That is basically it for me as well. Sure, I would lie to protect any close family member but I wouldn’t let myself get in much trouble unless it is one of of my children then all bets are off. I am a big fan of sociobiology. I am younger than my parents and have kids of my own so we fall in ever increasing importance in the hierarchy in descending birth order. I expect my children and grandchildren to feel the same way.
Unless they are a serial killer on a rampage actively killing people, I will not tell anyone. But if I’m questioned, I will answer honestly. I just won’t look at them when I’m sitting on the witness stand.
I’m always amazed when family members reflexively defend someone accused of a heinous crime. “They would never do that! They wouldn’t hurt a fly!” I know all of my family members, and they are great people. AS FAR AS I KNOW. And that is key. No one is an open book, and everyone is capable of everything. If my mother turns up dead and my father is implicated as the killer, I’m not automatically think there’s a mistake and rush to his defense. And vice versa.
I think a key sticking point is that people are imagining up their own scenarios and how they would respond to it and the universe of possible crimes is large. If one of your parents killed your other parent, you have a true conflict and I can see how you would want the justice system to do whatever is necessary because that is family-on-family crime. I wouldn’t cover up for a serial sex offender either especially if I had a high degree of confidence it was actually true.
I imagined the scenario as a murder that was a one-off kind of deal and had some good reason behind it. Maybe it was a person that kept threatening your sister’s family including their very lives but the authorities wouldn’t take it seriously. One night your sister believed the threat was about to become real and did something about it. It is murder by the strict definition of the law and would be prosecuted as such but only if there are enough witnesses to make a good case. Your sister confessed to you that she did it and even told you where the body was buried. You can talk or not talk. The choice is yours. Right now, it is just a missing person’s case and may stay that way.
Brother.
Yeah, you’re being noble, and sexist, and it’s very sweet. (Live that one down.)
No, not really. I would have ratted one out in a heart-beat and done time for the other.
My siblings? I’d perjure myself for one.
You know what they say, a friend will help you move, a good friend will help you move the body.
Serious? Even if he did it without any real justification?
What you think there’s some special legal or moral privilege that attaches to having been a victim of sex crimes, that doesn’t count for murder? I don’t. And I’ve been a victim.
I’m reminded of a Korean movie where a son murders his own parents by stabbing them - he tears his fingernail in the process. The mother, dying on her own living room floor, notices his torn fingernail and manages to pick it up and swallow it in an attempt to hide evidence.
Talk about over the top Confucian family values.
Bear in mind that I haven’t advocated my actions from a legal, moral, or even a logical standpoint. Obviously everyone should be held to the same standard of justice.
That being said, are you really surprised that I value my loved ones more than the social contract? I picked an extreme example as a way of finding my own personal limit. I would imagine I’d be quite conflicted if I knew Mom or Dad killed someone with no provocation. However, if I saw an opportunity to get them out of trouble I would take it.
I haven’t murdered the sex offenders in my own family but I’m not going to be upset if someone else does. I only raised the sex crimes issue to point out a personal hard limit - I can wrap my mind around helping my folks get away with murder but I could never defend them if they committed a sex crime.
So you’re saying you’re advocating actions you, yourself, think are immoral and illogical?
Not surprised - just frustrated, I guess. It’s such monkeysphere thinking that leads to a lot of the evil in the world.
Fair enough, I acknowledge everyone has different criteria - but you and others are acting … not exactly like that’s right and proper, since you acknowledge the immorality and illegality…but fatalistically, as though you have to give family a pass, rather than something bad, a flaw to work against and a behavioural trait we should eliminate.
Maybe it’s my Anarchist tendencies talking, but society is more important than blood. Or else we’re just monkeys.
And a lot of the good. You can’t pretend that refusing to turn Mom into the cops is a completely separate thing from her taking care of you your whole childhood or being a positive, supportive presence in your life as an adult. “Monkeysphere” thinking is what makes people take care of their families, spend holidays with them, and fosters a sense of interdependence on which society relies in a large part. Deciding that we can just cut out the negative parts of that while retaining the positive ones seems unrealistic.
Our brains simply do not work the way you seem to think they should. We can’t even usually keep track of all the people in our town, let our nation or planet. Caring for them all equally would have a lot more consequences than just refusing to testify against a relative, and I don’t think all those consequences would be that great. We have a limited amount of time and energy to invest, and choosing to invest most of it in a few rather than a small amount in many seems a lot more efficient to me.
The question is not “Should a person ..”, but “would you for your family member”. This is not a theoretical question; it refers, for each of us, to specific people whom we know very well and may love, respect, and cherish. We know what their morals and ethics are, and we judge them accordingly. If my mother had killed some-one, I’m sure that s/he would have deserved it and that the world would be a better place for it. (Besides, she gave me life and I would return the favor.)
My sibling? My sibling would have a very good reason that I would probably disagree with. Oh, that would be a hard choice, but in the end I would act with the knowledge my sibling is a good person.
Other relatives? Most I don’t really know well enough to lie for them. Others, I would offer to the police as suspects. Some, even if I didn’t think they were guilty - and that is not revenge, that is because I think the world has suffered by them.
No, I don’t think standing up for family is wrong. No-one knows them better.
I can do more than pretend. I would turn Mom in to the cops if she deserved it, and without connecting it to my love for her.
Why?
Mine does.
I’m not saying you have to care for everyone equally. I’m saying you have to apply the moral rules you decide on without prejudice. You can care all you want, just don’t let that override your morals.
I have no problem with choosing to only limit who you have an emotional investment in. I do this myself.
What I don’t let happen is let that override my morality.
Your objectivity in this regard would be…?
Most news stories about killers start “He was such a nice boy…” - or look at Sandusky’s wife, right now. Or, of course, many a serial killer’s family, like that BTK guy.
You can’t know. Not for certain. That’s what the courts are for.
Anyway, what it sounds like, to me, is that people in this thread are willing to give loved ones a pass even when they deserve the punishment - witness people saying they’d do the time rather than their sibling/mom/whoever. That indicates that even if a just verdict were handed down, people would still make exceptions. But no-one is willing to project that behaviour all the way down the slippery slope. And it’s a very slippery slope, ending in some pretty nasty behaviour. Starts at Hatfield & McCoys and ends at Rwanda…
Or, to put it another, Godwin, way - I’m sure Eva Braun would have taken a bullet for Adolf, too…
So you’ve never made a choice that you knew was wrong? I have a hard time believing you’ve seriously considered the hypothetical.
I’m saying that I would, in certain circumstances, chuck my morals and rationality for 2 people in a world of, what, 6,000,000,000? That doesn’t make me an asshole, that makes me a normal member of society.
You nailed it earlier when you mentioned the justice system. LEO’s aren’t supposed to investigate family, your relations won’t end up in the jury box and our spouses are often exempt from testifying. We’ve built our society with an acknowledgement of the importance of familial relationships.
MrDibble, I think you have unrealistic expectations of yourself and others. Further, I think slightly irrational balls-to-the-wall loyalty for a small number of people is just as important as trying to be a good global citizen.
I wasn’t really asking if you would “stand up for family.” I asked if you would commit perjury for a first-degree relative (parent, sibling, child) if you knew they were guilty. Would you lie in court?
Sure I have. Not so much in the last couple decades, but before that, sure. But I regretted and acknowledged the wrongness and tried to do better, I didn’t predict that I’d do exactly the same thing again - why have the moral conviction at all if you know you’re going to break it?
Seems more like one actually has one morality, in which family can do no wrong, but says one has another because that’s the better morality to be seen to have.
I have. And it’s not like this is the first time this particular flavour of hypothetical has come up on the Dope.
I didn’t say it made you an asshole. Just not acting according to your own acknowledged standards.
I didn’t even start off questioning that people would give their family more leeway - I questioned the why murder was worse than sex crime.
That’s not a universal exemption, nor is it right, IMO. Especially for spouses.
How unrealistic is it if I’ve managed to live my entire adult life by my morality? OK, I’ve never had to turn in anyone in my family for a crime, but I’ve reported acquaintances.
I disagree. Loyalty is nice and all, and can be a great positive. But when it turns to covering up crimes, it’s just a negative. There is no positive side to it.
Take note that in the OP’s hypothetical, you are knowingly perjuring yourself for a guilty person, not just refusing to testify.
MrDibble you speak in absolutes and you seem to be fond of restating my positions as absolutes, I must admit I find that a bit irritating.
I’m a grey area, circumstances matter kinda gal and I hold that while my family is not more important than society, they are certainly more important to me than society.
I respect your conviction if not your position.
Yeah, I’m having a tough time seeing covering up for someone or lying for them as somehow noble or a good thing. It’s one of the reasons why really bad people often get to stay out of jail and continue doing really bad things, because someone in their life covers for them or won’t admit realizty, or hides them from the police, or fakes an alibi.
I hold the people I love to the same standard as strangers, not a lesser one.
So you’re saying your morality is relative?
Regardless of what they do?
I went through your last post and did the “refute each line” thing and then I deleted it and posted the “agree to disagree” post because we clearly 1. disagree and 2. talk past each other.
No, morality isn’t relative. Again you’ve read my comments and restated them as absolutes - you do get that’s the root of our disagreement? I said that no, my actions wouldn’t be moral but that I just might do it anyway. I think I’ve been pretty clear in stating that covering for a loved one is objectively wrong, antisocial, and selfish but that I just might do it anyway.
Have you read the torture thread? Do you think anyone really wants to give up info to the enemy? No, rather, it’s that many of us in that thread admit that we have limits no matter how good our intentions. This hypothetical speaks to me in that fashion.
You’ve posted incredulous, “no matter what they do!!???!?” lines a couple of times and each time I’ve responded that “it depends.” We had the whole sex crimes tangent which I started when I said I might cover for my folks over murder but not molestation or rape - I know you remember.
So, one more time, no, not “no matter what.” It would depend on whether I could justify it to myself or failing that, at least convince myself that they weren’t a further danger to society.
I’ve said all of the aforementioned before. It’s like you have thread-related amnesia.