Current Events > Person A and Person B both do the same action.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Person A and Person B both do *insert action*. In Person As country, this is a crime. In Person Bs country, it is not a crime.

Is Person A worse than Person B for committing a crime, regardless of whether the action has the same ethical/moral implications?

---

They're both equally bad from a purely moral or ethical perspective. Legalization doesn't change how right or wrong something is.

---

The action is the same morally speaking, but unless the law is unethical (illegal gay marriage), the person A is a worse person due to (presumably) intentionally violating the social contract.

---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

The action is the same morally speaking, but unless the law is unethical (illegal gay marriage), the person A is a worse person do to (presumably) intentionally violating the social contract.

I voted for the same but immediately went into this perspective after.

Personally, I always felt laws were guidelines and if I was responsible about how I flexed them, it was ok. And by flex them, I don't mean in a way that hurts other people. If it hurts others, it's not responsible imo.

---

This very much feels like a "isn't one answer for all situations" thing. True, the law doesn't directly determine if something is right or wrong, but it does still set the general expectation, and deviating from that can sometimes cause problems - or conversely, can sometimes fix them in a way it wouldn't if the deviation was actually just the norm.

---

RedWhiteBlue posted...

Despite most people answering correctly, once you give people scenarios they'll go back to tribalism and tout their country has it right.

There is no "correct" answer

---

depends on what it is

I'd be interested in seeing the results if the poll were specifically contextualized in terms of AoC.

---

Not enough context for me. Something harmless in one part of the world could have awful effects in others.

---

If the action is generally not seen as morally wrong throughout the world, Person A is just a moron. If the action is generally seen as morally wrong throughout the world, then they're both shitty people. There's obviously a bit more nuance than that depending on circumstances, but the question doesn't really work in a vacuum.

Guide posted...

Not enough context for me. Something harmless in one part of the world could have awful effects in others.

like what?

nemu posted...

If the action is generally not seen as morally wrong throughout the world, Person A is just a moron. If the action is generally seen as morally wrong throughout the world, then they're both shitty people. There's obviously a bit more nuance than that depending on circumstances, but the question doesn't really work in a vacuum.

So morals are determined by what people surrounding you think? That sounds pretty inhibitive to me but I am curious for your explanation as to why

---

The public reaction to what you did is determined by the people around you.

At least in the here and now that matters more than if it was morally right or wrong.

---