Poll: Scapegoating the innocent, can it be a good thing?

[DevilWithaHalo]

I?m amused at the concept of a philosophical law class. Especially considering the question hinges on an inherently unlawful situation. The only reason the dilemma is being posed is because a group of people are about to take the law into their own hands.

The *right* course of action is the *lawful* course of action. The doctor must be jailed for committing the crime (especially if the confession fits the evidence) and the crowd must disperse since hanging (even in the old west) was unlawful unless performed by a legal authority in accordance with punishment.

Laws based on the well being of society cannot function if practiced with convenience. The moment laws start functioning in a fashion where they are treated differently based on who they are being applied to is the moment society takes a legal nose dive. And yes, we?ve been in a tail spin for quite some time.

 

[Kair]

The mob is at fault for baseless vigilantism. The mob will also be at fault if they alienate the doctor beyond the reasonable limit. The doctor has only a small amount of fault.

It is the ethical fallacy of the general population that makes ethics so difficult. On one hand, one should not have to compensate for the wrong deeds of others in order to achieve the best consequences. On the other hand, one can today in most cases not expect the moral adequacy of another individual.

This is the conflict between Consequential and Deontological ethics (if one sets aside the large portion of Deontological ethics heavily influenced by religious bias). Though this only applies to cases where the consequences rely on other people's actions. In any other case, extended Consequential ethics is the true theory.

 

[Jonluw]

I'd go with the truth. I'm of the opinions that honesty normally turns out best for all parts involved.
Besides, it's the wild west, is the doctor really going to lose the trust of the townspeople because he whacked a kid over the head?

The scenario is pretty stupid though. Who in his right mind would send a person who accidentally knocked out a kid to jail, when the person clearly feels bad about it.
i.e. The consequences of the decision aren't realistic in relation to the situation at hand.
The question also seems heavily weighted towards the 'scapegoating' side. "Oh, a little time in jail will do the drunkard good" It rarely works that way.
In this hypothetical scenario, why isn't already the drunk in jail, if he is a violent person, and as little as accidentally knocking someone out is enough to send you to jail.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

The guy committed the crime, as a law enforcement official, your job is to punish those who break the law. Therefore, the doctor goes to jail.

 

[AlkalineGamer]

Scapegoat the drunk.
Doing the right thing and abiding by the law are different things all together.

 

[Srrrh]

Out the doctor. "He's sorry and unlikely to do it again"? How many times has a habitual domestic abuser said that to their spouse. The town would be right to never trust the doctor again.

However, if there's a mob, it's likely he wouldn't go to jail, he'd be lynched. Which is a bit harsh, but I'd still rather the guilty part was lynched than the innocent.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Pshh, doctors were over rated back then. But then again...

'no one will trust the doctor again'

If we have to just lay down and accept these things as facts, then fuck this town, let them all hypothetically die of some random disease.

As for the people who would knowingly let the innocent drunk die because it's 'easier' or whatever, there is a special place waiting for you in.... aww shucks. Never mind. People like surprises, right?

No one ever said anything about killing off the drunk. He's going to prison, not being hung.