An ethical dilemma.

[Cal]

Me and my friend got into some deep philosophical shit while chillin' in my hottub like 2 bros do. So this is the dilemma we raised, we couldn't come to a conclusion so I'm posting it here.

Your mother is in the hospital for a terminal disease. You need $1,000 to pay for the treatment, and your job wont cover it. You try everything, eventually you decide to scam. You scam a user $1,000. That user earned that money via cracking paypal accounts & selling the information.

Who is in the wrong?
Are they both wrong?
Why?
Anything you would add to make this question more interesting?

Please keep this about the ethics and not about how to prevent it or fight back about the situation.

 

[Sparko]

From an outsiders point of view you're both wrong, though I'd do that too if it meant saving someone I loved. My mind would be clouded by emotion and I'd probably think that it's the right thing.

 

[Official]

fck the paypal cracker dude I'm scamming him 5k for my mother

 

[KingWampy]

You'd both be in the wrong; neither thing is right to do.

 

[Spenser]

You're both in the wrong, even though you're trying to save a loved on. It doesn't fix the shitty thing you just did. In theory your indirectly scamming these random people.

 

[Smart]

From the judicial system's perspective, both parties are committing some wrongdoing. However, there are extenuating circumstances surrounding the scammer's crime; therefore, it is understandable, yet not condonable. Even though both offenders scammed the same amount, the PayPal cracker would receive a harsher punishment compared to the scammer, in the courtroom. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that the PayPal scammer is more in the wrong than the scammer. Furthermore, if the scammer does not scam, his mother may die. I'd like to assume that even the most honorable judge would scam $1000 if it meant he could save any life, let alone his mother's life.


I hope this leads you to a conclusion regarding the dilemma.

 

[Danny]

Me and my friend got into some deep philosophical shit while chillin' in my hottub like 2 bros do. So this is the dilemma we raised, we couldn't come to a conclusion so I'm posting it here.

Your mother is in the hospital for a terminal disease. You need $1,000 to pay for the treatment, and your job wont cover it. You try everything, eventually you decide to scam. You scam a user $1,000. That user earned that money via cracking paypal accounts & selling the information.

Who is in the wrong?
Are they both wrong?
Why?
Anything you would add to make this question more interesting?

Please keep this about the ethics and not about how to prevent it or fight back about the situation.

They are both in the wrong. The user sold paypal account info which is illegal. But the other person decided to scam that guy $1000 to pay for his mother, which is also illegal. But was it morally right for the guy to do that?

Let's think about that for a second... If you're in a situation where you're literally going to see a loved one suffer from a disease or anything else. It really fucking hurts, I'm sure others will be able to hear me out on that one. It really hurts emotionally, to the point where you'll do ANYTHING to make it better for them. But going about it in that way is wrong, but at the end of the day, what can you do?

To make the question better. What if your mother is in the hospital for a terminal disease and she literally has 24hours to live (but can be cured if you pay for the treatment, in that case. It would still be wrong/however, I'd say it's morally okay to do so. Even if it results in you going to jail for 'x' years. But your mother is going to be okay so you'll be more understanding of the consequences...

It's a really interesting question though.

Spoiler: Damn

I really felt like vsauce Michael writing this haha

 

[KingWampy]

This is basically a "end justifies the means" situation. That is completely and utterly false. The end never justifies the means.