Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Drug traffickers snitching on each other

Rate this topic


iflyboats

Recommended Posts

This is a hypothetical scenario and I am not a drug trafficker. But if a drug trafficker gets caught and the government offers him favorable treatment in exchange for information about others, is the trafficker justified in "snitching" to save himself? It seems to me that he is, and that the government is the guilty party and is responsible for violating the rights of whomever it imprisons. But I want to run my theory by a panel of experts before I go on record saying this IRL.

Edited by iflyboats
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a really complex issue. What is this guys motivation? If hes some scumbag trying to make a buck while facilitating the destruction of peoples lives Id say sure, be a rat, youve got no integrity anyway. On the other hand, if he genuinely believes that drug laws are immoral and wishes to be a crusader and put himself up on the cross, than breaking the implicit contract that hes made with his cohorts is dishonest and also shows a lack of integrity.

Really though, I wouldnt waste my time pondering the ethical nuances of drug peddlers. Egoism offers no defense for that behavior in the context of todays society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would just like to point out that one of the side effects of pushing the drug market underground is that drug traffickers have to be able and willing to enforce deals personally (through violence and fear), and also able to scare their street-level pushers enough so that those people would choose a few years in prison over rolling on their bosses. This requires the threat and frequent use of brutal violence. Those are the type of people with a comparative advantage in a black market. So just because the drug laws shouldn't be there, doesn't mean that the black market is full of moral people who don't deserve to go to jail. In any black market, no matter the product, criminals and rights-violators will rise to the top. I seriously doubt that, if you are a drug trafficker, any of your 'colleagues' deserve any consideration of the kind you're suggesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who? Me or the OP? I dont give any consideration to criminals.

The OP. He seems to be viewing drug dealers as just average people who happen to be operating in an illegal market that should be legal, when the reality is that the people who survive and prosper in a black market generally do it through evil. The people who sell drugs would be the same type of people that run today's legal drug companies if we ever legalized drugs (moral businessmen), but the fact is that while the market is still illegal, evil men will always run and operate it.

Edited by Dante
clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a hypothetical scenario and I am not a drug trafficker. But if a drug trafficker gets caught and the government offers him favorable treatment in exchange for information about others, is the trafficker justified in "snitching" to save himself?

I wouldn't say he's "justified", but rather, "excused."

The word "justified" implies some level of righteousness to me. When the government forces you to do something immoral, you're excused from some amount of moral condemnation, but your actions aren't worthy of praise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OP. He seems to be viewing drug dealers as just average people who happen to be operating in an illegal market that should be legal, when the reality is that the people who survive and prosper in a black market generally do it through evil.

If the OP were to bring this discussion public, he'd be wise to make your point as a preface. But I don't think this is relevant when exploring only the morality buckling to government force. Government justice should be enforced for specific infractions and done in a way that stays neutral on moral/amoral actions. Leaning on a mule to convict a third party for doing something else is improper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don't disagree with the other comments here, I believe the issue that should be addressed is integrity. Choosing to deal drugs is a problem in itself, but after that choice has been made, one must accept responsibility for the choice. In choosing to deal drugs, one must accept the possible consequences of this choice. Weaseling your way out of the consequences of a conscious choice demonstrates a lack of integrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nigel, do you mean that a mule, to maintain his integrity, must not snitch?

Yes, though I guess that the problem is that the mule's integrity is questionable to begin with. This is the problem with attempting to apply moral reasoning in this situation. The mule engaged in a behavior that was unethical--at least a very good argument can be put forth that this is unethical. The question asked is how does the mule act in a way that is ethical while engaging in unethical behaviors. Although this question is worthy of considering, the more direct point is don't be a drug mule to begin with. Now, as is often the case, if the mule was coerced into trafficking drugs, the situation is clearly different. But based on the information provided, I argue that one must take responsibility for their own actions. Ratting out others simply to avoid the consequences of his decisions demonstrates a lack of integrity. Being a drug mule is a decision that must be carefully and rationally analyzed before doing. A rational human would consider the consequences of trafficking before engaging in this activity. If, after considering the consequences, one still chooses to be a drug mule, it should be argued that the individual has accepted the possibility of being caught.

To add to this argument, why was one mule caught, but not the others within the crime organization? Perhaps the others were more skillful and use more ingenuity in trafficking drugs. Maybe the one who got caught was careless or lazy. Since each individual, particularly the mules, acts as an individual, this could arguably be turned into a case of individuals being wrongly associated into a collective. All are criminals, true. But one's incompetence should not adversely effect others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...