he is Superman, spend all night and all day rescuing people.

    We're talking about a single act, given a single opportunity.

    Is it immoral not to pick up litter in the park? I guess not, but that litter is probably not going to violate anyone's bodily sovereignty if you don't.

  • It's a moral hypothetical isnt it? I mean, the real world isnt as easy as "a person who rapes onces will rape again." And the real world also has a bunch of different Really Bad Outcomes for a person who gets publicly displayed as a victim. What if there are actually no future crimes to prevent and the victims name winds up publicaly displayed on the internet or something and then the victim to spiral into complete depression?
  • Do you have contemporary first world examples of victims' lives being ruined as a result of reporting their rape?
  • Do you have contemporary first world examples of victims' lives being ruined as a result of reporting their rape?
    Victims of sexual assaults are often ostracized, alienated from their social groups because they reported the act. The "blame the victim" mentality creates a defensive wall around the accused. It's an integral part of rape culture.

    I only have personal anecdotes from people I know, and examples from work where we've had sexual harassment cases. I won't relate details in either category, but the shit happens.

  • Do you have contemporary first world examples of victims' lives being ruined as a result of reporting their rape?
    Victims of sexual assaults are often ostracized, alienated from their social groups because they reported the act. The "blame the victim" mentality creates a defensive wall around the accused. It's an integral part of rape culture.

    I only have personal anecdotes from people I know, and examples from work where we've had sexual harassment cases. I won't relate details in either category, but the shit happens.

    OK fair enough, but aren't we supporting that societal construct by accommodating it when we agree that victims should keep quiet and avoid humiliation?
  • Nah, youre just stepping back and letting the victim do what they feel most comfortable or safe doing.
  • Do you have contemporary first world examples of victims' lives being ruined as a result of reporting their rape?
    Victims of sexual assaults are often ostracized, alienated from their social groups because they reported the act. The "blame the victim" mentality creates a defensive wall around the accused. It's an integral part of rape culture.

    I only have personal anecdotes from people I know, and examples from work where we've had sexual harassment cases. I won't relate details in either category, but the shit happens.

    OK fair enough, but aren't we supporting that societal construct by accommodating it when we agree that victims should keep quiet and avoid humiliation?
    I don't think anyone here is saying victims should keep quiet, or that it is good for them to do so. They are simply not obligated to do anything.
  • edited July 2012
    Does anyone else think making the crime rape doesn't really add anything to the ethical situation besides adding shock value? Am I morally obligated to report if someone robs me, punches me, or suggests they have fornicated with my mother?

    No - the severity of the situation is variable, as are plenty of other factors (effectiveness of local authority, victim's background, relationship to actor). Therefore, the resolution itself, "Rape victims have a moral obligation to report their rape" should be negated.
    Post edited by Schnevets on
  • Do you have contemporary first world examples of victims' lives being ruined as a result of reporting their rape?
    Victims of sexual assaults are often ostracized, alienated from their social groups because they reported the act. The "blame the victim" mentality creates a defensive wall around the accused. It's an integral part of rape culture.

    I only have personal anecdotes from people I know, and examples from work where we've had sexual harassment cases. I won't relate details in either category, but the shit happens.

    OK fair enough, but aren't we supporting that societal construct by accommodating it when we agree that victims should keep quiet and avoid humiliation?
    I don't think anyone here is saying victims should keep quiet, or that it is good for them to do so. They are simply not obligated to do anything.
    Legally no. Morally, I don't know. I think the next victim might have a unique perspective.
  • Does anyone else think making the crime rape doesn't really add anything to the ethical situation besides adding shock value?
    It provides critical context. What else is a victim going to hush up? A murder?

    I guess you could use theft but that entirely changes (reduces) the stakes, which makes it a wholly different conversation.

    So, I don't agree that using rape as the crime is for shock value. I think it's a unique scenario with novel ethical questions.
  • Do you have contemporary first world examples of victims' lives being ruined as a result of reporting their rape?
    Victims of sexual assaults are often ostracized, alienated from their social groups because they reported the act. The "blame the victim" mentality creates a defensive wall around the accused. It's an integral part of rape culture.

    I only have personal anecdotes from people I know, and examples from work where we've had sexual harassment cases. I won't relate details in either category, but the shit happens.

    OK fair enough, but aren't we supporting that societal construct by accommodating it when we agree that victims should keep quiet and avoid humiliation?
    In a perfect world, the victim of a sex crime wouldn't hesitate to report it, and I'd be more comfortable with mandatory reporting.

    Yes, failure to report does perpetuate the problem. I've been talking to a friend who finds herself in a relevant situation right now. The thing is, mandating that report can be disastrous for the victim - the emotions involved in these situations are complex, and the victim needs to heal first.

    It's sort of like saying, "If you've been shot, walk to the nearest police station to report the crime." No, first you need to treat the injury. Sex crimes are insidious in that they don't always cause obvious or immediate damage. It might manifest 15 years later as PTSD and missing memories.

    So mandatory reporting may only exacerbate some problems. Instead, a support and counseling network, combined with social awareness, will do much better. Create a comfortabke and supportive enivronment, and a victim will be more inclined to report.

  • Does anyone else think making the crime rape doesn't really add anything to the ethical situation besides adding shock value?
    It provides critical context. What else is a victim going to hush up? A murder?

    I guess you could use theft but that entirely changes (reduces) the stakes, which makes it a wholly different conversation.

    So, I don't agree that using rape as the crime is for shock value. I think it's a unique scenario with novel ethical questions.
    Comment edited, including examples. I hit the post button by accident...
  • Does anyone else think making the crime rape doesn't really add anything to the ethical situation besides adding shock value? Am I morally obligated to report if someone robs me, punches me, or suggests they have fornicated with my mother?

    No - the severity of the situation is variable, as are plenty of other factors (effectiveness of local authority, victim's background, relationship to actor). Therefore, the resolution itself, "Rape victims have a moral obligation to report their rape" should be negated.
    I think it does matter. There are some crimes which ethically must be reported. Someone steals a vial of Ebola virus? You'd better report that shit.

    When the ramifications of not reporting create a situation that has a substantial possibility of endangering other people, you should be obligated to report it.

  • Does anyone else think making the crime rape doesn't really add anything to the ethical situation besides adding shock value? Am I morally obligated to report if someone robs me, punches me, or suggests they have fornicated with my mother?

    No - the severity of the situation is variable, as are plenty of other factors (effectiveness of local authority, victim's background, relationship to actor). Therefore, the resolution itself, "Rape victims have a moral obligation to report their rape" should be negated.
    I think it does matter. There are some crimes which ethically must be reported. Someone steals a vial of Ebola virus? You'd better report that shit.

    When the ramifications of not reporting create a situation that has a substantial possibility of endangering other people, you should be obligated to report it.

    Then your issue is the definition of "substantial." Recidivism amongst rapists is pretty high.

  • Does anyone else think making the crime rape doesn't really add anything to the ethical situation besides adding shock value? Am I morally obligated to report if someone robs me, punches me, or suggests they have fornicated with my mother?

    No - the severity of the situation is variable, as are plenty of other factors (effectiveness of local authority, victim's background, relationship to actor). Therefore, the resolution itself, "Rape victims have a moral obligation to report their rape" should be negated.
    I think it does matter. There are some crimes which ethically must be reported. Someone steals a vial of Ebola virus? You'd better report that shit.

    When the ramifications of not reporting create a situation that has a substantial possibility of endangering other people, you should be obligated to report it.

    Then your issue is the definition of "substantial." Recidivism amongst rapists is pretty high.

    But it is not virtually guaranteed. A virus is orders of magnitude more predictable than a person, and is also not entangled with human rights issues.

    I could amend to say a "substantial, verifiable possibility." Exposure to uranium has a known, measurable likelihood of doing [blah] harm. Human motivations are burdened with innumerable variables.

  • Recidivism amongst rapists is high. That's quantifiable.

    Anyway I think we're at the core of the argument and not likely to progress it much further. :)
  • What if (ugh, I have what ifs in moral debates) you live in a crazy theocracy where the victim is forced to marry the rapist? Is the victim still obliged to warn the public if it means putting their own lives in certain danger?
  • edited July 2012
    What if (ugh, I have what ifs in moral debates) you live in a crazy theocracy where the victim is forced to marry the rapist? Is the victim still obliged to warn the public if it means putting their own lives in certain danger?
    Obviously you can complicate the argument with all SORTS of nonsense, but is that really valuable?

    And yes, those crazy theocracies do exist, but it's STILL nonsense.

    Post edited by muppet on
  • Recidivism amongst rapists is high. That's quantifiable.

    Anyway I think we're at the core of the argument and not likely to progress it much further. :)
    Well, "quantifiable" is not the same as "verifiable." I will further amend: 3 sigma certainty. 70-something percent recividism isn't high enough
    to qualify.
  • edited July 2012
    Assuming that the world you live in isn't nonsense -- regardless of where that is -- is the most dangerous thing an ethicist can do.

    EDIT: Ninja'd. @muppet.
    Post edited by Greg on
  • edited July 2012
    Recidivism amongst rapists is high. That's quantifiable.

    Anyway I think we're at the core of the argument and not likely to progress it much further. :)
    Well, "quantifiable" is not the same as "verifiable." I will further amend: 3 sigma certainty. 70-something percent recividism isn't high enough
    to qualify.
    Ok but that's arbitrary. The argument still boils down to at what point is an individual morally responsible to prevent harm? (Rhetorical in this sentence!!!)
    Post edited by muppet on
  • edited July 2012
    What if (ugh, I have what ifs in moral debates) you live in a crazy theocracy where the victim is forced to marry the rapist? Is the victim still obliged to warn the public if it means putting their own lives in certain danger?
    Obviously you can complicate the argument with all SORTS of nonsense, but is that really valuable?

    And yes, those crazy theocracies do exist, but it's STILL nonsense.

    I gave a specific example, but the real crux of the argument was the second question - is it still morally sound if the victim's life will be further endangered by reporting? The statement you proposed was that 'the victim is morally responsible to report the crime'. Would you like to append a 'as long as they are not endangered by doing so' to the statement? Because otherwise I can think of plenty of scenarios (realistic and absurd) where such a rule will be extremely detrimental to the victim.
    Post edited by Schnevets on
  • Recidivism amongst rapists is high. That's quantifiable.

    Anyway I think we're at the core of the argument and not likely to progress it much further. :)
    Well, "quantifiable" is not the same as "verifiable." I will further amend: 3 sigma certainty. 70-something percent recividism isn't high enough
    to qualify.
    Ok but that's arbitrary. The argument still boils down to at what point is an individual morally responsible to prevent harm? (Rhetorical in this sentence!!!)
    It's not exactly arbitrary. 3 sigma is broadly considered to be a reasonably strong statistical correlation in almost any academic discipline - it correlates to 99.7% of values. So if you could say with 3-sigma certainty that a person who rapes once will rape again, I could buy that.

    Its use in academic disciplines is somewhat arbitrary (6 sigma or nothing!) but that's almost always used to be even more conservative with judgments.

    And as for the hypo posited above: no. If the culture doesn't respect body sovereignty to that extreme, reporting is a net harm.

  • What if (ugh, I have what ifs in moral debates) you live in a crazy theocracy where the victim is forced to marry the rapist? Is the victim still obliged to warn the public if it means putting their own lives in certain danger?
    Obviously you can complicate the argument with all SORTS of nonsense, but is that really valuable?

    And yes, those crazy theocracies do exist, but it's STILL nonsense.

    I gave a specific example, but the real crux of the argument was the second question - is it still morally sound if the victim's life will be further endangered by reporting? The statement you proposed was that 'the victim is morally responsible to report the crime'. Would you like to append a 'as long as they are not endangered by doing so' to the statement? Because otherwise I can think of plenty of scenarios (realistic and absurd) where such a rule will be extremely detrimental to the victim.
    Well, firstly, morally responsible is not the same as lawfully compelled, but yes I think it's obvious that in a culture where the victim is subject to physical danger simply for being a victim, it would not apply. I think that's a tangential of limited use to the main question, though.
  • What if (ugh, I have what ifs in moral debates) you live in a crazy theocracy where the victim is forced to marry the rapist? Is the victim still obliged to warn the public if it means putting their own lives in certain danger?
    Obviously you can complicate the argument with all SORTS of nonsense, but is that really valuable?

    And yes, those crazy theocracies do exist, but it's STILL nonsense.

    I gave a specific example, but the real crux of the argument was the second question - is it still morally sound if the victim's life will be further endangered by reporting? The statement you proposed was that 'the victim is morally responsible to report the crime'. Would you like to append a 'as long as they are not endangered by doing so' to the statement? Because otherwise I can think of plenty of scenarios (realistic and absurd) where such a rule will be extremely detrimental to the victim.
    Well, firstly, morally responsible is not the same as lawfully compelled, but yes I think it's obvious that in a culture where the victim is subject to physical danger simply for being a victim, it would not apply. I think that's a tangential of limited use to the main question, though.
    But isn't the victim subject to further physical danger in any culture? Dangerous people exist in every culture (whether a ruthless, theocratic authority or well organized gang presence), and no police force can assuredly guarantee that a victim who reports a crime is completely, entirely 100% safe from harm. Even if the rapist were a gangly, Mr. Burns-esque old man and the victim a black belt, the rapist would just have to tell the right person and the victim could face bigger problems. And physical harm is just one aspect - what about endangering one's reputation, the added anxiety of reliving a traumatic event, among other risks one faces by reporting a crime.
  • My intuition is that the risk to a victim who reports wouldn't be significantly greater than to abvictim who doesn't. What if he/she gets a reputation as an easy mark who will keep quiet?
  • Recidivism amongst rapists is high. That's quantifiable.

    Anyway I think we're at the core of the argument and not likely to progress it much further. :)
    Recidivism is not the quantity of interest here. In fact, higher rates of recidivism could even weigh against you if, for example, it turned out that they were more likely to rape again after incarceration.

    What you need to know to make a judgement is this - how much difference does it make to report them vs not reporting them?
  • Should the philosophy of "innocent until proven guilty" apply to social consequences? At what level of certainty should someone accused of a crime be ostracized, lose work, etc.?
  • edited June 2016
    Well if the internet has taught me anything, the answer to the practical question you asked, I know you asked about the theory, but in practice: Immediately, and with basically 0 level of certainty. See here.
    Post edited by Naoza on
Sign In or Register to comment.