Maybe I’m misunderstanding what he said, but DanBlather made it sound like asking for money to keep your mouth shut about an affair may not be right, but it’s not illegal. I was giving an example that proves that it is illegal too.
In other words, making information that would be damaging to somebody’s reputation, or marriage, or whatever, public may not be illegal, but if you tell somebody you’ll keep your mouth shut in exchange for money then it becomes illegal.
Whats ironic is is that Tiger Woods situation. When everything eventually was revealed about his infidelity… it also was revealed yet glossed over by the media that a report for a publishing company learned of his shady doings earlier than that. Tiger agreed to do a interview and cover for Men’s Fitness magazine as “payment” for keeping quiet about his doings.
So sometimes blackmail reveals itself…but Tiger was in such a shitty position no one felt any animosity towards Men’s Fitness…
I agree it’s illegal, and not reporting it as a crime would be unethical, but I’m not sure that blackmail in and of itself is unethical if what you threaten to release was obtained legally and did not pertain to a crime.
It’s ethical to tell someone their partner is cheating, but it is also ethical to not tell them. So how can requesting payment to not do an ethical act be unethical?
I’m not entirely sure about that.
I mean, someone else mentioned Tiger Woods: apparently the magazine in question gave him a choice between running the story about his infidelity or having him do an interview he’d otherwise refuse, complete with appearing on the cover he’d otherwise turn down. Wouldn’t he rather be given that choice instead of finding out they went ahead without offering him the alternative?
When you have blackmailable information, either it’s something that you should tell, or it’s something that you shouldn’t tell. Either way, whether it’s right or not to tell it does not depend on whether your target pays you.
How can both be ethical? They’re opposite of each other. At the very least one would be ethically neutral, if not unethical.
I had the same question many years ago, so I asked a judge. He told me that the thing about information is that it never really goes away–if you promise someone that you won’t tell their dirty little secret in exchange for $25,000, in six weeks you may decide that it’s worth an additional $25,000… then another, then another. It’d be pretty easy to bleed someone dry like that (or get yourself murdered), and it’d all be for nothing if you decide to spill your guts anyway.
I don’t think that ethics has ‘neutralities’. Ethics is a structure of signposts and lines on the ground - if you step over onto the wrong side of a line, then that’s ‘unethical behaviour’, but as long as you obey the signs and don’t step where you’re not supposed to, you can ethically do what you would like to.
What you’re describing sounds more like morality (good and evil, instead of right versus wrong.) What you’re describing would more likely make sense in terms of either one choice being morally good and the other morally bad, or both being morally neutral. But that isn’t ethics, as I understand it.
There seems to be a debate between the relationship between ethics and morals. Some people see them as the same thing, others as different, and others see overlap.
But regardless of what ethics actually is, I think there’s such a thing as neutrality. For example if you find out that a stranger or acquaintance is having an affair, the best thing to probably do is keep it to yourself. I don’t see how this could be ethical or unethical.
“Ethics” vs. “Morals” is a sticky subject full of terms that are used either colloquially or technically, often without their user being aware which they are using.
In formal study, ethics are the “framework” onto which you hang “morals”. An “ethic” is something like “causing the suffering of another is wrong” and the morals are the specific rules one may derive from that, like “Thou shalt not kill” or “abortion is evil” or “the death penalty should be abolished”.
Of course, you can share an ethical principal and attach very different morals to it. It’s just as logical, starting from the same ethic of “causing suffering of another is wrong” to arrive at the morals “euthanasia is compassion in action”, “limiting access to abortion is wrong” and “criminals should be put to a painless death without lengthy appeals”.
So, the magazine’s information about Tiger’s infidelity: something they should have told, or something they shouldn’t have told?
I think it would be informative to look at the nature of the transaction.
The blackmailee give money or value in exchange for what? For the blackmailer doing nothing. There’s a bit of an ethical question about whether a transaction can be legal if one party does nothing, or gives nothing of value. But, it could also be argued that there is value in not telling a secret…
However, the real interesting part of the transaction comes before that. And it’s coercive. The blackmailer threatens harm unless the blackmailee agrees to the transaction that is decidedly in the blackmailers favor, (in that he doesn’t have to do any work to provide his end of it.) He threatens to ruin the targets marriage, or his career, or have him thrown in jail, etc. unless he agrees. And it’s the threat of harm that makes this extortion. The target does not now enter into the transaction of his own free will.
Now, if a person finds out that you know their secret and offers you money not to tell… you have threatened them no harm, and they are entering the contract on a fair basis.
Just to expand on this. Even if it’s agreed that one party finds value in not having his secret told and is willing to pay for it, that isn’t the case in blackmail…
Here’s how the transaction looks:
A threat of harm if you don’t agree to this contract. If you agree to the transaction, the threat is rescinded…
Now, the contract consists of you giving the blackmailer money in exchange for… um… nothing. The blackmailer adds no further value to the contract, because the entire value the blackmailer was offering was in the form of not doing harm. And that value is not part of the contract, it is part of the coercion to get you to enter the contract.
Wrong. The contract consists of you giving the blackmailer money in exchange for them not taking a specific action which they have a legal right to perform. This is a valid form of consideration.
Yes, but you’re still contracting to retain the status quo. You’re paying to be exactly where you currently are.
And the main reason it is wrong is that the blackmailer is definitely trying to hurt you for his own personal gain and to your detriment. If the action wouldn’t hurt them more than you will gain, the guy wouldn’t take the offer.
My ethical framework is that the positive aspects should outweigh the negative ones, and that selflessness should outweigh selfishness.
I’ve only skimmed the thread, but one of the issues with blackmail is that, if the person being blackmailed is making decisions that affect others – for instance, she’s in the government, or she’s an officer of a publicly traded corporation, or she’s somebody’s lawyer, etc. – then all those people are going to be injured because the decisions aren’t made due to professional judgment but because some dude told her to do what will serve his personal interests. It’s the same problem with any form of corruption.
–Cliffy
What about the Cameron Diaz situation? When she was starting out on her modeling career she posed for some nude pictures. As it turned out they were never published. Years later, she’s a well-known actress. The photographer, John Rutter, comes across the photos and realizes he could sell them for a good amount of money. But Rutter first approaches Diaz and offers to sell them to her so she can prevent their publication.
As it turned out, Diaz had not signed a release form so the photos could not legally be published. Rutter forged her signature on a release form as part of the “offer”.
But let’s put that clearly criminal act aside and assume Diaz had signed a release form back in 1992. Would Rutter’s offer to sell the photos to Diaz could as blackmail? If Rutter thought Playboy would offer more than Hustler, he would have offered the photos to Playboy. If he thought Cameron Diaz would offer him more than a magazine, why shouldn’t he have been able to offer to sell them to her?
No, you’re not. The other guy is sacrificing his legal right to do whatever the hell he likes with what he knows, and in exchange you are paying him money.
Have you studied contract law? At least under Australian contract law (and I’d be surprised if American contract law was different), your view is wrong.
I’d say cases like that are the equivalent of bribery. Only instead of offering a politician $10,000 to change his vote, you’re offering to keep secret that he’s having an affair. But a bribe either way.
I already said it was if you offered the contract to the person with information.
And that’s fine, if you offer him the contract. If, however, he threatens you with exposure of the information in order to get you to enter the contract, then he doesn’t add any further value to the contract. And a coerced contract is not valid.
I don’t think so. He would have a right to sell the photos to whoever he liked, and it looks like a perfectly valid tactic to call Diaz and say, “I have an offer of $$$ for these photos, would you like to make a counter offer?” If it’s a real bid, that seems legit. If he asks her for double or triple what anyone else would offer, that would be extortion… a threat to increase the value.
Back to a response to Grumman:
But, if the information doesn’t have monetary value to any other person, and you threaten to give it away unless that person gives you considerable value… That changes things. The threat increases the value to one person. Also the threat that you can give this information away at any time unless they give you more money… unless they pay again for what they already paid for… That too, changes things. Threats change things. Threats make contracts invalid.
And not only that, but, you don’t actually give the information to the person you are selling it to. So, you aren’t giving them anything. You are keeping the information for yourself, (the other party already has it as well,) and asking them to pay you not to give it to someone else. Like I said, you add nothing to the contract and expect payment for it.