Morally obliged to report co-worker to authorities?

[Rosebud77]

The topic is not whether we should do detective work so we can be voluntary police. No one has suggested that anywhere in this thread.

The topic is how to handle it when someone brags about doing something self-centered that is both against the law and detrimental to the well-being of others. That is not just wrong-doing. It is encouraging others to engage in wrong-doing, too. How do you deal with it when someone brags about getting away with an obvious injustice? Do you admonish them directly, do you turn them in, or what? I don’t see how you bite your tongue and let them teach the world that you aren’t the kind who is going to say a word against evil-doers if it means rocking the boat at work.

I fail to see how “social welfare fraud” is any different than driving without paying for insurance you could afford to pay for as well as a typical person could and bragging about it. In both cases, the person is breaking the rules in order to unjustly reap a benefit that other people are stuck paying for.

Yes, I agree that sometimes the right thing to do is to say nothing because “you can’t teach a pig to sing; you just frustrate yourself and annoy the pig.” If someone is very clearly not going to change because of admonishment but is hardened in the wrong-doing they are so proud of and you know nobody is going to use them as a model of behavior, there may be no point in admonishing them. “Pearls before swine,” they call that.

I really fail to see how it is “playing God” to let the authorities know about advertised wrong-doing and then letting the authorities take care of it as they see fit. You yourself would report wrong-doing, if it rose to whatever level you think is sufficiently injurious to the general welfare. Theft is theft. The only difference is how much wrong-doing it takes to “anger the gods”?

Glad I do not live near thee! VERY glad indeed.

Anger the gods? What ?

We do have GARDAI here; the Trafffic Corps who spend days doing roadside checks on these things.

 

[EasterJoy]

Glad I do not live near thee! VERY glad indeed.

Anger the gods? What ?

We do have GARDAI here; the Trafffic Corps who spend days doing roadside checks on these things.

I’m not the one who implied that turning someone in when he bragged about breaking the law was “playing God.” You said there were people you would turn in. I’m just not certain why turning somebody in is “playing God” in one case but not in the other. What’s your basis for deciding one form of turning someone in is “playing God” and the other isn’t? I really do not understand what the difference is between the two cases.

 

[EasterJoy]

Interesting language. And attitude.

As long as the person reporting takes full responsibility for the consequences of his actions?
Which there is no sign of here.

Shows mercy as Jesus bids us. Not a hint of that. Just self righteousness.

All that is seen is the trait of begrudgery that infests some places.

We are both talking about the original example, right?

In discussing the exorbitant price of motor insurance one day with a co-worker it came up in conversation that he doesn’t pay his motor tax or insurance and he drives around in the hope that he won’t get stopped by traffic cops. He only has to drive a few miles each day and he’s never had an accident thus far. Though occasionally he does drive further. I have been thinking about this conversation for a few weeks and his attitude bugs me the more I think about it. If he did have an accident he’d be in trouble, but the person or vehicle he hit would be liable to pay an even higher premium. It also turns out he doesn’t even have the proper license to drive his vehicle. I’m starting to wonder if I should report him before he has an accident and screws up his and someone else’s life.

Where did you get the idea that mercy requires the OP to say nothing and do nothing?

As for mercy, admonishing the sinner is literally a spiritual work of mercy. We’re not talking about stoning this guy. We’re talking about getting him to do the right thing, pay his share like everyone else does, and quit cheating.

What mercy is there in biting your tongue and letting this guy go on with cheating the system and driving without a license? That does his soul some good? How? What if he gets into an accident and does get caught? How do you feel about the choice to just let him go on and hope nothing bad happens?

He who loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.
The good man wins favor from the LORD, but the schemer is condemned by him.
No man is built up by wickedness, but the root of the just will never be disturbed…
The plans of the just are legitimate; the designs of the wicked are deceitful.
Prov. 12: 1-3, 5

You won’t find a word in Scripture that says it is a mercy to allow a liar to keep on lying, with no reproof. Yes, sometimes it is better to do nothing. It is not automatically more “merciful” to say and do nothing when someone tells you that they lie or cheat, as if “mind your own business” were counted among the spiritual works of mercy. It is not.

 

[Rosebud77]

We are both talking about the original example, right?

In discussing the exorbitant price of motor insurance one day with a co-worker it came up in conversation that he doesn’t pay his motor tax or insurance and he drives around in the hope that he won’t get stopped by traffic cops. He only has to drive a few miles each day and he’s never had an accident thus far. Though occasionally he does drive further. I have been thinking about this conversation for a few weeks and his attitude bugs me the more I think about it. If he did have an accident he’d be in trouble, but the person or vehicle he hit would be liable to pay an even higher premium. It also turns out he doesn’t even have the proper license to drive his vehicle. I’m starting to wonder if I should report him before he has an accident and screws up his and someone else’s life.

Where did you get the idea that mercy requires the OP to say nothing and do nothing?

As for mercy, admonishing the sinner is literally a spiritual work of mercy. We’re not talking about stoning this guy. We’re talking about getting him to do the right thing, pay his share like everyone else does, and quit cheating.

What mercy is there in biting your tongue and letting this guy go on with cheating the system and driving without a license? That does his soul some good? How? What if he gets into an accident and does get caught? How do you feel about the choice to just let him go on and hope nothing bad happens?

He who loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.
The good man wins favor from the LORD, but the schemer is condemned by him.
No man is built up by wickedness, but the root of the just will never be disturbed…
The plans of the just are legitimate; the designs of the wicked are deceitful.
Prov. 12: 1-3, 5

You won’t find a word in Scripture that says it is a mercy to allow a liar to keep on lying, with no reproof. Yes, sometimes it is better to do nothing. It is not automatically more “merciful” to say and do nothing when someone tells you that they lie or cheat, as if “mind your own business” were counted among the spiritual works of mercy. It is not.

 

[EasterJoy]

I get that my answer was excessive, but please tell me you do not think that mercy requires us to keep our mouth shut and mind our own business when someone tells us they’re lying about a serious matter.

Please tell me that you don’t think that speaking up and saying, “That’s cheating, and you shouldn’t do it” is somehow a judgmental or self-righteous thing to say. The OPs co-worker is shirking a big expense that the law puts on him so everyone will take their share of the risk. If everybody actually paid, the premiums would be lower. There is no indication that he’s any less capable of paying than anyone else.

The other yardstick is “do unto others.” If I were cheating the government or breaking the law to save myself an expense everyone else has to pay, honestly I would thank myself if I were caught. This goes double if I were in the habit of telling people about it.

 

[pnewton]

When is it OK to steal from the wealthy and when is it not OK?
(Robin Hood did not rob the rich in order to enrich himself.)

I have no idea what bearing that question has on the topic.

 

[EasterJoy]

I have no idea what bearing that question has on the topic.

“… insurance companies in the US are extremely wealthy…”

I’m not saying it is never OK to avoid an inherently unjust bill.

I’m saying that it is not moral to stick it to a big company on the theory that they’re wealthy. First off, it is not OK to defraud the wealthy. Secondly–and perhaps more relevant to the discussion–the rich and powerful of our day don’t tend to just absorb frauds against them. They get their profits. The cost is passed on to other customers or ratepayers, people with no more ability to pay than those shirking their bill.

That’s just the practical truth of it. If you don’t pay, someone in your shoes is probably the one who has to to make up the payment you ducked. That’s the way the system works.

 

[pnewton]

You won’t find a word in Scripture that says it is a mercy to allow a liar to keep on lying, with no reproof.

I get that my answer was excessive, but please tell me you do not think that mercy requires us to keep our mouth shut and mind our own business when someone tells us they’re lying about a serious matter.

Maybe I misunderstood the scenario, but where does lying come into this. I though this all came about because the without insurance spoke freely of what he was doing.

 

[EasterJoy]

Maybe I misunderstood the scenario, but where does lying come into this. I though this all came about because the without insurance spoke freely of what he was doing.

It is deceitful to drive without insurance and without a license because it requires shirking a payment that most other people have had to make in order to exercise the same privilege.

I don’t want to beat this to death. There isn’t an obligation to speak up every time someone says they’re lying or trying to beat the system. There isn’t an obligation to turn someone in who is breaking the law.

I’m only saying that to speak up is not a bad thing, but falls under the spiritual work of mercy of admonishing the sinner. It is not judgmental or unmerciful to do so. It is also not unmerciful to turn someone in who is defrauding the government or a company.

 

[pnewton]

I’m only saying that to speak up is not a bad thing, but falls under the spiritual work of mercy of admonishing the sinner. It is not judgmental or unmerciful to do so. It is also not unmerciful to turn someone in who is defrauding the government or a company.

Got it. Thanks.

No, it is not unmerciful. There are definitely two legitimate sides to this question. Kudos to the OP for such a new and interesting question.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I’m only saying that to speak up is not a bad thing, but falls under the spiritual work of mercy of admonishing the sinner. It is not judgmental or unmerciful to do so. It is also not unmerciful to turn someone in who is defrauding the government or a company.

It occurs to me that many people see the morality of acts as relative to whether the person or entity those acts are committed against, “deserves it” or not.

So, many people would say that a large company or government “deserves” to be “cheated” because that entity itself is cheating its clients.

Or, some will say that if someone insults you, they “deserve” to be insulted back. Many in the political realm use the “but they did it too” argument to justify their own lack of charity toward their opponents.

Some endorse the idea that if a spouse cheats, they “deserve” to be cheated on, too.

Many “good ol’ boys” (including those who claim to be religious) think that it is fine to use a “bad girl” who “disrespects herself” to slake their lusts with, because she doesn’t “deserve” any better.

And, of course, a “victimless crime” is no crime because there isn’t even a victim to be judged as to whether he or she “deserved” it or not.

All of these assumptions ignore the fact that acting immorally doesn’t just hurt the “victim” but the “perpetrator” as well.

 

[EasterJoy]

It occurs to me that many people see the morality of acts as relative to whether the person or entity those acts are committed against, “deserves it” or not.

So, many people would say that a large company or government “deserves” to be “cheated” because that entity itself is cheating its clients.

Or, some will say that if someone insults you, they “deserve” to be insulted back. Many in the political realm use the “but they did it too” argument to justify their own lack of charity toward their opponents.

Some endorse the idea that if a spouse cheats, they “deserve” to be cheated on, too.

Many “good ol’ boys” (including those who claim to be religious) think that it is fine to use a “bad girl” who “disrespects herself” to slake their lusts with, because she doesn’t “deserve” any better.

And, of course, a “victimless crime” is no crime because there isn’t even a victim to be judged as to whether he or she “deserved” it or not.

All of these assumptions ignore the fact that acting immorally doesn’t just hurt the “victim” but the “perpetrator” as well.

I was taught that if you look around for someone else’s bad behavior as an excuse for your own, you’ll always be one of the worst ones in the room, not one of the best.