Snitching?

[CraigSca]

The Palmeiro thread brought up an interesting question for me - a philosophical one as well as historical.

When did snitching become a bad thing? Is it a question of honor among thieves? I understand there are some profound moments when "throwing someone under a bus" is absolutely the wrong thing to do. Off the top of my head I can give the example of a prisoner of war not disclosing the whereabouts or plans of his fellow soldiers.

However, when did it become a question of honor to either lie, deny or refuse to tell authorities about an acquantance/friend who broke the law? I understand it's the defacto standard today to speak only for yourself and to never name any names - but what's so wrong with naming names if someone did something wrong and you know about it?

I'm asking this more from an analytical point of view, as I know that in everyday situations you just don't rat out friend/family, etc. However - isn't it odd that we would help a friend/family member get away with breaking the law/committing a crime, etc.?

[spleen1015]

If I'm saving my ass or helping the welfare of my wife and kids, I'll give up the goods on anyone.

[CraigSca]

Understood - but isn't it odd that we can turn off our supposed morality when it hits too close to home? For instance, Flasch often talks about politics and the fact that politicians lie. Would he lie so a family member of his wouldn't go to jail? Would he talk if the authorities asked him if a friend is selling cocaine?

In the Palmeiro thread, the fact that he brought up a teammate in a federal investigation now turns him from jackass of the decade to jackass of the century. I just find it interesting that (assuming he's telling the truth), the more honorable thing for him to do would be either to lie or refuse to answer when he knows another person broke the law.

[spleen1015]

If I know my little brother stole a pack of gum from the 7-11, I probably wouldn't tell.

If I know my little brother killed JFK, then I am telling.

I guess it depends on the situation.

In a lot of these situations, it seems like the snitch gets more crap for being a snitch than the actual wrong-doer gets for doing wrong.

[spleen1015]

Dola,

In Palmiero's case, he is trying to save his ass. He got this substance from someone else and didn't know he was taking it. So, I don't see anything wrong with saying "Cal Ripken gave me a steriod laced Baby Ruth."

[Mustang]

http://www.harry-potter-games.com/Images/snitch.jpg

[Anthony]

he knew exactly what he was taking. don't you debate that for one moment.

[korme]

If I know my little brother killed JFK, then I am telling.
Liar. No one would tell on their brother.

[Jon]

Liar. No one would tell on their brother.

The Unabomber's brother ratted him out. I think it does depend on the situation.

[Noop]

Snitchs get stitchs

[albionmoonlight]

What an interesting question. Makes me wish that I had paid more attetion in undergrad philosophy instead of daydreaming about the impossibly hot chick who sat in front of me.

Leaving the specifics of Palmerio aside (and, FWIW, I have a very hard time beleiving that any professional athlete does not know exactaly what goes into his body), here's my attempt to answer it.

We submit ourselves to laws, regulations, punishments, etc. as part of the social contract. It's a necessary evil. From a self-interested point of view, I may want to steal my neighbors car. Indeed, I suppose that I would like to live in a world in which I could take whatever I wanted whenever I wanted and abuse whomever I choose, and shoot up steroids so that I can win games, etc. If, however, everyone did this, then we end up with life that is nasty brutish and short. So we agree to submit ourselves to laws which severely limit our behaviour, for the reward of knowing that our neighbor has agreed to the same arrangement and is not going to come over to anally rape my mother while pouring sugar down my gas tank. (or, if he tries it, there are police to try to stop him).

So the whole idea of laws in the first place is, at some level, a necessary evil to which we all agree in order to make things better for ourselves.

There are, of course, people who want to try to take advantage of the law by breaking it while others are forced to follow it. So we have systems in place to try to prevent them from doing it and catching and punishing them once they do do it.

These systems lead to the idea that it is OK to break the law if you don't get caught. You "get away with it." Just like we don't expect a player to call a penalty on himself if the referee does not see it. There is a sense (rightly or wrongly) that once you have an enforcement mechanism in place, then not being caught by the enforcement mechanism is almost as good as not being guilty in the first place.

It is also apparent, to me, that we enter into social contracts with our friends/family that mean more to us than the large contract we have with society. That makes sense. Your relationship with your friend is more meaningful to you because of personal affection you have for him. More economically, there is a lot more social enforcement of close relationships. If my dog messes on some random lawn down the block, the odds of me getting caught are pretty low if I get away quickly. If my dog is over at my brother's house and messes on his lawn, he may put two and two together. You are closer to people to whom you are close (duh), so there is more incentive to not break the social contract with them because you are more likely to get caught doing it.

So, the relationship you have with your friends means more to you than your relationship with society as a whole. And, if your friend has not been caught, that means that he is still, on some level, innocent. So by turning in your friends, you are betraying a close social contract for the benefit of a distant one. You are not just turning in a guilty party. Your friend was on some level innocent until you ratted him out.

Finally, why is there social pressure enforcing this? I imagine because most of us want the freedom to get away with violations of the large social contract if we feel a need to do it. What is one of the easiest ways to get caught breaking the law--people to whom you are close violate their contract with you and turn you in. So we come up with the ethics of snitching. I don't want my brother to turn me in, so I will not turn in my brother. Because we can't use the law to enforce the social more of facilating breaking the law--we use social pressure.

[JonInMiddleGA]

However, when did it become a question of honor to either lie, deny or refuse to tell authorities about an acquantance/friend who broke the law? I understand it's the defacto standard today to speak only for yourself and to never name any names - but what's so wrong with naming names if someone did something wrong and you know about it?

I suspect that it might well be connected to the general lack of acceptance of people taking responsibility for their own actions. Since that isn't popular in and of itself in many circles today, it seems logical that it wouldn't be popular to force someone to do it either.

[Ksyrup]

Good response, albion. FWIW, I'm a person with very few close friends and I have no problem putting the law, or just what I sense as "the right thing to do," ahead of people. In college, I had a pretty good friend who decided to cheat on his girlfriend. He would talk to her on the phone, lie about not being able to go out, then head out with some other chick and joke about it to me. It pissed me off, so, I decided "fuck him," and I told her. I just think that kind of behavior is bullshit. He and I obviously were no longer friends after that, but I didn't want to hang around with someone who thought that was an acceptable thing to do.

I don't think I've ever been put in a position where I thought I should turn someone in on a potential criminal matter, though. I suspect that would be tougher, but probably not as tough for me as for other people.

[CraigSca]

Very good write-up, albion. I suppose the issue I have is the hypocrisy (including my own) when I value a social contract moreso than doing right vs. wrong.

Shouldn't it be everyone's goal to do what's right vs. doing wrong and hoping not to get ratted out by a friend/acquaintance/whoever? I don't want to get into an argument over what's right vs. what is wrong, so work with me on that.

Again, from a 30,000 foot level, I find it puzzling that we think it's okay to cover up a friend's "wrong" (or, more importantly, our OWN) and yet we freak/scream/bitch when we see a stranger do it.

[Passacaglia]

I think it all started in that episode of The Brady Bunch when Cindy was tattling on everyone.

[CraigSca]

Dola...

on top of that, if you do the RIGHT type of snitching it's okay. Like the FBI agent in Minneapolis who tried to get the higher-ups to recognize a few Middle Easterners were practicing with flight simulators pre-9/11. When word got out about that, and she didn't "cover" for her bosses, they still made her into a hero.

[Karlifornia]

Good response, albion. FWIW, I'm a person with very few close friends and I have no problem putting the law, or just what I sense as "the right thing to do," ahead of people. In college, I had a pretty good friend who decided to cheat on his girlfriend. He would talk to her on the phone, lie about not being able to go out, then head out with some other chick and joke about it to me. It pissed me off, so, I decided "fuck him," and I told her. I just think that kind of behavior is bullshit. He and I obviously were no longer friends after that, but I didn't want to hang around with someone who thought that was an acceptable thing to do.


Maybe you felt you would clear your conscience by doing this, but your friend wasn't breaking the law, and I don't think it was your job to tell her. You should have talked to him about coming clean to his girlfriend. Were you friends with this girl, too?