In article ,
Ignoramus25349 wrote:

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 09:37:41 -0800, Don Bruder wrote:
thing you want, but at the end of the day, you're nothing but a snitch.

I think that we have to be careful about a broad term like "snitch".

Suppose that you learn about a man who assembled together two water
fittings and paid for only one. And you (the hypothetical you)
complain.

Does that make you a snitch?

zero hesitation Yes.

Another try. Suppose that you learn that a person raped a child,
killed her and dumped her body someplace. And you inform the
police.

Does that make you a snitch?

slight hesitation Maybe. Depending on who the child was (Do I have any
attachment? Do I have any reason to care beyond "There's a killer on the
streets and he might take aim at me next"?) I might be more inclined to
invoke the "rule of the three S-es" without ever involving the cops. Or
I might turn him in. Or I might apply (or attempt to) an ass-whoopin'
THEN turn him in. Or any of several other possiblities that I simply
can't say "I'd do *THIS*, and that's the end of it" about without
actually finding myself in the position.

If your answers are (as I hope) different, then just where does the
difference lie?

The only answer I can give is the same one that gets used so often in
reference to distinguishing between "plain old pornography" and
"obscenity": "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

Are there some sufficiently devious crimes, and insufficiently devious
crimes?

Yes.

For me, the answer is yes. If I learn that my neighbor built a
illegal machinegun, or has a pig hidden in his shed contrary to
ordinances, I would consider complaining about his crimes to be
snitching.

And rightly so.

Now if I learn that the same person committed some horrible crime,
like murder, I would inform authorities and would be proud of that.

Depending on the circumstances, I might, as well.

Ethics *MUST* be situational, if only because what's ethical for one
situation can be unethical in another, with only the tiniest visible
distinction between the two. (Example: An EMS tech refusing to stop
working on a patient is ethical right to the bone. An EMS tech refusing
to stop working on a patient after the patient has said "Keep your hands
off me" (or something with the same meaning, regardless of the exact
wording used - whether conveyed verbally, or through a "DNR" card,
"living will", or similar instrument found in their wallet) is a scumbag
with delusions of godhood and absolutely no trace of ethics who needs a
solid slap upside the head. (at the *VERY* least)

In the end, there are laws that I do not respect and would not want to
complain about people violating them.

Agreed. Just because it's (read this next bit in a big, booming, "voice
from on-high" typeface) "THE LAW" doesn't mean that it's either right,
or even "good". And being legal doesn't neccesarily make something
ethical or non-ethical. Quite a few totally unethical things are
perfectly legal, while quite a few highly ethical things are crimes that
could get you locked up or even executed - For example, hunting down and
killing the hypothetical guy that raped and dumped the kid you presented
above is illegal, but by my standards, its perfectly ethical.

That includes most ordinances, gun control laws, and most copyright laws.

Agreed - particularly the ordinances and gun control laws. A more random
hodgepodge of "I don't like this, it should be illegal" has never before
been seen on planet Earth.

The laws that I respect, though, would warrant my complaint if I
consider the violation grievous enough.

But what constitutes "grievous enough"? That's the crux of the whole
thing.

As I said, Ethics *MUST* be situational. Adhering to an ethical
"absolute" under all conditions isn't laudable - It's often just plain
STUPID. Particularly in the "edge cases" where an all-but-invisible (and
often, it's something that's all but impossible to articulate without
sounding like a complete lunatic in the attempt) detail can be all that
stands between "ethical" and "non-ethical".

I stand by my statement - In the situation put forth for commentary, my
comment is that Harold qualifies as a snitch by my standards.

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd for more info