NationStates Jolt Archive

Is it wrong to benefit in any way from another person's misfortune and suffering, even if you do not add to their misfortune by benefitting? For instance, if there was an assasination attempt made on the president, would it be wrong to bet money that he would die? Is it wrong to look at photographs of people dying or suffering, like those available on some websites? If a gang war has caused property values to rapidly decrease, would it be wrong to buy up loads of property?

You might consider it ethically neutral unless you were in a position to do something to improve the situation, in which case not doing so could well be questionable.

What's the specific issue at stake?

Is it wrong to benefit in any way from another person's misfortune and suffering, even if you do not add to their misfortune by benefitting? For instance, if there was an assasination attempt made on the president, would it be wrong to bet money that he would die? Is it wrong to look at photographs of people dying or suffering, like those available on some websites? If a gang war has caused property values to rapidly decrease, would it be wrong to buy up loads of property?
Ummm, depends on whether it's natural otherwise. And, of course, looting bodies I think wouldn't be right, as I believe in spiritual world. Wouldn't wanna get cursed.

Looting someone's corpse would be another example, supposing that they don't have a next-of-kin they'd rather have the stuff and they wouldn't actually need those things in the afterlife, of course.

There is a core issue inspiring this, but if I tell it this early, it will skew the debate.

Is it wrong to benefit in any way from another person's misfortune and suffering, even if you do not add to their misfortune by benefitting?

Yes, in my opinion. Most drug companies are scum-suckers who make billions a year from people with HIV/AIDS and other deadly diseases. I wouldn't mind if they were not-for-profit, but actually making vast amounts of money from the dying is pretty bad.

For instance, if there was an assasination attempt made on the president, would it be wrong to bet money that he would die?

Good luck trying to find a bookie's that does that kind of offer - "Chirac has bullet lodged in head - 2:1 he will expire, 23:2 he will live" is not a common offer. I would say that it's not really my kind of thing, but then some people might say that it was getting some benefit from a horrible situation.

Is it wrong to look at photographs of people dying or suffering, like those available on some websites?

If you're getting sick thrills out of it, yes, if you're trying to do some research on, say, Fallujah or My Lai, then it's fairly difficult to do that without seeing the dead.

If a gang war has caused property values to rapidly decrease, would it be wrong to buy up loads of property?

If you're willing to spend money on sorting the gangs out so that property values increase, yes, otherwise you're taking a large risk on the property market, and are also not doing anything to allieviate the situation, which is pretty wrong in my opinion.

Is it wrong to benefit in any way from another person's misfortune and suffering, even if you do not add to their misfortune by benefitting? For instance, if there was an assasination attempt made on the president, would it be wrong to bet money that he would die? Is it wrong to look at photographs of people dying or suffering, like those available on some websites? If a gang war has caused property values to rapidly decrease, would it be wrong to buy up loads of property?
You need to factor in the effect such an action has on those still alive. If, in your actions, you are causing excess harm to the friends and relations of the person who died, are causing offense to the subject of that misfortune or are forcing other people out of their own property (knowing that their house will eventually become more valuable, at which point you can sell it back at an extortionate profit) then it is worth bearing this in mind in your judgement. If, on the other hand, others don't experience any effect at all, then it's fine.

It's the same with pictures on the internet; be they of people dying, people being abused or whatever. When you look at them, thanks to sponsoring, the creators of those pictures benefit. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, it's worth remembering that, I reckon.

Looting someone's corpse would be another example, supposing that they don't have a next-of-kin they'd rather have the stuff and they wouldn't actually need those things in the afterlife, of course.
I would say that it would be in exceptionally bad taste, and would you want that to happen to you?

Most people, if they want their belongings to go somewhere else, like to a person or charity, will write it down.

Grave-robbing is pretty horrible, I wouldn't do it.

Is it wrong to benefit in any way from another person's misfortune and suffering, even if you do not add to their misfortune by benefitting? For instance, if there was an assasination attempt made on the president, would it be wrong to bet money that he would die? Is it wrong to look at photographs of people dying or suffering, like those available on some websites? If a gang war has caused property values to rapidly decrease, would it be wrong to buy up loads of property?

I bet the man that invented band-aids is a millionaire. *nod*

Looting someone's corpse would be another example, supposing that they don't have a next-of-kin they'd rather have the stuff and they wouldn't actually need those things in the afterlife, of course.

There is a core issue inspiring this, but if I tell it this early, it will skew the debate.

Well, it all depends on the circumstances, if you're at war and it's cold, but you don't have decent clothes and then you see a corpse with nice, warm clothes, it's only natural you take them: he/she doesn't need them anymore.
However, if you see a corpse lying on the street of a city and then you start checking pockets for money, that's kinda wrong.

Is it wrong to benefit in any way from another person's misfortune and suffering, even if you do not add to their misfortune by benefitting? For instance, if there was an assasination attempt made on the president, would it be wrong to bet money that he would die? Is it wrong to look at photographs of people dying or suffering, like those available on some websites? If a gang war has caused property values to rapidly decrease, would it be wrong to buy up loads of property?
No, it is not wrong. Sometimes it even is a good thing. Like if you go to a place with a bad epidemic to sell medicine. Sure, you profit from their misery, and a lot of hypocrits will scorn you for it. But your costumers also get better, so they are in fact helped. Whereas if you had some principles against profiting from their misery they would not have been helped and thus worse off.

No, it is not wrong. Sometimes it even is a good thing. Like if you go to a place with a bad epidemic to sell medicine. Sure, you profit from their misery, and a lot of hypocrits will scorn you for it. But your costumers also get better, so they are in fact helped. Whereas if you had some principles against profiting from their misery they would not have been helped and thus worse off.


Or you could make no net profit and still help. bUt in genral i agree, if you don't add to the misfortune all anyone can do is try to gain from it in some way.

Well, it all depends on the circumstances, if you're at war and it's cold, but you don't have decent clothes and then you see a corpse with nice, warm clothes, it's only natural you take them: he/she doesn't need them anymore.
However, if you see a corpse lying on the street of a city and then you start checking pockets for money, that's kinda wrong.
I think the cases don't differ at all. In the first case the better option would be to hunt an animal/man and make a fur of it (though war in any perspective, other than certain war-simulating games is totally unacceptable). In second case you are right. However, if any money would lie in the ground, not in pockets, it would be right to collect that particular amount of money. Imho.

in the aftermath of katrina, a man saw on the news that there was a desperate need for portable generators. he went to the local stores and bought a uhaul truck full of generators and drove down to the affected area.
his was going to charge twice what he paid for them (or maybe 3 times im not sure but no more than 3 times). he was arrested, charged with price gouging and the generators were confiscated.

no one got those desperately needed generators and no one with a brain will ever use their own initiative to provide needed supplies in a disaster again.

its not wrong to do business in times of misfortune, its only wrong to exploit people in desperate need, to exacerbate the situation, or to withhold vital information.

so...no putting out a hit on the president in order to make money on the "when will he die" pools, no egging on someone who is thinking about it, no keeping the info from the police that someone is planning to do it. but if it happens its not wrong to place a bet, only tastelessly morbid.

Personally, I'd find it kind of amusing to make bets on who's gonna kill Bush.

In some cases, profitting is okay:
If your nation's ally is being attacked, your nation gives its ally vital supplies. If your nation's economy vastly improves, your nation just profitted from its ally's misfortune.

In some cases, it's a bit wrong:
If you bet on when someone's going to die, you're kinda sick.

If you price gouge, that's wrong.

As for the kill Bush thing, who's stupid enough to kill Bush? I think the idea of President Cheney was enough to keep people from shooting Bush. If you hate Bush, wouldn't you hate Cheney more?

The topic that inspired this thread was child pornography. Another nationstates poster claimed once that there was an underground to the underground in child pornography, a group that basically steals images from the people who produce child pornography and distribute them, making sure that the producers do not profit from their distribution. So the question is; is this still wrong, even if they manage to do this in a way that the victimised children are not further victimised, and the child molesters are not further supported? Even if no direct harm is done, are the people involved in "stealing" these images wrong in profiting from another person's suffering?

bump?

Is it wrong to benefit in any way from another person's misfortune and suffering, even if you do not add to their misfortune by benefitting? For instance, if there was an assasination attempt made on the president, would it be wrong to bet money that he would die? Is it wrong to look at photographs of people dying or suffering, like those available on some websites? If a gang war has caused property values to rapidly decrease, would it be wrong to buy up loads of property?

Depends on what philosophy you adhere to. If you are fundamentally capitalist, then its okay. From an altruistic societal standpoint, its pretty low to obtain personal benefit from someone else's suffering that does not benefit the greater community as a whole. But basically whether or not its wrong is how much flak you are willing to take from society to achieve your own end--everybody's mores differ in this respect.

The topic that inspired this thread was child pornography. Another nationstates poster claimed once that there was an underground to the underground in child pornography, a group that basically steals images from the people who produce child pornography and distribute them, making sure that the producers do not profit from their distribution. So the question is; is this still wrong, even if they manage to do this in a way that the victimised children are not further victimised, and the child molesters are not further supported? Even if no direct harm is done, are the people involved in "stealing" these images wrong in profiting from another person's suffering?
I suspected it would be something like this.

It's the existence of demand. By making them available to view (I'm assuming this underground underground is also viewable by the underground), you are still encouraging the people who create them, even if they're not directly profitting from it. Thus the creation continues and people suffer.

It is not possible to fully exempt the producers from the distribution. If it was, then perhaps it might be understandable, even beneficial, since the production would eventually die out, but such a state of affairs is unfortunately only theoretical.

I suspected it would be something like this.

It's the existence of demand. By making them available to view (I'm assuming this underground underground is also viewable by the underground), you are still encouraging the people who create them, even if they're not directly profitting from it. Thus the creation continues and people suffer.

It is not possible to fully exempt the producers from the distribution. If it was, then perhaps it might be understandable, even beneficial, since the production would eventually die out, but such a state of affairs is unfortunately only theoretical.

That's pretty convoluted stuff. Looks like a catch-22 to me, seeing as the sub-underground is inadvertently benefitting the underground. Good point though, and the only way to address this truly is to cut the demand, although that's not exactly feasible. Again, I revert to my previous post in saying that morality is basically determined on a personal level based on how much you are affected by the established social ethics.

Is it wrong to benefit in any way from another person's misfortune and suffering, even if you do not add to their misfortune by benefitting?

Yes - it's called being a lawyer.

That's pretty convoluted stuff.
Convolution is my middle name.

I had very insightful parents.

<_<;

I bet the man that invented band-aids is a millionaire. *nod*
:eek:

I never thought about that..

Yes, in my opinion. Most drug companies are scum-suckers who make billions a year from people with HIV/AIDS and other deadly diseases. I wouldn't mind if they were not-for-profit, but actually making vast amounts of money from the dying is pretty bad.
.


Yet without profit we wouldn't be getting any of it done nor would we be getting the best minds in the world working on it. Let them make a reasonable profit, but also let the drugs be produced in sufficient quantity to help everyone - but until the quantity and the means to produce is sufficient - yes - drug companies will take care of people in their own country and closest neigbors first. It aint no different than the fact that if there is a forest fire I'll put out the fire at my home first, then my neigbors, then theirs, etc.

Nontheless, what the drug companies have been doing lately has been more like a firefighter who keeps a fire under control, but refuses to extinguish it in order to get people to keep paying him to fight it, all the while paying for legislation to keep anyone else from fighting it effectively.

But back to the topic at hand...

I suspected it would be something like this.

It's the existence of demand. By making them available to view (I'm assuming this underground underground is also viewable by the underground), you are still encouraging the people who create them, even if they're not directly profitting from it. Thus the creation continues and people suffer.

It is not possible to fully exempt the producers from the distribution. If it was, then perhaps it might be understandable, even beneficial, since the production would eventually die out, but such a state of affairs is unfortunately only theoretical.
So lets say they were able to completely steal the images from the distributers, would looking at them still then be wrong?

If a gang war has caused property values to rapidly decrease, would it be wrong to buy up loads of property?

No it would be silly unless one wanted to become a slum lord.

The real question is: Is it wrong to want to free death row inmates so you can hunt them??? What if you eat them?

The topic that inspired this thread was child pornography. Another nationstates poster claimed once that there was an underground to the underground in child pornography, a group that basically steals images from the people who produce child pornography and distribute them, making sure that the producers do not profit from their distribution. So the question is; is this still wrong, even if they manage to do this in a way that the victimised children are not further victimised, and the child molesters are not further supported? Even if no direct harm is done, are the people involved in "stealing" these images wrong in profiting from another person's suffering?
yes it would be wrong.

i dont think that the biggest motive in the creation of childporn is profit. there are plenty of people who like to take pictures for their own perverse pleasure and the distribution of it increases that pleasure (as well as getting other people to do the same)

making these pictures and films more available increases the harm to the children involved. the more people who see them, the more common they are, the more likely it is that someone they know will see them. or that they will stumble across them themselves.

more available also implies to certain suggestible minds that it is also more acceptable. those weakminded people will be more likely to indulge in the procurement or even the making of such material.

Another example would be charging for assisted suicide.

In the end it is a difficult question to answer, because it would be nearly impossible to find a situation where you could benefit off another person without creating mutual benefit or causing harm.

Relevant points and areas of contention:

A: Is there a difference between lawful, moral, ethical, and/or disreputable/depraved? (If so, then how?)

B: Is supporting something which is immoral (assuming for a moment everyone debating here can achieve some kind of temporary consensus on what that is), even indirectly, immoral?

C: Does profiting from the misfortune of others necessitate the above circumstance (i.e. supporting)?

D: At what point does benefit to one group out weigh bane to another (if ever)?



These are very complicated questions, some which have been debated for centuries.

My own personal take is as follows:

A: Definitely. Cultural standards are not necessarily synonymous with moral law. Civil and Criminal law (supposedly) attempt to duplicate what is understood conventionally by its populous as "being the right thing to do." But things like manners and what is considered "polite" may not have anything to do with causing actual physical or mental harm. Certainly one may offend another person through lack of adherence to a cultural standard; certain taboos can acquire the strength of moral law over time to be sure. But this does not necessarily make them equivalent. I may very well be disgusted by the thought of people eating monkey's brains, but I don't pretend even for a moment that it is somehow immoral or should be made illegal.

B: I answer this with a conditional. Unwitting support of immoral activity I can find no fault with so long as the person is unaware of the nature of the support through no fault of their own (i.e. a CEO who purposefully makes sure that he does not know any specifics of an operation he knows to be harmful to others is still partially liable in my book because he facillitates the activities and orchestrates his own ignorance to avoid prosecution under the law). A person who is aware of how their actions support immoral activity, whether indirectly or directly, is at least partially accountable in my book. If you are in a position to at the very least hinder the efforts of those who would engage in immoral activity, and you do not, then you are guilty by omission.

C: This one seems pretty clear to me. Profit alone is not immoral. It is a more "neutral" ideologically speaking. If profit is used to support immoral activity, then those seeking that profit are engaging in immoral activity. But if a company which tries to help people uses the profit it makes from those who ail in order to aid more people with ailments, then this profit is supporting a good cause. So to answer the question more directly, profiting from the misfortunes of others is not necessarily immoral. One might think it to be disreputable to profit from those who are in very dire situations, but I think that is a matter of human compassion dictating our reactions. Perhaps it might be for the best to "loan" out aid to people who are in extremely dire situations, for them to pay back when they get back on their feet so to speak, but to demand all aid to those in need be free would cause the agencies responsible for providing aid to go bankrupt, which quite simply would lead more harm in the long term.

D: Personally I think the people who claim that the "Ends never justify the means" are being naive. Police could not operate if this were true; we would have to simply let anyone willing to engage in willful mass destruction or infliction of pain do so if they were going to require force to prevent them from acting. Anyone who takes hostages would be utterly immune to reaction. One of the principles which most Americans seem to take for granted morally speaking is that "It is never appropriate to deal with terrorists." The logic being that doing so only invites more terrorism. This is a calculated assessment of future harm. If the ends cannot justify the means, then we would always deal with terrorists because when we say that we won't deal with terrorists we are letting the ends dictate our immediate action in the present (i.e. the means).



Answering your specific prompt:

There is a difference in accountability between the U^2 (the underground underground) and the end user who is looking at the child pornography/exploiting photography. The U^2 is aware of a reality, and they are responding to it. They wish to undercut those would directly profit from the exploitation of others. This is almost certainly a good thing. If those who profit from child pornography go bankrupt, then there will be less demand for exploiting photos, and thus less should end up being taken. The end user who is looking at exploitive photos is still indirectly supporting an immoral act and doing so knowingly. You might not be paying for it anymore, but you are still supporting the work of the photographer who through the course of his actions caused emotional, physical, mental, etc anguish to the "victim." In the end the only way to be sure that photos of this nature are not taken is for people to stop looking at them.

NT