this week about lying. At the same time,
that some people are accused of fraud. But did they do anything wrong?
Isn't this country based upon the government helping those who need help? Isn't government designed, today, to take care of people? Doesn't government measure it's own success by how many people it manages to help? So why is what this woman did wrong? She needed help and she got it from government.
Perhaps it's wrong because government says it's wrong. According to the all-powerful law, she is guilty of "conspiracy to defraud the government." So apparently, the only reason what she did was wrong is because the government says that you're not allowed to fake being disabled.
Wonderful society we've built here, isn't it? And I wonder why so many people looked at me like I was crazy when a few weeks ago I asked the waitress if she mis-charged me because my drinks weren't on the check she gave me.
When you act dishonestly, you ARE stealing from another person. You might deceive yourself into thinking it is a business, the government, or an insurance company that is suffering the loss, but really it is the business owners, fellow taxpayers, or policy holders from whom you are stealing. It is just as if you had taken the money from their wallets. Dishonestly always injures people. The victim is always a person.
Then again, if there is no absolute truth, if there is no higher power than ones' self, then anything is not only permissible, but actually right.
1
They did what they were taught to do. The only problem is they got caught so the government has to make an example of them. You know how that goes: "Do what we say and this is what you get but if you get caught we'll deny all complicity."
Posted by: Steph at February 27, 2007 04:32 PM (AC9Dc)
2
I am, unfortunately, in possession of relatives who have gotten disability. One sister got it for a bad back, so coached her sister on what to complain about and what to say to the docs and etc so that she, too, could get on the gravy train.
If they get to the point where they brag to me, as they have done to others, I'll ask them if they're going to say thank you, since I'm paying their benefits. Somehow, I don't think even that will shame them.
(*)>
Posted by: birdwoman at February 27, 2007 06:53 PM (vR7Sl)
3
It's just a really horrible statement on society that we now value getting cash from taxpayers more than the truth.
Posted by: Ogre at February 27, 2007 07:34 PM (oifEm)
4
Well... looking on the bright side... someone on another blog said I've come unhinged... LOL... I was a good girl *pout, pout*... I didn't go back and say, "Okay, you're the expert. I should hike myself down to the nearest mental health center and have them declare me mentally incompetent so you can support me for the rest of my life." but... sigh... I was a good girl... *pout, pout*
Posted by: Steph at February 27, 2007 09:14 PM (AC9Dc)
5
Being told you're unhinged by the left is a sign that you're on the right path.
Posted by: Ogre at February 27, 2007 09:44 PM (kft0e)
6
Well... in his defense I did get a little radical with my "secession/revolution" talk but that's not the real reason he called me unhinged... he did that to avoid answering what his beef with me is.
I don't know that the current politics are going to lead to such a radical movement but it's sure looking like it... hate the thought... but I would rather die than live in the socialized world the politicians are trying to achieve.
Posted by: Steph at February 28, 2007 01:51 AM (AC9Dc)
7
Name calling is always the last refuge of someone who has no logical basis upon which to argue.
Posted by: Ogre at February 28, 2007 02:26 AM (kft0e)
8
ok, it has been a long time since Western Civ, so forgive me if this is a bit muddled, but if I remember correctly, this is what my state-funded university taught me...
Right and wrong is a social construct.
It is based a cost-benefit analysis. Or maybe a social contract, but I'm still looking for the contract I signed, so that could be wrong, too.
From the woman's perspective, this was the right thing to do. There were all kinds of benefits to her actions which outweighed the distant costs. Whether her reckoning is correct is yet to be determined, I think. It kinda depends on the sentence.
From the government's perspective, well, it really depends on how you look at it. Pursuing her would perhaps be the wrong approach, because how much will it cost the state in legal fees and housing her in prison and supporting her children in the foster care system if that is where they end up?
Or maybe Kohlberg is more relevant. The woman's moral development clearly stopped at that stage where something is believed to be wrong only if caught. But that is where most of society is, so since she is normal, can we really pursue her?
"Thou shalt not steal" is a bit simpler, isn't it?
Posted by: Dana at February 28, 2007 07:37 AM (8bYMT)
9
If right and wrong are a social construct, then she absolutely did nothing wrong. If you accept that there is no absolute truth or right or wrong, then there's no way to claim that she did anything wrong. If that's the case, you can claim you didn't like what she did, but that doesn't make it wrong.
As you mention -- that's where society is today. There is no absolute right or wrong, according to the all-powerful government -- only what they say.
Posted by: Ogre at February 28, 2007 11:26 AM (oifEm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
