Hypothetical Time
Pages
- 1
- 2
| Author | Topic: Hypothetical Time |
|---|---|
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Tuesday, August 30 2005 22:56
Profile
Homepage
Yep, it's another of those hypotheticals designed to exercise your brain and test your ethical system. Today's hypothetical focuses on the subject of stolen property. Mr A owns a painting by a famous artist. It isn't insured, and its value has never been formally assessed, but it's certainly highly valuable and irreplaceable. Mr B breaks into Mr A's house and steals his painting. Mr A reports it as stolen to the police, but the painting is never found. Meanwhile, Mr B hides the painting under the floorboards in his house, hoping to find a way to sell it once the publicity about the theft has died down. Unfortunately Mr B dies before he has a chance to sell it, and the painting is forgotten about for many years. One day, Mr C, the sole surviving descendant of Mr B, decides to renovate his house. The floorboards are pulled up and sure enough, there's the painting. He takes it to an art dealer to have it valued. The dealer immediately recognises it as the stolen painting, and informs him of this fact. Mr A has long since died, but Mr A's family hears about the discovery of the painting through the news, and would very much like to have it back. Situation A) Suppose Mr C wishes to keep the painting. Do Mr A's family have a right to demand that it be returned to them? Situation B) Suppose Mr C sells the painting at auction. What percentage, if any, of the proceeds of the sale are Mr A's family entitled to? Situation C) Suppose the painting has been mostly destroyed by moisture, mould and rats during its time hidden under the floorboards. Does Mr C owe Mr A's family any financial compensation for the destruction of the painting? Situation D) Suppose Mr A is still alive when the painting is discovered. If it's Mr A himself who's asking for the return of the painting or compensation for its loss, do any of your answers to the above three situations change? -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5450
|
written Tuesday, August 30 2005 23:07
Profile
Homepage
Did you make this up yourself? A) Well, yes, they do, but I'm not sure on any of the laws surrounding this, so I'm not sure wether or not it, by law, has to be returned. B) I would say a small amount. It was Mr. A's, not the familys. 10 — 20%. C) No. The insurance company does, if it covers that kind of thing. D) Yes, they would. Mr. A should get the painting back, but Mr. C shouldn't be punished, as it was his fathers crime. [ Tuesday, August 30, 2005 23:11: Message edited by: Spring ] -------------------- I'll put a Spring in your step. Polaris Posts: 2396 | Registered: Saturday, January 29 2005 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3898
|
written Tuesday, August 30 2005 23:14
Profile
Situation A: They have a right to the return of the painting, as it was originally their property, and all Mr. C did is discover it. If it were the police who discovered it, they would expectedly return it to it's rightful owners, and Mr. C should also do so. Situation B: A significant amount of the proceeds should return to Mr. A's family, but not more than the estimated original value of the painting, in the same way that if Mr. C had put the painting in a gallery and charged people to look at it before discovering it was stolen, then Mr. C would be entitled to return the painting but not the money he had made from letting people view it. Situation C: Most certainly not. It is in no way Mr. C's fault that the painting has been damaged, and his only connection to the cause of the damage of the painting is that he is the descendant of Mr. B. Crimes-of-your-ancestors is a stupid idea. Situation D: No. -------------------- ~Note : The professional newbie's advice should not be taken seriously, or at all.~ LINKAGE Posts: 364 | Registered: Saturday, January 17 2004 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 4506
|
written Tuesday, August 30 2005 23:34
Profile
Homepage
quote:They have a right to, certainly, but most likely they wouldn't be listened too, as it's been so long. quote:25% at most. After all, it's ben so long, and they weren't really expecting it back. So 25% is definitely high enough. quote:No. Mr C's totally innocent in all of this. If we held relatives to blame for everything, we'd still be in the Dark Ages. MR B stole the painting. Mr C has done nothing but inherited it. Mr A's family is the same: they've just inherited the fact that the painting was stolen. quote:Well, if Mr A is still alive, then he'll probably want ti back, and as it was his in the first place, then he should get it back. - Archmagus Micael [ Tuesday, August 30, 2005 23:34: Message edited by: Archmagus Micael ] -------------------- "You dare Trifle with Exile?" - Erika the Archmage -------------------- My Scenarios: Undead Valley : A small Undead problem, what could possibly go wrong? -------------------- Proof of Richard Black's existance: Richard Black - PROOF of his existance (the Infernal one's website). Posts: 1370 | Registered: Thursday, June 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 1546
|
written Wednesday, August 31 2005 00:24
Profile
Homepage
A) Yes. Stolen goods, are stolen goods. Regardless of who the perpetrator is, or who is in possession of them. Mr C is an accessory to the crime, if he attempts to keep the stolen goods. B) 100%. As above. If they dont want the money, the sale could be nullified, again, law. C) No. It was not valuated anyway. The stolen goods had been destroyed. Mr C is not liable to the law, for Mr B's actions. Mr C was not an accessory to the crime, due to ignorance of the painting's presence. D) No. Apart from that, if you're going to make a moral/ethical hypothetical situation, you shouldn't make it so directly applicable to common law. The case scenario isnt a particularly exceptional one, and thinkgs would pretty much play out as I outlined above, to the extent of my knowledge (and if the said parties followed such courses) -------------------- A Sucaran Child is standing here. You say, "hello" The small child looks at Preserver Aldous wide-eyed and awed. Posts: 269 | Registered: Friday, July 19 2002 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Wednesday, August 31 2005 01:03
Profile
Situation A) Yes, Mr A's family should have the right to get the painting back, as it was the property of their relative. Though Mr C did not take the painting, it doesn't belong to him. Situation B) Did Mr C know about the family of Mr A when he sold the painting? If so, he should give them all of the proceeds because he knowingly sold stolen property. If Mr C did not know about Mr A's family he should pay them a decent percentage. If Mr C made a significant profit when he sold the painting perhaps he should pay Mr A's family the original value of the painting. Situation C) Hopefully the painting was insured, and the insurance company will pay for the damaged painting. I would say that Mr C is not responsible for what Mr B did, so he should not have to pay the family of Mr A. Situation D) No. -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, August 31 2005 02:13
Profile
Homepage
quote:Bringing a legal argument to an ethical debate is like bringing a gun to a boxing match. :P Now, another twist on the problem: suppose that during his lifetime, Mr B manages to sell the painting on the black market and gives the money (along with all his other possessions) to his friends and family (who know nothing about the theft -- as far as his family knows, he's just moving his assets around for tax purposes). Suppose that Mr B is discovered to be the thief and Mr A's family wants compensation. The painting is nowhere to be found, and Mr B has no assets, because his home and personal effects have been transferred into the names of family members. What should be done in this case? Does it matter whether Mr B is alive or not at the time he's found to be the thief? Does it matter whether Mr B has a source of income with which to repay Mr A or his family, or can reasonably be expected to have one in the near future? Does it matter whether the money has been spent by the people it was given to? [ Wednesday, August 31, 2005 02:29: Message edited by: Gastric Freezing ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 1546
|
written Wednesday, August 31 2005 02:23
Profile
Homepage
quote:Disagree. For one, the law is supposed to uphold human rights, moral decency, and all that bs. You know, the "justice" line. Either way, following or upholding the law, is if nothing else, a strong but conservative ethical standpoint to hold. IMO, anyway. -------------------- A Sucaran Child is standing here. You say, "hello" The small child looks at Preserver Aldous wide-eyed and awed. Posts: 269 | Registered: Friday, July 19 2002 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, August 31 2005 02:26
Profile
Homepage
quote:The very fact that you say the law is "supposed to" uphold human rights and moral decency implies that the law holds itself as being subject to ethical judgement, not a source of it. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 1546
|
written Wednesday, August 31 2005 02:35
Profile
Homepage
Obviously, various parts are up for deliberation. I wouldn't've taken its standpoint in context, if I didn't think it was the right one. It was simply a convenient form of expression. I certainly believe them to be the ethical outcomes. -------------------- A Sucaran Child is standing here. You say, "hello" The small child looks at Preserver Aldous wide-eyed and awed. Posts: 269 | Registered: Friday, July 19 2002 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Wednesday, August 31 2005 02:56
Profile
Homepage
A) Mr. C has no claim to the painting save that of discovery. I think he could be entitled to a reward for finding it, but he can't keep it if A's descendants claim it. B) 100%, possibly minus the costs of holding the auction and the reward mentioned above. That said, if he sold it knowing it was stolen, he is knowingly handling stolen goods, and should be obliged to buy back the painting at his own cost from the buyer. C) No. The intact painting would rightfully belong to A's family, but the actual theft of the painting cannot be laid at the door of B's descendants, and the damage was beyond their control or knowledge. D) No change. If B were still alive, he should be prosecuted for the theft, however. [ Wednesday, August 31, 2005 03:03: Message edited by: Arancaytar ] -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Wednesday, August 31 2005 02:59
Profile
Homepage
quote:"Entitled" means "has the right to", not "has the duty to". Shouldn't this be "obliged"? -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, August 31 2005 03:50
Profile
There are definite legal answers to these questions; they aren't questions of ethics. quote:Mr. A's family has a legal right to have the painting returned. quote:The family of Mr. A is entitled to the painting. What would likely happen is they would repossess the painting from whomever Mr. C sold it to. The buyers then would be entitled to the funds Mr. C received for the painting. quote:Mr. C generally cannot assume the debts of his father; however, if Mr. B set up a trust, his estate would likely be liable. Damages are a little hard to assess in this instance because it was a crime, not just a circumstance for a civil suit. quote:No. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, August 31 2005 04:52
Profile
Homepage
quote:Surely you're not arguing that the legal answer to a question and the ethical answer are necessarily the same? Statutory law is just a bunch of decisions made by groups of people elected from among a very limited subset of the population, and common law is just a bunch of decisions made by a few people who happened to be judges in cases when the law wasn't yet clear. I don't see why that gives their opinions any special authority. My point, really, was that although situation A is a situation where almost everyone thinks Mr C should return the painting to Mr A's family and situation C is one where almost everyone thinks Mr C has no need to compensate Mr A's family, it's possible to think of an almost limitless number of situations that lie somewhere between the two, where neither the legal nor the ethical situation is so clear. The recent debate in the USA over reparations for Native Americans and the descendants of slaves is an obvious example. [ Wednesday, August 31, 2005 04:57: Message edited by: Gastric Freezing ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4248
|
written Wednesday, August 31 2005 04:54
Profile
A) Yup. B) 100% minus the cost of keeping the aiction and a nice reward. C) Nope. Insurances are made for that. D) No. -------------------- Somebody PLEASE turn the heat on. Posts: 617 | Registered: Tuesday, April 13 2004 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, August 31 2005 05:44
Profile
Well, the case of the Native Americans is a little murky, because at the time, the Native Americans fell outside of US sovereignty; that is to say, they weren't citizens, and so they weren't entitled to protection under the law. The question then becomes whether the rights they are entitled to now as US citizens apply retroactively. I think the answer in this case is "no." Is it unfortunate for them? Yes. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Wednesday, August 31 2005 07:43
Profile
Homepage
The case of a physical objection is much clearer. A's descendents, assuming they inherited his property, deserve the painting. (If inheritance isn't so easy, it should ideally go to whomever A would have given the painting to. That's a mess.) If the painting is sold, they still deserve the painting or, failing that, the money. If C knowingly sells the stolen painting, he is acting as a moral and legal criminal anyway. If there is no painting left, ideally the family of A should be compensated. It isn't fair to hold C accountable, though. Unless B still has assets that are still distinct from C's, A's family loses out. If B is still alive, then the criminal is present and can be held accountable. If the painting can be returned, it should be. If it can't be, he owes A and his family for it. If B sells the painting during his lifetime and plays money games with the proceeds, he still owes A. If he can't pay himself and he can't get his family to pay, he has earned some kind of obligation. I wouldn't say purely punitive measures are useful, but some punishment, ideally punishment that compensates A, would be fitting. —Alorael, who finds the reparations question interesting. His view is that giving out cash is, in the end, not a suitable way to handle an apology for the crimes committed. Payment would either be insultingly small or too expensive to be given without crippling the U.S. government. On the other hand, no apology beyond words is hardly an apology at all. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Wednesday, August 31 2005 07:53
Profile
A) Mr. A's family has every right to demand the return of the painting. Provided that they know it exists and have been informed of its condition by Mr. C, but if Mr. C wants to keep it, why on earth would he be talking to anyone about it? B) Stolen paintings that are sold at auction (assuming the sale isn't stopped immediately) would presumably have the proceeds put in escrow for the original owners to receive. C) No. It is likely the painting would not be recognized, and the trashman would simply have a heavier burden one day. The theft would be unsolved. D) Nope. The problem here lies in that the painting is owned by Mr. A as a work of art, and not as an investment. It presumably was appreciated for its beauty, and the disappearance removed that. Money can not replace beauty, and it sounds like there was no intention of replacing anything stolen since it wasn't insured. It's like the Toulouse-Lautrec I own. Nice to look at, but I wouldn't replace it or bemoan the loss if it went missing. *this message sponsored by the montmartre* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 22
|
written Wednesday, August 31 2005 08:06
Profile
Since nobody else is, I'm going to argue that, ethically, Mr A's family have no right whatsoever to the painting. But neither does Mr C, really. I'm going to suggest that as a descendent, you have no right to the wealth of your ancestors. I'm aware that the logical extension of this argument is a 100% inheritance tax (which I suspect is what Thuryl wants this to lead to anyway), and I'm perfectly happy with that. If we are to adhere to the notion that everybody should have an equal chance in life, that must include not being able to rely on the wealth of your ancestors to prop up your continued existence. However, that equally means that Mr C has no right to it, which leaves its ownership in something of a dilemma. I also have some quite major problems with the notion of private art. I'm not entirely sure that anyone has the moral right to possess art - it should be something that is on display in galleries for the pleasure of all. Incidentally, the title of this topic made me think that we were going to discuss some branch of quantum physics of which I had no knowledge. I'm moderately disappointed now. [ Wednesday, August 31, 2005 08:07: Message edited by: Morgan ] Posts: 2862 | Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Wednesday, August 31 2005 08:06
Profile
Ideally, Mr. C should return the painting. Mr. A's family should give him a percentage of the value of the painting 15-25%. This way both Mr. A and Mr. C's family win. However, in practical terms Mr. B stole the painting to make money. He never was compensated for his act of thievery. Returning the painting would go against Mr. B's profession i.e. art thievery and memory. Mr. C if he follows in his fathers footsteps-- i.e. professional criminal would sell it. [ Wednesday, August 31, 2005 08:10: Message edited by: I'll Steal Your Toast ] -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Wednesday, August 31 2005 08:49
Profile
quote:That position would have created quite the dilemna for the artists that created on commission. I would have to take the position that most of the "great" works of art from the 1400's through 1800's would not exist without the private party. You need to rethink this position in terms of how art is being valued. What gives it that value, and how to grade "worthiness" of that art. *this message sponsored by the private collectors network* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Master
Member # 5977
|
written Wednesday, August 31 2005 09:02
Profile
Homepage
My god... You're even more learned than I thought... So what the hell are you doing here!! A) Of course! Its their painting isn't it!? B) I really don't know C) Hmm... Dood question. I think that they have the right to do that. After all, if it wasn't for mr B to steal the painting, the painting would have never come to this situation. Hoever, if mr A had insured the painting, they would have gotten money from the insurance company. Tricky question. D) No -------------------- Thralni's almighty Avernum pages: My webpage, containing scenario's and graphics made by me (And maybe someday the homepage of the almighty chicken gods). Click here for more information on Olga's fortune teller kiosk Olga's fortune teller kiosk has been temporarily closed down, but you can contact the prophet with a PM - Was signed by the prophet of the almighty chicken gods, gods of everything that is a chicken. Work has begun on the Nephilian grammar and vocabulary guide! Posts: 3029 | Registered: Saturday, June 18 2005 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, August 31 2005 09:24
Profile
Presumably Mr. A purchased the work at some point, which would give it a material value. Whether it's insured or not is beside the point. In a civil case, the jury could award compensation on whatever basis they choose, though it would probably be based on past prices paid for the work, as well as the value of comparable pieces of art by the artist. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Wednesday, August 31 2005 09:40
Profile
Homepage
Good questions. My feeling is that strength of claim weakens with degree of separation. The children have the right to inherit anything their parents want to leave them minus applicable taxes. However, it would be ridiculous to say that if you can trace your ancestry to Egyptian pharaohs, you have a claim to all treasures found in the pyramids. With that in mind, here are my answers: A) Yes, if it's a child or a grandchild. No otherwise. B) If A is alive, 100%. If A's children/spouse/siblings are alive, 90%. If A's grandchildren/cousins/etc. are alive, 50%. I guess you could say that great grand children and other people mentioned in the will could claim about 20%. However, anything beyond that is too far removed from original owner. C) No, but the percentages above should be calculated from full value of the painting if it were restored. If that comes out to more than the actual sale value, all proceeds of sale go to A's descendants. D) See above. About the second question (what should happen of the stolen property was transferred), the property should be returned in percentages described above. Any sales involving the property should be undone. You can't give what you don't own. (Otherwise, somebody could just rob a bank, throw the bag of money to his girlfriend and be a millionair when he gets out of jail.) -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Wednesday, August 31 2005 14:54
Profile
Homepage
A) They have the right to demand it back. However, if Mr. C is so stubborn as to keep it anyway, only a court order is viable to solve such a problem. Personally, I say they should cut the thing in half. :P B) Whatever they can agree on. Since it's obvious that such an agreement may be hard-pressed to be made, I'd say just split it 50-50 again. C) No. When he bought the house, he had no knowledge that it contained stolen property, so you can't make him pay. Just donate it to a museum. Or maybe the junkyard. D) Not really. It's Mr B being alive that would make me change around a bit. -------------------- -ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |
Pages
- 1
- 2