Okay, this is the news article:
http://www.news9.com/story/32168555/...ion-of-a-crime

Here's some things to think about to get your brain juices flowing:
Civil Asset Forfeiture (CAF) has been around for a long time (think "Limey bastard!").
This new technology increases the power/scope of CAF.
Technology is increasing daily and is likely to continue doing so.
Let your imagination take it from there .... to .... thE FUTURE!

Here are some relevant philosophical ethical theories:

1) Hobbes / Locke / Rousseau / Rawls: Social Contract Theory (if you don't know what it is, wiki it while feeling ashamed).

2) Kantianism! Is it the state's duty to secure its citizens freedom, safety, or both? What about his first categorical imperative which states (iirc) that we should never use people as a means to an ends? What about the rest of the **** his old ass said?

3) Utilitarianism: Don't make Bentham slap Mill in his grave by looking only at the entities directly-involved, make him proud by also thinking about how your decision/conclusion on the matter will effect everyone--even future generations!

I dont give a f*** about your random opinion!
Let there be no misunderstanding: this is not a thread in which the OP is curious as to your feelings and inclinations concerning the article at the top of this post. This is a thread in which you, as a replier, invoke one of the three given "relevant philosophical ethical theories" and form a coherent response. If you think that you can form a coherent response invoking an ethical theory which I did not mention, venture to do so at your own risk, knowing full-well that I will do my best to make look a fool.

Doesn't qualify as ethics. They're only Okies, so what does it matter?

I put forward hedonism & democracy. Has the advantage of being correct rather than sounding nice. The output as a function of time will be the resultant of all the individual hedonistic forces operating within the democratic framework.

- limey bastard.

I'm invoking 'presumption of innocence' of being a fool before I click the link and dare post more.

Okies = Welsh.


The Op question combines legalistic/constitutional issues (US) with ethical questions. Not easy to evaluate or disentangle. I'm staying away from that rabbit hole and will just say that Spinoza got everything correct. Since he was an atheist this goes without saying.

And Democracy is for whiners, losers and crybabies. So Chez fell on his face right out of the gate. Bad form. Go back to Oxford. And never have the words democracy and hedonism in the same sentence. Who do thing you are: Trump?

Thrasymachus tells you whiny plebs to suck it.

This CAF bs is clearly a breach of my legal rights to privacy and due process, but if I had to expand on it philosophically, it clearly fails to preserve the age old ethical theory of MERICA!

Isn't that what makes it interesting / worthy of some discussion?

come on... someone take a stab at it.

Behind the veil of ignorance, and prior to the formation of the social contract, libertarians or risk-prone individuals would be against it; the majority or the herd, would be for it, because the majority is always risk-adverse.

On this basis, social contract theory would predict that this policy will eventually be enacted, if it isn't already.
Kant's support for a meta-physical notion of free-will and the importance of self-determination would mean that he would be rolling in his grave. As his categorical imperative would ask: would I like to enact this law universally and for all?

Hell no. Kantianism or deontology in other words, would predict that this policy would not be enacted.
Considering mainly the consequences or outcomes of actions as a justification for what is moral, utilitarianism would claim that we cannot yet predict whether this policy will be enacted, for we have not pilot-tested for its effects yet.

What else you got?

Also, why haven't you included virtue ethics/teleological ethics?

Its the most interesting one. It would likely ask the question of: what virtues does this policy cultivate? a kind of sheepishness? or submissiveness to authority? or a kind of cowardice/fearfulness (of identity theft)? What kind of virtues does the police officer, as a societal symbol of justice, promote by having the power offered by this policy?

Theological ethics I think only applies to niche cases. Say a church is deciding what content it will block with its firewall. Sure, use it then.

This is a copy paste from my current rough draft:

Virtue ethics, in its simplest form, defines a "right action [as] an action that a virtuous person, acting in character, would do in the same circumstances. A virtuous person is a person who possesses and lives out the virtues. The virtues are those character traits human beings need in order to flourish and be truly happy." (book, pg 90). Essentially, a list of virtues can be made and any ethical dilemma can be checked against that list, trying to figure out what a virtuous person would do in that same scenario. However a police officer is by definition a special person in the whole of society. They are meant to do many things that normal people should not do, and some things that even a virtuous person might not do. Their job is unique and require them to act in a way that is different from ____________. For these reasons, virtue ethics cannot be applied to this individual case (civil asset forfeiture)

Why should I give up my perfect freedom in exchange for submitting to the State?

You will not be able to steal, yeah, but also if something is stolen from you, we will punish the dude and return it. Etc we will protect you etc.

What if someone says I stole something when I didn't? Hmm.... okay, we will assume you are innocent, and make him prove you guilty.

Okay, I accept the social contract.


Your property? Guilty until proven innocent. Russel's Teapot. This is not what I agreed to!

Reason I was asking is b/c I was writing a paper on it xD

Let me know what you think of my arguments. You can skip the abstract.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0...WZwYlRKQlRyQkU

Pretty good paper. My only problem with it (aside from the spelling errors) was that you concluded that an application of act utilitarianism would rule against civil asset forfeiture...and yet in the course of your analysis in that section, you said that 'society in general' would benefit from it. Either you need to redefine 'society in general' or you need to change your overall act utilitarianism-related conclusion (because the interests of 'society in general' obviously outweigh the other interests of the component members you isolated (police, criminals, innocent victims))

I said there were four groups: police (do their job faster, make money), society (a little bit safer), criminals(less money, which is a good thing), innocent victims (lots of bad things).

Also it is theoretically possible to do some amount of pain to a single individual (if it is of a certain magnitude and for a certain duration) that could theoretically be more in the negative direction than giving $1,000,000 to an entire city would be in the positive direction.

Society can benefit from it and it can still be the wrong thing to do (I defined society as all those who are not police, criminals, or innocent victims of the law, implicitly I thought...at least that's how I was defining it in my head).

Thanks for the feedback. Any of the arguments you disagreed with?

Because your freedom never existed in the first place.

Freedom is granted. Rights are granted.

Right so in Hobbes 'state of nature,' who/what is granting this freedom and who/what is granting these rights?

The authority behind that never existed in the first place. Authority is granted.

Rights and freedoms are granted by those in power. Either individuals with great power or collectives with great combined power.

"Make your bed," says your mom, "or I won't make your breakfast."

I apologize in hindsight for not really worrying about this being an essay you are working on.

Hobbes imagined that a stable relationship could be developed. He was wrong. There is no social contract. There are a series of social battles with brief periods of what looks like equilibrium.

Yeah its not really a thread for discussing the validity of philosophical theories, its a thread about application of theories.

Same thing. It is just a power struggle with some amount of individuals acting along and in concert.

This is SMP.

Threads aren't obligated to go in the direction that the OP had in mind.

It's a stalemate of bald statements, both of which contains lots of metadata around the concepts of freedom and authority. From there to expound on knowledgeable positions from which to "act in concert" with among individuals.

I prefer responsibility, to power, as a worthwhile influence.

What metadata are you referring to?

I wasn't even aware of any data, let alone any data about data.

One example:
The experiences of people with authority and freedom and their collective ideas as such and related with other experiences and ideas is data represented by our uses of the terms.

Some of that is privileged data to unique individuals that you and I will never access as we can't give ourselves the authority, but we are free to try. Plenty of open data available so it is not worth it. Not to mention each our own privileged data.

I can only listen to what you tell me about your experience with freedom and authority. Whether I accept it or deny it or otherwise, that's privileged data of mine as I consider yours is as privileged to make your own considerations, freely.