Because trumping can always be done on complex situations, the "should use", is always the moral question.**
I am thinking a movie about a bank robbery and the few individuals' personal reasons to be involved. This film would involve scenes showing the financial complexities of generating a profit in the bank, strains on individuals and the housing /rental scene. Ultimately a connection with the personal point of view of the public is crucial for this film.
All of the bank robbers have various reasons but one has the moral goal of obtaining records of bank dealings, exposing a deeper more wide spread societal theft. Of course, other paths to exposure are hinted at. While being in the moral right, the fallout from getting the records, in a robbery situation, allows all those other reasons a free pass.
The robbery, although tense, goes flawlessly*. As time goes by the cost of an over injection of cash in the wrong places causes death and pain. Only one of the individuals gets above water and gets their family to a better place. A little dread and thrill could be played out as the robbery participants find out about the impending moral issue coming to light .Finally our moral trumper goes public with the records and all the participants*** stories end up in court. A twist is found that the financial logic of the whistle blower is completely wrong but does expose hints to a forensic accountant that something is very rotten.
Ultimately, people coming out from the movie are going to be deciding whether robbery was right or cost was too high. Is a robbery ever in the right, does the means justify the ends?
*** was partiocipants ** Unless the the situation has left reality. * A death might be needed to balance the societal harm from the bank.-- wjt, Nov 14 2020 Deontological ethics https://en.wikipedi...eontological_ethics [hippo, Nov 19 2020] Consequentialism https://en.wikipedi...ki/Consequentialism [hippo, Nov 19 2020] Galavantalised Inconsequentialism Non-Hypocritical_20ReligionAs a counter-point to the above (details about halfway down, from the esteemed halfbaker [theleopard]). [neutrinos_shadow, Nov 19 2020] //financial logic of the exposer is completely wrong//
"So, three counts of indecent exposure?" "No, no, no; *inconsequential* exposure." "My condolences, then."-- pertinax, Nov 14 2020 Watch the film: The Big Short-- xenzag, Nov 14 2020 Yes, and also "Inside Job".-- pertinax, Nov 14 2020 'partiocipants' is now my new favorite word.-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Nov 14 2020 So breaking the law for justice isn't the right nuance to try and question the concept of trumping. Maybe I have to come up with a better trumping senario, where hard work by a group is dismissed by a technicality giving fallout and questions.-- wjt, Nov 15 2020 Also "Century of Enslavement: the History of the Federal Reserve"
[wjt] I think //breaking the law for justice// is EXACTLY the right nuance to question the concept of trumping. c.f. "The Outlaw Josie Wales" (one of my favourite films), and, of course, Robin Hood. And "Civil Disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau.
(There's still an important semantic distinction here. In common use, "the law" refers to what should more precisely be called "political laws". Bastiat, for example, makes a very good argument for the idea that justice itself IS the law. So technically, this idea of moral trumping is more about careful consideration of which is the higher law, and "breaking the law for justice" could be seen as an oxymoron. This is precisely why Josie Wales is an outlaw, not a scofflaw. He's not "breaking" the law, he is obeying what he sees as a higher law.)-- spidermother, Nov 15 2020 what or who is trump?-- pashute, Nov 18 2020 // he is obeying what he sees as a higher law //
When asked to be disingenuous (if not actually directly untruthful) to clients, claiming to be unable to do so on the grounds of "being a servant of a Higher Truth" is guaranteed to induce bowel-emptying terror in senior management ...
... and so it should. Serve them right.
<Aside>
[pash], in this context, "trump" seems to refer to games of cards, in which a card (or suit) designated a "trump" has a temporary value much greater than its apparent "face" value; thus in a game where Diamonds are trumps, a trick may be won by placing the three of diamonds on the ace of spades.
<Aside/>-- 8th of 7, Nov 18 2020 //partiocipants// So, a party involving pants (perhaps a lack there-of?) and looking (the only meaning of "oci" I could find was Ukranian for "eyes"...)? Or maybe "looking for pants to party in"?-- neutrinos_shadow, Nov 18 2020 + for leaving reality-- pashute, Nov 19 2020 <Dirty Harry voice>“You're probably wondering to yourself whether I'm a fan of deontology [see link] or consequentialism [see link]. You’ve got to ask yourself one question: ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya, punk?”</DHv>-- hippo, Nov 19 2020 What if we're interested in Deconstructionism ?-- 8th of 7, Nov 19 2020 Then you're a few steps away from postmodernism and Marxism, and should abandon ethics altogether and take up voting instead.-- spidermother, Nov 19 2020 // should abandon ethics //
We're ahead of you on that one ...
As to voting ... no.-- 8th of 7, Nov 19 2020 random, halfbakery