You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: "Good cops" and other imaginary beasts
You seem to have two conflicting moral frameworks going on.
First, you claim that it is wrong to enforce bad laws. This squares with act utilitarianism, as the individual act does more harm that good, and you argue thus that the law should not be enforced.
Your second claim is that only once enforcing a bad law, or even agreeing to enforce bad laws makes you inherently bad, which means you are not looking at acts anymore, but at some sort of absolute unrecoverable sin.
If you were to apply consistent principles to the judgement of enforcing a bad law and how that affects a person's morality overall, you would have to do a net calculus about the harm vs the good cops do overall to come to a broad conclusion about a "Good Cop" vs a "Bad Cop".
"This squares with act utilitarianism, as the individual act does more harm that good, and you argue thus that the law should not be enforced."
I can see why you might believe that, but it isn't at all what I'm saying. Even if enforcing the counterfeit "law" did more good than harm, it would still be wrong. Because it is a violation of individual liberty to enforce such a "law".
"Your second claim is that only once enforcing a bad law, or even agreeing to enforce bad laws makes you inherently bad, which means you are not looking at acts anymore, but at some sort of absolute unrecoverable sin."
I don't believe people are inherently bad. I believe they can act out evil, but I also believe they can change instantly by refusing to initiate force or violate property ever again, and by paying restitution to those they have wronged while "doing their job".
Because being a cop requires a person to violate liberty and property as a condition of keeping the "job", there can be no such thing as a "good" cop. But there can be good former cops, and I have known a few. If I believed policing to be an "absolute unrecoverable sin", I wouldn't consider those former cops who have straightened up their lives to now be good people.
When I say absolute, I say it because there is an implied universal in your statement, if you trace it with logic.
Your claim is that cops by definition aren't good because they enforce bad laws and violate property rights.
This means that no person who does those things can be good, or to formalize it;
"There does not exist a person who violates property rights and enforces bad laws who is good."
Through manipulation in formal logic, we can get to
"For every person, they cannot both be good and enforce bad laws and violate property rights."
That's a hell of a claim.
That means if a person walked around curing cancer, comforting orphans and providing sustainable food sources to starving people, all out of the goodness of their heart, but enforced the law specifically against Holocaust denial, and occasionally trespassed, they would be a bad person.
Yeah, pretty much. But the trespass would have to be intentional and regular, and the person would refuse to pay restitution. Good done doesn't excuse bad done, especially when the bad is intentional or done daily as a condition to keep getting a paycheck financed with stolen money.
There can be no such thing as a "good cop". Period.