I’m cracking up at the folks who say, “I just wouldn’t talk to the police,” or “I’d refuse to talk.”
Ha. Cops are experts at interrogation, and they love to intimidate. And they work in TEAMS.
You fail to remember the details of your lie, and they’d cut you to ribbons and decorate the Christmas tree with you.
Rather than worry about what I would say, I’d probably do my best to get a damned good attorney for my loved one.
~VOW
I just reached into my wallet and pulled out my lawyer’s card. On the back of it, it says, My lawyer has told me not to talk to anyone about my case, not to answer questions, and not to reply to accusations. Call her if you want to ask me questions, search me or my property, do any tests or lineups, or any other ID procedures. I do not agree to any of these things without my lawyer present and I do not wan tto waive any of my constitutional rights.
I’ve handed that to cops when I’ve been pulled over for driving while black in a car with a white chick, among other reasons. It irritates them but it’s worth it. Likewise it is worthwhile to have decided ahead of time how you’ll respond when dealing with them.
Having said that, I’ve decided to change my earlier answer. No, I won’t commit perjury: not out of morality, but out of logic & practicality. If the prosecutiing attorney is asking me the question, s/he probably knows how to prove my answer right or wrong, and lying will make it worse.
You fail to remember the details of your lie, and they’d cut you to ribbons and decorate the Christmas tree with you.
Rather than worry about what I would say, I’d probably do my best to get a damned good attorney for my loved one.
~VOW
[/quote]
I didn’t restate anything - I asked a question.
That’s kind of the heart of my point - if you’re going to do it anyway, then saying it’s “objectively wrong” looks to me like just lip service. To me, if you really thought it was wrong, you wouldn’t do it or at least wouldn’t try to publicly defend it. You appear to have internally made the moral calculus that family outweighs society. That’s your prerogative, but it does look to me like you’ve made “family is better” a personal moral good, for all that you are claiming absolute morality. You seem to be taking the stance that there’s social morality, and then there’s family, but that’s not, IMO, how it shakes out. There’s just one morality for each individual. So saying your actions are antisocial (which is IMO true) does not, by your own statements, actually equate to them being immoral - for you.
Read and replied.
As did I
So (and again, I’m asking a question here, not restating your position) - are you equating some decision where you are under not a shred of direct compulsion with one where you are under the gravest physical compulsion possible?
I’m sorry if I misread you, but “it depends” is not what I got out of “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.” There was no conditional there.
ETA: and “No matter what they do” is in relation to murder - by that I mean even if it was cold, premeditated,malicious murder - let’s say for argument’s sake one that you don’t think they’ll repeat, but still completely unjustifiable.
I do. That’s why it’s the murder example I’ve been referencing. Like I said, the rape exception was the reason for my incredulity, but it was the contrast with murder that made me go 
a)that wasn’t what you initially said, like I quoted
and
b) why do you think you’re best qualified to decide on society’s behalf what constitutes a danger to it?
It’s not like I haven’t been quoting the lines I’m asking questions about or replying to.
Really, it boils down to a simple question - how can anyone justify helping someone get away with murder? “Because they’re family” doesn’t quite have enough of an explanatory power to me. Why should it?
I love my wife, younger sisters, elder brother, stepdaughter, nephew, & selected nieces. I merely tolerate of the rest of you out of combinationn of ethics and rational self-interest.
You really can’t comprehend that I can understand a choice is immoral and still make that choice for selfish reasons? That’s pretty much the antithesis of paying lip service or claiming absolute morality.
I shouldn’t be dicking around on the SDMB at work but here I am doing it. I’m not even justifying it to myself, I know it’s wrong and I’m doing it anyway. I’m not proud, I don’t think I have the moral high ground, I’ve simply made the choice to entertain myself at the SDMB for awhile instead of working.
In the torture thread I’m being asked to give up my loved ones and they will surely be tortured if I do. In this thread I’m being asked to give up my loved ones and they will surely be imprisoned if I do. Sure, that works for me.
You are correct sir and I apologize. I’m wearing my ass for a hat.
That’s where I was going w/ the snow shovel thing earlier. I think that’s as far as I could push myself. I’m not really sure how I would convince myself that they wouldn’t kill again, that’s certainly problematic. shrug I can still conceive of perjury in that situation though, it’s not outside the realm of possibility. I understand that you can’t conceive of it but continuing to ask the same questions probably won’t change my opinion.
That’s fair, I didn’t qualify every statement.
I think I’ve been clear in admitting that I know it’s not moral or socially acceptable to commit perjury. I haven’t explicitly said that I don’t think I’m qualified to decide on society’s behalf but I’m surprised the sentiment hasn’t come through considering how many times I’ve referred to the choice as immoral or antisocial.
Justify is perhaps a poor word choice as we’ve posited the example of someone we know is guilty. The choice to commit perjury is inherently unjustified no matter what crime we’re talking about, that’s why it’s perjury.
Why would I (in some circumstances) perjure myself so a loved one could escape a murder charge they were guilty of? Because I’d rather have my loved one free and not in prison. Because I value my family over society.
I’m not going to break that way every time but I can imagine doing it.
This comes up on “Law & Order” all the time, like today, in an episode call “Denial” (1997).
Teenage girl gives birth to a baby and she and her boyfriend strangle it and leave it in a hotel room. They go to her house and tell her father what happened. Her dad goes to the hotel room, gets the baby’s body, and buries it in a landfill. Boy and girl are charged with murder. Dad tells Jack McCoy the truth “off the record,” but he won’t testify against his daughter, even with a subpoena, and McCoy sends him to jail for contempt. Girl’s mom also refuses to testify against the daughter. Defense attorney introduces doubt, namely, that the father might have found a live baby and killed it before he “disposed” of it. The jury finds the boy and girl not guilty because neither parent would tell what they knew.
I can comprehend doing it, I guess. I can’t comprehend …I don’t know…essentially bragging about it on the internet, I suppose? I mean, I appreciate the honesty, don’t get me wrong, but it scares me that most everyone probably agrees with you.
It leaves me feeling bleak, is all. Like the world of feuding and vendetta and honour killing is not as far as I’d like to think.
No, IMO, it pretty much is paying lip service to the idea of morality - if it is no brake on your actions, then you must not actually treat it as a moral imperative. You’ve developed a larger, new moral structure that says “selfishness overrides social morality”.
You don’t have to be proud for something to be moral. But if you don’t feel shame in your actions, then I’d argue you don’t really consider the actions immoral.
You’ve been clear in saying it, yes. Understand, I don’t doubt you - I agree that you keep saying it. But I feel that there’s an underlying disconnect between saying that and yet not not striving to do as that morality dictates, that points to an underlying, unacknowledged, opposite morality view in play.
ETA: Notice that I see a large disjunct between what’s moral and what’s socially acceptable. For me, violence is always immoral, for society, it’s acceptable in self defence. So the two don’t have to agree. What’s moral isn’t social morality, it’s what your personal moral beliefs are. Same with the perjury thing - not what the social moral framework is, but what you consider acceptable for you.
So love means covering up crimes?
I think I finally understand your position and why we were talking past each other so much. I like your description of morality as a brake, it’s a good visual and thought-provoking.
I catch myself wanting to argue with you because people do things they know are immoral all the time but I think you nailed it when you said ‘moral imperative.’ Obviously morals aren’t imperative if we don’t adhere to them.
I respect the way you’ve defined morality but I think your definition lacks utility considering the parlance of our times - observe how much we clashed over one word. Certainly the world be a better place if we considered morality and the way we define it more often.
We would have butted heads regardless, we disagree on some fundamental issues. That said, at least I understand what you’re on about and I enjoyed our back and forth despite some frustration. I’m inclined to go dig up my philosophy textbooks now.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
It leaves me feeling bleak, is all. Like the world of feuding and vendetta and honour killing is not as far as I’d like to think.
[/QUOTE]
Do you really feel it’s far away? I don’t. Honestly, I wonder if most people do. I assumed we all knew we were just a hair’s breadth away from complete social meltdown.
I think your understanding of morality is pretty far removed from the way most of society views it, MrDibble. I mean, if you don’t feel that violence is acceptable, even in self defense, I know it is. I admit, I’m fascinated by your ideas, and I would actually like to hear more about it (although I question if that would hijack this thread).
Love is the state of mind in which the well-being of another person is essential to the lover’s peace of mind.
No worries - thanks for the chat.
Generally yes. I mean, actual vendettas and the like are frowned upon nowadays.
There’ve been a few threads on it before - search for my name and pacifism should do it.
Don’t take this the wrong way, but that sounds almost like something Lib would say.
[Zod]
Why do you say these things, when you know I will kill you for it?
[/zod]
But … I miss Lib!
because I never correct my aim for wind and recoil…
I will look that up when I have time later to really read something. Thanks.
Objective? About my mother? Are you nuts? Of course I couldn’t have been objective; that doesn’t mean I would have been wrong. I knew my mother - better than any jury would have - and I would have based my actions on that knowledge.
I might not know for certain, but I would certainly be better informed than the court. And you completely missed my point, apparently; I would not necessarily give loved ones who deserved punishment a pass, but I would trust myself to decide if they deserved my support of their punishment.
[I won’t even address what the type of people who speak to sensationalist reporter will say, what comments are selected by sensationalist editors, and how silly people who say “I always knew there was something funny about him …” sound.]
Oh, I thought I made that clear - yes, because I consider that standing up for family. Okay, I admit, for selected family. Yes, I would commit perjury. But I would not let someone else do time for them.