Position:Home>Philosophy> Betrayal and informing - I'm not sorry that SOMEBODY ELSE did that' - co
Question: Betrayal and informing - I'm not sorry that SOMEBODY ELSE did that' - comments!?
I've been reading about Napoleon's campaign of 1814 and how in the end marmont and Souham marched their forces away!. Sensible, did everyone a favour, the alternative was a lot of pointless carnage, but - it just doesn't give you a good feeling!.
That made me remember a guy in our outfit in Saudi Arabia, an unsavoury character who liked to get young Saudi men drunk and bugger them!. A guy shopped him to the Saudis over the drink!. He knew nothing would happen to him - they sent him back to the US and in a few months he was back in Saudi, as they look at nothing but the passport number - but as I said, I wouldn't have shopped him myself!. What do you think about the ethics of informing and betrayal!?Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
Hi Jim,
Betraying or informing on friends didn't bother Immanuel Kant!. Even if a murderer comes looking for someone hiding in your house, the great Enlightenment philosopher once wrote, you must tell the truth and disclose his whereabouts!.
By Kant's standard, there is nothing wrong with Elia Kazan's naming names to the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1952!. He may have betrayed his associates and condemned them to Hollywood's blacklist, but he was telling the truth!. And if truth-telling trumps loyalty, Linda Tripp can only be admired for revealing Monica Lewinsky's secrets to Ken Starr!.
Truth-telling isn't the only moral virtue, Jim!. It often wrestles, and rightly so, with the virtues of loyalty and solidarity!. We often assert these particularistic virtues with a guilty conscience, as if standing by our friends is a kind of prejudice that puts us outside the realm of moral principle!. But loyalty and betrayal are moral categories, not just emotional ones!. Without them, we would be incapable of friendship or patriotism!.
Jim if truth-telling and loyalty are competing moral principles, how can we determine which principle to follow under what circumstances!? The answer is that we must be judgmental!. We must weigh the moral importance of the cause that truth-telling or loyalty would advance!.
If you consider two figures whose famous betrayals helped unravel the Clinton and the Nixon scandals--Linda Tripp and John Dean!. Both are unsavory characters whose testimony led to revelations of presidential misdeeds!. What makes John Dean's betrayal of Richard Nixon more admirable than Linda Tripp's betrayal of Monica Lewinsky has mainly to do with the fact that Dean exposed wrongdoing that threatened the republic and the constitutional system, whereas Tripp exposed less grievous wrongs!. Power makes a difference, too!. In betraying the confidences of Monica Lewinsky, Tripp was snitching on a relatively powerless figure whose friend she had claimed to be, whereas Dean was snitching on his boss, the figure at the center of the Watergate cover up!.
Jim, I believe the ethics of betrayal/informing is profoundly situational!. Truth-telling and loyalty are competing moral claims, and that in choosing one over the other we must consider the cause!. Whether to tell the truth or stand by a friend depends in part on the moral importance of the ends we would advance by doing so!. This is why it was good that John Dean told the truth and betrayed Richard Nixon but not so good that Linda Tripp told the truth and betrayed Monica Lewinsky!.
Jim, sorry for going on so long , I felt your interesting question deserved nothing less!.
Good luck my friend,
Cathorio!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Are you saying that you approved of his "unsavory"
behavior!?
"SOMEBODY ELSE" had the courage to do what was right!.
You didn't!.
By using the terms 'informing' and 'betrayal' you
suggest a community feeling with the offender!.
The guy who did 'shop` him, didn't want to be in a
community with that 'low life' and did something
about it!. Good show!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Pretence also fills in those gaps where there is a deficiency of ethics!.
What a clown you are! You must think everyone else is too!. So you've been reading a little about Napoleon's campaign!? And this prompted you to recall something that "a guy in our outfit!.!.!.an unsavoury character" did!?
Garbage!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
This man's behavior endangered your unit!. Any one of those Saudi men could be turned into a terrorist because of what one man did!. The guy who turned him in was looking out for your welfare!.
It's too bad one of the Saudis didn't dispose of the problem permanently!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Evil conduct needs to be exposed!.!.!.!.!.this is not an issue of betrayal!.!.!.!.it is an issue of acting with integrity!.!.!.!.if more people took the initiative in society of protecting victims instead of shrugging their shoulders ("it is not my affair") the world would be a much better place!.
Why does avoiding conflict not give you a good feeling!? Do you believe slaughter is "good"!?Www@QuestionHome@Com
What he did was wrong!. He will have to meet his reaper eventually!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
It depends where you morality lies, In the army it seams to be unit first, core, country!. Although this makes for a tight nit fighting force and strong comrades it does in certain instances mean a rouge element can cause untold problems and be protected!. Now in the case of your friend if you think the punishment he would receive out weighed the crime the say nothing
However in this case the worst punishment for your friend is a court Marshal, which is effectively loss of his job against the punishment the Saudi could get worst case scenario, Death Penalty, is not a fair balance!.
Nobodies job is worth more than someone Else's life!
so reporting him is the correct thing to do!.
Informing is legitimate if the result is less harmful to ALL than the continuation of the original actionWww@QuestionHome@Com