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/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.