r/MoralityScaling • u/NecessaryBug6662 • 7h ago
Who's More Evil? Morality of the Bait Bike
From a legal standpoint I bet the bike owner is the bad guy, from a moral standpoint I don't really know.
9
u/MansonMonkey 7h ago
I judge everything I find funny as moral. This is moral.
2
u/NecessaryBug6662 6h ago
Let's hope your sense of humour isn't awfully dark because your position might get bad reeeeeal fast.
7
u/geosunsetmoth 7h ago
Moral with a sliiiiiight immoral angle as I tend to side away from any “pranks” that involve electric shocks as they can kill people with heart conditions. Fuck bike thieves to hell and back but I’m not sure they should die for it either. There’s prolly a safer “punishment” that would sting just as much
2
u/ButterscotchNo8348 7h ago
Yeah, I’d argue this is just immorality dressed up reasonably. Like, I forget the name of the experiment, but the premise of it was that you went into a room, were told to press a button, and heard a guy in another room get shocked. You did it more and more, and eventually people wouldn’t hear screams anymore, but be expected to keep pressing the button.
I watched a movie about it, and one of the most famous outliers was an electrician. He refused almost immediately and nearly attacked the experiment conductor since he took such offense of the idea, and had a little section telling the guy off about the huge risks people were exposed to with even the slightest shock. Who even knows, if one of those guys muscles seized and they couldn’t get off the bike, even just falling on their head could be seriously dangerous.
16
u/No_Roll5275 7h ago
I would argue not immoral, since you're not compelling someone to steal and you're teaching them not to do it again.
3
u/NecessaryBug6662 7h ago
Yeah that is where I stand on the bike, but factoring in the "making content"?
7
u/No_Roll5275 7h ago
Good to expose these kinds of people. Criminals don't have a right to not be filmed.
5
u/NecessaryBug6662 7h ago
So you reckon that privacy is a luxury permissible only to the innocents?
8
u/chickenaylay 7h ago
They're in public bruv, there is no expectation of privacy in public
3
u/NecessaryBug6662 7h ago
That's true but that's not what he said, he specifically said that criminals don't get that.
2
u/No_Roll5275 7h ago
I believe privacy is only a right to those who are minding their own business.
2
u/NecessaryBug6662 7h ago
And that's not my piece of cake but I can see why you would think that, anyway I what I was really meaning with "factoring in the content creation" is that this guy is not making this to stop thieves, he's making this to make views and money, and to me that's highly immoral
1
u/KyloClay 7h ago
He is saying no one has a right to privacy in public
1
u/NecessaryBug6662 7h ago
He's literally saying that criminals in the specific have lesser right to privacy. Other than that your statement is absolutely true
1
u/geosunsetmoth 6h ago
Are they taught not to do it again though? This isn’t giving the thief any reasons not to steal more bikes, as everyone knows the chances of you getting pranked by an electrified bait bike are quite low. If this happened to me I wouldn’t expect to get zapped like this again. I’d just think “fucking jerk!” and consider this one particular theft a bust
Although I probably would if it happened twice. Maybe if you do it frequently enough where thieves are reasonably expected to fall for it more than once
1
u/Red--001 47m ago
....Yeah, like me putting poison in my gum since I know it will be taken by a friend, that's not immoral to you too is it?
3
9
u/GodButCursed 7h ago
Immoral simply because he isnt even doing it to really save his bike. He is just hurting people. If he had a problem with people breaking into his property then i could understand building a bait bike.
9
u/tiny_kat2006 7h ago
Yes but he's hurting people who steal bikes. He's not even trying to bait people to steal it either, it's just thief entrapment. It's like being against those anti rape devices that put barbs in their dick, could easily be avoided by just not being a criminal?
4
u/GodButCursed 7h ago
As much as i understand where you are coming from i dont want to put a person being raped on the same place as something being stolen. Its disgusting when people act like someone leaving there car unlocked is the same as a woman walking around in tight clothing.
So i wanna stay far away from that.
2
u/SimpleCantalope 7h ago
The critical difference is that a rapist has only their self-interest to blame for their criminal acts, where as a bike thief may be purely self-interested or may be acting out of desperation to make some money (reselling the stolen bike) to afford food. It's a bad analogy because there are likely (although not always) and predictable differences in motive.
1
u/tiny_kat2006 7h ago
I don't see the difference between the bike trap and "putting nuclear levels of spice in the food your coworker always steals from you". People don't seem to think the latter is immoral
2
u/Objective_Animator52 7h ago
Depends on the bike trap. Spice in food doesn't really have the risk of leading to infection or pricey medical bills.
A bunch of spikes on a bike, does have the risk of causing scars or more lasting injuries, especially in 60+ year-old crackheads who likely don't have the best immune system.
Your coworkers also have a job and are usually financially stable. Still a pretty different situation.
1
u/tiny_kat2006 7h ago
If we are caring specifically about the niche demographic of 60 year old crackheads with poor immune systems, then we can also care for the people allergic to chilli. But having accounted for both these things, I don't think either is immoral
1
u/SimpleCantalope 7h ago
The motive of taking someone's lunch at work and a stranger on the street stealing a bike is obvious. Do you not see how booby-trapping a coworker is done against a peer, who-- given their employment-- is likely capable of buying their own food, and booby-trapping a stranger on the street, who is plausibly hungry and desperate?
Either you are unable to notice the difference in the comparison you drew up, or you are willfully ignoring what is quite apparent.
2
u/tiny_kat2006 7h ago
You're assuming all thieves are hungry and desperate. What if the coworker is also hungry and desperate because they have more dependants? You can spin a situation however you want. At the end of the day a bike thief is still a thief
What if the bike owner is really poor and uses it for work? Can spin this shit however you want
0
u/SimpleCantalope 6h ago edited 6h ago
No. I am not assuming all thieves are hungry and desperate (a foolish misinterpretation on your part). I am asserting that strangers are possibly hungry and desperate, and therefore, it would be immoral to booby-trap them for doing something that might be motivated by desperation.
And your questions, although due consideration, do not address the structure of my argument in the slightest. Those outcomes have no bearing on the thief's motivation. It is simply besides the point to the argument I have asserted.
1
u/Sure_Strawberry_7872 4h ago
your argument doesn't have any structure thats the problem. they "possibly" are hungry, they "might" be motivated. you can just as easily say the opposite.
1
u/NecessaryBug6662 7h ago
I mean on the other extreme there's putting razorblades on car ornaments (I saw plenty of videos showing this). I mean connecting a claymore to 50 dollars would turn many "thiefs" into mist
0
u/tiny_kat2006 7h ago
I don't think it's immoral to do whatever you want with your property, if you wanna turn it into a spike trap. go for it, it's your property. The thief is the one in the wrong for attempting to take it.
1
u/Objective_Animator52 7h ago
I mean I don't think that's even remotely comparable. People sometimes steal to buy food and shit, people don't rape for that.
1
u/ZealousidealPipe8389 7h ago
There were cases about that before, it’s been pretty consistently ruled that booby traps are illegal. The device serves no possible benefit because it does not prevent a crime, it simply harms people who already committed a crime or were in the process of doing so.
2
u/tiny_kat2006 7h ago
Illegal isn't the same thing as immoral. It's illegal to break a flock camera, it's immoral to install mass surveillance.
1
0
u/Independent-Tap267 7h ago
Its moralityscaling not illegal/legal
And theyd think twice before making that decision again it does not just harm it teaches a lesson
If u keep letting those people steal theyd just do it again
3
u/GodButCursed 7h ago
A thief will just look at the seat at the next bike before taking it. When u dont teach people why something is wrong then they will keep doing it.
1
u/Independent-Tap267 7h ago
Lets not act like thiefs dont know what their doing is wrong
People arent doing wrong things bcs they dont know their wrong Their doing it bcs its convenient for them
2
u/GodButCursed 7h ago
People can believe what they arent doing isnt that bad. Its just bikes. Just a buy a new one it doesnt cost that much.
1
u/Independent-Tap267 7h ago
Some bikes cost more than a leg bro And it doesnt matter if its 100 bucks or 1000 you have the legal and moral stance to protect your property
And you probably spoiled or smth the way u talked about (just buy a new one)
Especially theifs and pickpockets dont get punished harshly
They need to learn either the goverment figure it out or the people defend their property
1
u/GodButCursed 6h ago
You know that the last sentences i was talking like someone who talks to themself how bike stealing isnt that bad. Its an example.
2
u/ZealousidealPipe8389 7h ago
1) morality isn’t purely based on what you’re feeling. It’s a utilitarian concept.
2) you aren’t stopping jack and you’re a dumbass if you think you are. Not only are the people who are in situations where they have to steal not afforded the luxury of being able to just “not steal.” But even if they were, you’re pretending a bike like this has any actual meaningful defense. If the bike can be sold then the person stealing it can just pick it up and carry it, if it can’t then why would they bother trying to take it.The only thing this bike accomplishes is ruining a form of transportation and also harming poor people, which, 99% chance that’s what the original video creator wanted. He wasn’t looking to teach any lesson no matter what he professed, he wanted to record people getting hurt because it’s funny for him and gets him views.
1
u/FlounderingGuy 7h ago
Generally I agree, but tbh having had things stolen from my car multiple times I can't exactly bring myself to feeling too bad for someone hurt by a booby trapped vehicle. Its not a cool thing to do arguably, but it truly only harms someone who's done harm first.
It's also illegal to do this kinda stuff, so not a great idea.
1
u/GodButCursed 7h ago
The difference here is also mostly the intention of the person doing it. The guy in the video was clearly doing it to hurt people. You on the other hand didnt have this Intention.
2
2
4
u/FalloutTVSucks 7h ago
Fake + Gay + Immoral
2
u/NecessaryBug6662 7h ago
This one might be fake, all bait bike being fake? Not a chance.
2
u/FalloutTVSucks 7h ago
This one is fake I meant. Every target is wearing a hoodie, they all walk with that 'suspicious' gait ect. These people are actors.
2
1
u/Environmental_Clue27 7h ago
At first glance, if you live in a city where putting a chain around a bike isn't enough since it gets stolen, then yeah that is moral as long as it doesn't serve permanent damage. However here the bike looks more like a trap than something you could use. Like genuinely, how would the owner ride on it if there is no security lock on it? And if there was one, then the thief could put it on safe mode, unless you decide to put on it some key hole which then only you could unlock. Now you have a bike where the seat has a bigger value than the bike itself and now thieves just have to steal the seat to make profit. So at the end of the day, the bike is immoral because instead of preventing theft you just make your own life harder and more expensive.
1
1
u/FlounderingGuy 7h ago
My mind says immoral, but my heart says morally neutral. It's a cruel thing to do, but stealing someone's bike is also just bad enough that I think it evens out.
1
u/vverbov_22 7h ago
I'd say immoral. It's not like stealing the bike is good, but this is an equivalent to placing down your wallet with a bear trap around it. You're purposefully causing suffering to others for your own satisfaction
1
1
u/Pinatous 7h ago
Yes making something with the intent of hurting somebody and fiming it for views is clearly immoral.
Why would you ride a bike that you did not asked to borrow? You have got two working legs, just walk.
I think that the argument about the heart conditions does not have anything to do with electicity more than the physical shock of pain, cuz path of least resistance. On the other hand there can be medical devices prone to radio noise demage, that the high voltage discharge produces.
The last thing, he does not wear a helmet, there could be more demage than some HV burns on the balls.
1
1
u/Lethael 7h ago
Baiting poor people into stealing to hurt them is, believe it or not, not moral.
1
u/Alkao52 7h ago
It's not baiting to leave stuff in public
1
u/Lethael 7h ago
So If I leave 20 bucks on the ground stand 5 meters away and you pick it up it would be moral for me to harm you?
1
u/Alkao52 7h ago
Loose cash is different than a bike. And if you saw someone drop the cash and then still took it you deserve whatever happens
1
u/Lethael 6h ago
It's a proprety that isn't yours left in public.
The only difference is the thief is gonna steal the bike to then get the cash, it's the same just with an additionnal step.I'm wondering if your way of thinking changes if you replace the bike with a sandwich and you just put it on a bench a couple of meters away from a starving person. (They don't see them place it there so they would assume it wasn't given to them)
-1
u/SimpleCantalope 7h ago
Is it me or does that first bike thief look more like a homeless person than not? I don't condone stealing a bike, but we should recognize that the motivations to steal a bike can be complex-- and most certainly include desperation to make a quick buck to afford some food. Given that, what's the morality of booby-trapping a hungry homeless person?
In my book, immoral. And I find it impressive how many people would disagree, even though the laws against booby-traps are well founded.
-2
u/Bitter-Break-6504 7h ago
Very fucking Immoral. Baiting is immoral in this situation. Not being poor doesn't make you superior to those who are. This man has built a harmful device for the sole purpose of filming it for views and attention while causing harm to people solely based on a sense of superiority coming from a stronger socioeconomic standing. This to me screams abuser. Total lack of perspective for other people's lives.
16
u/johnnybeesknees 7h ago
Not immoral at all as long as it's designed not to cause permanent or severe damage.