(no subject)

[which_chick]

There's a nice ends-vs-means discussion over at Halfway down the Danube regarding police actions during a kidnapping case in Germany. If you like moral dilemma stuff and aren't adverse to using real-life examples for discussion, you might go take a look.

Personally, I wonder why on earth so many interesting things come out of Germany... and this without even discussing their porn. I'm sure you all recall that Germany was the country who brought us the kill-cook-and-eat-someone-with-permission case. Is that murder? Can the guy actually give consent? Where is the line between sick fantasy and totally librarian-poo? Oh, it was delighful on several fronts... and now we have "Is it okay to threaten to torture a kidnapper for information on the kidnappee?" The fun just never stops over there in Germany. What a country!

Comments

[en-ki.livejournal.com]

In both cases, there's a question that requires an important decision (whether to punish somebody) on the basis of incomplete information. It's a difficult practical matter, and the system may or may not reach the right decision, but I don't think it's conceptually complex at all. (Handling the difficult practical part is why we have courts and detectives.)

In the case of the cannibal, you figure out whether a reasonable person in the eater's position would have believed that the eatee had given complete and informed consent and was sane enough that it counted; and in the case of threatening the kidnapper, the question is not whether coercion is wrong, but whether the wrong was excused by the necessity of protecting the victim. We have laws against homicide, threats, and so on, but self-defense and the defense of others are acceptable legal defenses against these charges, as long as you can prove that you used an appropriate level of force for the situation.