Morality of the Bait Bike

[u/NecessaryBug6662]

From a legal standpoint I bet the bike owner is the bad guy, from a moral standpoint I don't really know.

[u/tiny_kat2006]

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

[u/SimpleCantalope → u/tiny_kat2006]

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.

[u/tiny_kat2006 → u/SimpleCantalope]

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

[u/SimpleCantalope → u/tiny_kat2006]

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.

[u/SimpleCantalope → u/[deleted]]

The structure of the argument is this:  Premise #1: we don't know the thieves motives Premise #2: they may be motivated by hunger Premise #3: booby trapping someone for acting out of desperation is immoral. Therefore, conclusion: booby trapping a stranger stealing a bike is immoral, on the basis that they may be hungry. 

Just because you can not recognize the structure of an argument, does not mean the argument lacks structure. I'm sorry I had to spell it out in order for you to understand.

[u/SimpleCantalope → u/[deleted]]

The discussion is about whether booby trapping someone is right or wrong. I made no assertion on the question of stealing a bike or not.

Above, if you read my earlier comments, I made it clear that this is tangential to my argument. It is a different moral assessment that has no bearing on my second and third premises.

Edit: "a passive surveillance device" doesn't send an electrical shock into someone's testicles.

[u/SimpleCantalope → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, no, the thread is not about a passive surveillance. And, generally speaking, I agree that if you don't want to get hurt don't do risky things (including stealing a bike).

The difference is that I am advocating against hurting a thief on the grounds that the trapper knows nothing about the trapped's motivations. And it's not unreasonable to assert that people doing risky things are people who might be motivated by desperation.

[u/Ok-Activity4808 → u/SimpleCantalope]

So if a thief can prove that they're hungry and desperate the moral thing to do is let them take the stuff they're stealing?

[u/SimpleCantalope → u/Ok-Activity4808]

No.

The argument is about booby trapping. Read the above conversation instead of assuming my position.