Well that poses the question 'Do the ends justify the means?' Which no, it does not. The justification of the 'ends' is often subjective and would vary and usually it's a self-interested 'end' but that's irrelevant to your question.
Hypothetically let's say a drug lord who'd made millions by pushing drugs onto vulnerable people had an epiphany and decided to 'clean' his money (money laundering), donate it and then turn himself in. The money laundering would ensure his donated money isn't confiscated by the authorities. The charity receiving the money should not decline the offer, the man is attempting to go down a righteous path and redeem himself from his life.
But then there's another predicament where a drug lord is still a drug lord but is donating half of his profits to a single charity. I would still say it's ethical for the drug lord to donate his money, as long as he is aware that the act of donating while still receiving the blood money is not redemption.
So it would depend on the situation. Although if a drug lord is caught and the authorities discover large quantities of unclean money in a charity's possession then they should not confiscate the money.
That money is gonna be used one way or another right? If it's gonna be used, I say it may as well be used in this way. Although you don't mention if the charity knows where the money comes from. It's almost like posing this question, "would one take the dirty money if it was offered?" I don't know what I would answer to that to be honest. I can't sit on my high horse and claim that I would not be tempted or corrupt enough to accept it, but it's different when someone is handing you a briefcase full of money.
I realise I'm posting in the wrong place but just read your posts over at the AEblog and had to say your comments hit the nail on the head. I find it annoying that I have to pander to religious people daily and now I'm expected to do that within the skeptical society? F that!
On the part of the person who's donating the money, giving some of their profits to charity doesn't lessen the severity of whatever crime they committed. Simple as that, it's still immoral no matter what they do with the money. As for the charity that's accepting the money, if they have no idea where that money is coming from, they can't be judged for it. If someone robs a bank, then walks by a donation box and slips some cash into it, the charity is not immoral for accepting it. That money is donated anonymously, and the charity can still do good things with that money. The money itself didn't do jack shit, after all. It's not actually tainted or cursed or anything, it's just money.
"Although you don't mention if the charity knows where the money comes from."
Sorry about that. Yes, the charity knows about the origins of the cash flow.
Interesting answers thus far, thanks.
It seems as though Syko and Vestsao are in agreement when it comes to the contrition. I was more looking at this from the charities' side of things though. This of course does not proclude you guys from taking another angle on it, which you did, and justifably so.
You guys consistently bring good responses. Thanks for that.
Syko, the charity knows where the money comes from. Now what?
And Mike, thanks for the feedback, and I agree (obviously). Fuck that, indeed. If you're going so far as to consider yourself to be skeptical to th epoint of labelling yourself as such and idenitfying with the community, you damn well better expect said skepticism to be applied to your theistic claims as well.
If the charity knows where the money comes from, then they're immoral too, simple as that. They choose to profit from crime, so it's immoral. There, happy now?! D:<
Well that poses the question 'Do the ends justify the means?' Which no, it does not. The justification of the 'ends' is often subjective and would vary and usually it's a self-interested 'end' but that's irrelevant to your question.
ReplyDeleteHypothetically let's say a drug lord who'd made millions by pushing drugs onto vulnerable people had an epiphany and decided to 'clean' his money (money laundering), donate it and then turn himself in. The money laundering would ensure his donated money isn't confiscated by the authorities. The charity receiving the money should not decline the offer, the man is attempting to go down a righteous path and redeem himself from his life.
But then there's another predicament where a drug lord is still a drug lord but is donating half of his profits to a single charity. I would still say it's ethical for the drug lord to donate his money, as long as he is aware that the act of donating while still receiving the blood money is not redemption.
So it would depend on the situation. Although if a drug lord is caught and the authorities discover large quantities of unclean money in a charity's possession then they should not confiscate the money.
That money is gonna be used one way or another right? If it's gonna be used, I say it may as well be used in this way.
ReplyDeleteAlthough you don't mention if the charity knows where the money comes from. It's almost like posing this question, "would one take the dirty money if it was offered?"
I don't know what I would answer to that to be honest. I can't sit on my high horse and claim that I would not be tempted or corrupt enough to accept it, but it's different when someone is handing you a briefcase full of money.
I realise I'm posting in the wrong place but just read your posts over at the AEblog and had to say your comments hit the nail on the head. I find it annoying that I have to pander to religious people daily and now I'm expected to do that within the skeptical society? F that!
ReplyDeleteOn the part of the person who's donating the money, giving some of their profits to charity doesn't lessen the severity of whatever crime they committed. Simple as that, it's still immoral no matter what they do with the money. As for the charity that's accepting the money, if they have no idea where that money is coming from, they can't be judged for it. If someone robs a bank, then walks by a donation box and slips some cash into it, the charity is not immoral for accepting it. That money is donated anonymously, and the charity can still do good things with that money. The money itself didn't do jack shit, after all. It's not actually tainted or cursed or anything, it's just money.
ReplyDelete"Although you don't mention if the charity knows where the money comes from."
ReplyDeleteSorry about that. Yes, the charity knows about the origins of the cash flow.
Interesting answers thus far, thanks.
It seems as though Syko and Vestsao are in agreement when it comes to the contrition. I was more looking at this from the charities' side of things though. This of course does not proclude you guys from taking another angle on it, which you did, and justifably so.
You guys consistently bring good responses. Thanks for that.
Syko, the charity knows where the money comes from. Now what?
And Mike, thanks for the feedback, and I agree (obviously). Fuck that, indeed. If you're going so far as to consider yourself to be skeptical to th epoint of labelling yourself as such and idenitfying with the community, you damn well better expect said skepticism to be applied to your theistic claims as well.
If the charity knows where the money comes from, then they're immoral too, simple as that. They choose to profit from crime, so it's immoral. There, happy now?! D:<
ReplyDelete