The lesser of two evils

[toknowservelove]

If you know that a fraud is being committed, but reporting the fraud would make some children homeless, do you report the fraud or turn the other way?

 

[teachccd]

If you know that a fraud is being committed, but reporting the fraud would make some children homeless, do you report the fraud or turn the other way?

Unfortunately a morally wrong act is always morally wrong even if it is meant to do good.It is like would it be wrong if you saw someone stealing food to feed their child. The act of stealing is wrong even though the intent is good and the gravity of the sin would be diminished. Fraud usually has consequences that eventually hurts someone else who is unsuspecting.

Do you report it? I would say that if you don’t then you are condoning that behavior whereby it is o.k. to hurt those you don’t see to help your children. I am a very compassionate person so this is extremely tough but I would say that any act of fraud should be reported regardless of the intent. If nothing else the children will learn what integrity is and if ,in the best efforts of the parents, they were to be homeless then it is better than stealing your lifestyle.

That’s my two cents. I’m sure that there will be all kinds of comments on this one as it is a very tough call whenever kids are involved…teachccd

 

[ljubim]

Of course. Unless you’re turning them over with the intent of harming the children, you’re fine. Others, or even you yourself, can still help these children out.

 

[Bailey2]

Unfortunately a morally wrong act is always morally wrong even if it is meant to do good.It is like would it be wrong if you saw someone stealing food to feed their child. The act of stealing is wrong even though the intent is good and the gravity of the sin would be diminished. Fraud usually has consequences that eventually hurts someone else who is unsuspecting.

Do you report it? I would say that if you don’t then you are condoning that behavior whereby it is o.k. to hurt those you don’t see to help your children. I am a very compassionate person so this is extremely tough but I would say that any act of fraud should be reported regardless of the intent. If nothing else the children will learn what integrity is and if ,in the best efforts of the parents, they were to be homeless then it is better than stealing your lifestyle.

That’s my two cents. I’m sure that there will be all kinds of comments on this one as it is a very tough call whenever kids are involved…teachccd

All I can say is that you better be absolutely certain with documentation proving such a thing before you report it. Otherwise it falls in the realm of “suspected.” Without proof, absolute proof, you cannot assume anything.

 

[teachccd]

All I can say is that you better be absolutely certain with documentation proving such a thing before you report it. Otherwise it falls in the realm of “suspected.” Without proof, absolute proof, you cannot assume anything.

I’m not the OP. I was assuming that the OP was certain or else why would one even think of jeopardizing the kids?

 

[Bailey2]

oops, sorry teachccd. Hit the wrong quote box.

As for being sure? Sometimes we think we are sure but don’t have the proper documentation that allows the authorities to do anything… in that case, you’ve not only scared the family to death but you’ve also red flagged them. I am assuming this family is poor. They get flagged a lot. If they are cheating the system to survive, they will move as soon as they even think they are going to get caught.

(and I had promised myself not to get on CAF at least till next week! shame on me!)
blessings

 

[toknowservelove]

To be honest, I don’t have all the information. I am asking for a friend. She is a lawyer who works with families to collect child support. I would assume that this came up in the context of work, and that yes, she has the documentation or proof of the fraud. That is a good point though. As a “what if” should you report suspected fraud.

By the way, if it was just suspected, the children would not necessarily be in danger of being homeless. And, as I write this, I wonder if the children would truly be homeless, or if that’s just what she thinks would most likely happen. I’ll have to ask more questions and post later.

 

[NPC]

To be honest, I don’t have all the information. I am asking for a friend. She is a lawyer who works with families to collect child support. I would assume that this came up in the context of work, and that yes, she has the documentation or proof of the fraud. That is a good point though. As a “what if” should you report suspected fraud.

By the way, if it was just suspected, the children would not necessarily be in danger of being homeless. And, as I write this, I wonder if the children would truly be homeless, or if that’s just what she thinks would most likely happen. I’ll have to ask more questions and post later.

Well, I don’t know about what would happen in the U.S. system, but in Ireland the most likely outcome is that the offenders would be brought before the court and they would be punished according to circumstances, motivation for the crime and such factors. The children, presumably not being complicit, would most likely be put in State care of some kind, such as a placement with a foster family; placement with close relatives would be a possibility, if suitable. I would imagine that it would be dealt with similarly in the U.S. I know it would be difficult to see children taken from their natural parents, but their current environment must be far from ideal if the family is resorting to fraud to get by. Unfortunately, in these troubled economic times we are going to see this more and more.

There is a moral obligation to report the fraud - in fact on Irish television there are often ads warning people to be vigilant for people engaging in fraud and to even report suspect claims. If a person has a genuine suspicion, then the authorities should be able to investigate it with utmost discretion. One of the fundamental guiding principles of moral theology is that one may never do evil so that good may come of it. This must be your friend’s principle in this case, difficult though it may be.

 

[Bailey2]

To be honest, I don’t have all the information. I am asking for a friend. She is a lawyer who works with families to collect child support. I would assume that this came up in the context of work, and that yes, she has the documentation or proof of the fraud. That is a good point though. As a “what if” should you report suspected fraud.

By the way, if it was just suspected, the children would not necessarily be in danger of being homeless. And, as I write this, I wonder if the children would truly be homeless, or if that’s just what she thinks would most likely happen. I’ll have to ask more questions and post later.

Good move, lawyer.
Report? From moral stance, yes. From licensing stance, yes. Glad you are getting lots of feedback and data. You job sounds way different than mine. Thank God! I am not mandated to even look so as to get that far. Same with undocumented children (schools here have immunity from reporting that anyway). Of course suspected child abuse is different and I find myself having to report that much more as economics decline… sad and terrible. Off the forums I go!

 

[Ron_Conte]

If you know that a fraud is being committed, but reporting the fraud would make some children homeless, do you report the fraud or turn the other way?

The three fonts of morality always apply, to each and every knowingly chosen act. All three fonts must be good for an act to be moral.

If the person has a good intention in reporting the fraud, the first font (intention) is good.

The act itself of reporting a crime to proper authorities has a good moral object, the common good, and so the second font (moral object) is good.

In the third font, the good consequences of the act must outweigh the bad consequences of the act, for all persons affected by that act. So if reporting a crime of fraud does more harm than good, it would not be moral to report that crime.

 

[NPC]

The three fonts of morality always apply, to each and every knowingly chosen act. All three fonts must be good for an act to be moral.

If the person has a good intention in reporting the fraud, the first font (intention) is good.

The act itself of reporting a crime to proper authorities has a good moral object, the common good, and so the second font (moral object) is good.

In the third font, the good consequences of the act must outweigh the bad consequences of the act, for all persons affected by that act. So if reporting a crime of fraud does more harm than good, it would not be moral to report that crime.

Then I guess one could find it moral or immoral - depending on how far they delve into the possible consequences? I mean, at first sight, one would be inclined to think that the possibility of the children becoming homeless means that to report the crime would be doing more harm than good. But on the other hand, if the fraud involves defrauding the Social Welfare system for example, that means that everyone in the country who honestly works and pays taxes is being robbed, which brings the morality aspect of the crime (or reporting it) to a different level.

 

[kage_ar]

Go with what is behind door number three - find an agency or group who can assist the family in becoming “legal”.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Then I guess one could find it moral or immoral - depending on how far they delve into the possible consequences? I mean, at first sight, one would be inclined to think that the possibility of the children becoming homeless means that to report the crime would be doing more harm than good. But on the other hand, if the fraud involves defrauding the Social Welfare system for example, that means that everyone in the country who honestly works and pays taxes is being robbed, which brings the morality aspect of the crime (or reporting it) to a different level.

The evaluation of the consequences of an act (in the third font of morality) involves a judgment of the prudential order. Different persons might reasonably disagree as to the totality of the weight of the good and bad consequences for all persons affected by the act.

 

[teachccd]

The evaluation of the consequences of an act (in the third font of morality) involves a judgment of the prudential order. Different persons might reasonably disagree as to the totality of the weight of the good and bad consequences for all persons affected by the act.

So then, moral truth is always subjective? (If I think that it is o.k. then it is morally right) teachccd

 

[Ron_Conte]

So then, moral truth is always subjective? (If I think that it is o.k. then it is morally right) teachccd

No, moral truth is not subjective. But some prudential judgment is needed in order to evaluate the weight of the good and bad consequences of any act.

Colorado Catholic Conference: “In some moral matters the use of reason allows for a legitimate diversity in our prudential judgments. Catholic voters may differ, for example, on what constitutes the best immigration policy, how to provide universal health care, or affordable housing. Catholics may even have differing judgments on the state’s use of the death penalty or the decision to wage a just war. The morality of such questions lies not in what is done (the moral object), but in the motive and circumstances. Therefore, because these prudential judgments do not involve a direct choice of something evil, and take into consideration various goods, it is possible for Catholic voters to arrive at different, even opposing judgments.”
Moral Principles for Catholic Voters, p. 2

 

[teachccd]

No, moral truth is not subjective. But some prudential judgment is needed in order to evaluate the weight of the good and bad consequences of any act.

Colorado Catholic Conference: “In some moral matters the use of reason allows for a legitimate diversity in our prudential judgments. Catholic voters may differ, for example, on what constitutes the best immigration policy, how to provide universal health care, or affordable housing. Catholics may even have differing judgments on the state’s use of the death penalty or the decision to wage a just war. The morality of such questions lies not in what is done (the moral object), but in the motive and circumstances. Therefore, because these prudential judgments do not involve a direct choice of something evil, and take into consideration various goods, it is possible for Catholic voters to arrive at different, even opposing judgments.”
Moral Principles for Catholic Voters, p. 2

So then if fraud is objectively wrong then wouldn’t all motives and consequences not apply in the case of the OP? Would the circumstances of the fraud itself have to be taken into account? Could fraud ever be objectively neutral? Couldn’t a prudential judgment admit that the good of those kids would render the act moral?

 

[Ron_Conte]

So then if fraud is objectively wrong then wouldn’t all motives and consequences not apply in the case of the OP? Would the circumstances of the fraud itself have to be taken into account? Could fraud ever be objectively neutral? Couldn’t a prudential judgment admit that the good of those kids would render the act moral?

There are three fonts (sources) of morality; all three fonts must be good for an act to be moral.

1. intention - a bad (immoral) intention makes any act a sin.
2. moral object - if the chosen act itself (apart from intention and circumstances) is inherently directed at an evil end (the end in terms of morality, called the moral object), then the act is intrinsically evil and always immoral.
3. circumstances, especially the consequences. It is always immoral to choose an act that does more harm than good. Some harm can be tolerated in the consequences, as long as the good consequences outweigh the bad.

A knowingly chosen act is never objectively morally neutral. All knowingly chosen acts are either morally licit (good, permissible) or morally illicit (bad, immoral, sinful). Acts can be neutral as concerns merit and punishment, i.e. deserving neither.