 |
| David Oyelowo as Javert and Dominic West as Jean Valjean in Les Misérables on PBS's Masterpiece |
Later, when applying for a job he "lied and said he'd been in charge of twenty-five men before, that he had driven a semi, that he knew all the lingo the [potential employer] was using" (64).
Do you feel more inclined to forgive Smarsh's dad for these lies because he is a poor, hard-working, and loving father?
Do you think it would be appropriate to consider these factors if you were on a jury, and Smarsh's dad was on trial for fraud in either of these cases?
Or should he be strictly judged on the basis of whether or not he broke the law, regardless of what might be your personal biases in favor of his social class, his personal qualities, or his parental status?
Are some small crimes morally defensible if your motive for committing them is to help others?
After reading Heartland I do feel more inclined to forgive Smarsh’s father for lying because I have read about their struggles. I don’t think it would be appropriate to consider the factors on a jury because, honestly, majority of people have overstated their accomplishments or abilities, at least once, to make themselves look better during an interview or on an application. In my opinion, I do think that some small crimes are morally defensible if you’re doing it to provide for your family. Readers have clearly seen that Nick Smarsh is an experienced and capable worker, so if he has no issues at his new job then a little white lie should not matter, especially if he lied to make ends meet for his family.
ReplyDeleteI think that you have to consider what you would do in his situation. I know that I would do what was needed to take care of my family. Yes, he broke the law and that is not right. There may need to be consequences since that is morally wrong. So it depends on how you rule your life by moral codes or the basis of surviving by any means. Then begs the question was it morally right of the father to break the law so that his family could survive since in the end it was for good.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely love your response and its question. I will be honest, while I feel he was morally wrong, and should be punished for fraud. There should be measures taken to ensure he and his family are removed from poverty or this uncertainty to ensure there is no need to break the law or be fraudulent again. While my mindset is unpopular, it would not only give just deserts to him but prevent recidivism in the future.
DeleteI feel that based on what Nick was trying to accomplish with both lies, I can sympathize with him. He wasn’t trying to cheat anyone out of anything, he was just trying to be a good father and provide for his family. It would be important to consider these factors as a jury, since they were what influenced him to say what he did. He’s a good man trying to do what he can to help his children have a good future and keep food on the table at least for the time being. To be completely honest, I say that small crimes are defensible with a good motive. It does depend on the crime, but I think that no matter what, the person that committed the crime was doing a good thing.
ReplyDeleteIn this situation, I believe that I would be able to forgive Smarsh’s dad. If I were in that situation, I know I would do whatever it took to help out my family.
ReplyDeleteIf Smarsh’s dad was on trial, I do not think it would be appropriate to consider these factors. These lies that he told were not to hurt anyone but to help his family. This doesn’t always justify a person’s acts but in this case it does. I feel that he should not be strictly judged because of the situation he is in; these lies appear to be very small crimes that can easily be defensible because he was truly doing it in order to help his family.
-Kaylee Thoma
This is a very difficult situation because it questions the line of right and wrong. After reading about the situation his family was in, I understand the motives he had for lying. Family is very important, and I know I would go to great lengths to provide for mine. However, he did do wrong by breaking the law. Also, by lying while applying for the job at Boeing, he may have taken the position from a person who needed the job as much as he did but truly had all the qualifications for it. Therefore, while I understand his situation, I cannot agree with what he did, but I also think that he is not entirely at fault. His trying circumstances that caused him to have to face this hard situation call into question the economic system that causes some people to barely make ends meet. In a court of law, I think considering these factors is important for not viewing him as an evil person, but ultimately the basis of his conviction should be based on whether he broke the law. Small crimes that are committed to help others do have good intentions but are still wrong, so I believe we should strive to help others at all possible in the right way.
ReplyDeleteBethany Bengs
Morals are a tricky thing. Everyone wants to claim they have good morals and would never lie but at the end of the day I believe everyone of us would have done the same as Smarsh's dad. But that does not mean I think of him as immoral or that what he did was completely wrong. I think he did what he had to do to keep food on his families plates and clothes on their backs. And this is where the line gets blurred, you can either hold on tight to every last on of your morals or you can decided whether a white lie, although wrong, can help you provide for your family and make ends meet. If I was on a jury I would try and keep this mindset in mind when trying to figure out if it is worth getting him in trouble with the law. A lie like the one he told can not hurt anyone, only help those he lied for. I think that is a justifiable enough reason to say a white lie.
ReplyDeleteSomeone I look up to asked me a question when we are talking about civics, she told me about a time in high school she was asked the following question, “Let’s say you’re hiding in a basement there are soldiers above looking to kill anyone who has brown hair. You and a group of ten people are hiding. One of the members has a baby who starts crying, do you kill the baby or let it cry and know you’ll be caught. This question doesn’t have anything to do with the question being asked, but I knew I would let the baby live. The question being asked here is are we more inclined to forgive because we know what he went through. I think the question is a lot harder to answer because we know him, we’ve read about him and know who he is and why he is the way he is. If it was Ray for example I think we all would condemn him even though he knows the same kind of love he just shows it in a different way. I don’t agree with what Nick did, but I don’t think he’s a bad guy. He still committed a felony though and because of that I would probably give him jail time.
ReplyDeleteSmall crimes such as the ones Sarah's father committed are not morally defensible. The fraud he committed by listing things he did not own as being destroyed in a fire took a toll on his insurance provider, and was just plain thievery. Her father's lying is a great evil too.
ReplyDeleteI do feel sympathy towards Smarsh's father because of his economic situation, and I understand that the temptation must be great to commit immoral acts in order to provide for the ones he cares for. However, no amount of sympathy justifies the misdeeds he has committed.
I agree. Of course I have sympathy for Sarah’s father, and understand that he was just trying to take care and provide for his family. While it can seem like an innocent little lie at first, his statements harmed the insurance provider more than it helped his family in the long run. If someone were to find out that he was not telling the truth, it could hinder his ability to find jobs to help his family since someone could peg him as untrustworthy.
DeleteWhen simply talking about morals, it is usually seen as a definite line. In reality, that “line” is more of a blurred, grey stripe. Right and wrong can differ based on the circumstances surrounding it and the character of the person in question. Nick Smarsh did commit fraud, but because he did so for his family and is shown as an admirable man, the turpitude of it becomes less and less clear. Morals are based on more than the veracity of the situation, but the situation as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThe majority are inclined to sympathize with Nick in this situation, especially those that have grown up around households such as the Smarsh’s. I think the reason for this is because in homes like these, respectful guys like Nick are hard to come by. Any other man who wasn’t as loving as Nick would be condemned for lying to officials and add to his immorality.
Let’s say you see someone who has no way to feed their children. They can’t get a job and they have no one to depend on. They steal some food from a big name store to feed their family. Should they be treated the same as someone who stole simply for the thrill of stealing? Even though they have the money to afford the things they’re stealing unlike the parent?
I think my only judgments against Smarsh’s father would depend on whether or not his work was quality or not. I don’t think anyone should necessarily judge him for his actions as long as he did a good job; anyone is just as capable of falsifying information as the next. Regardless of what anyone’s resume says, their work has to speak for itself. Someone could have a perfect resume with great recommendations and still be horrible at the job they’re given. In other cases, people that may seem under qualified on paper could rise to the occasion and end up being a perfect fit for the job they’re given.
ReplyDeleteI would say that we should go by whether he broke the law or not and our legal system would determine the outcome of his decisions. In many cases, this is why a jury trial is so important. As humans, we are empathetic creatures and thus generally, would take the reason as to why the father did these things into account. As much as I believe that reasonings for actions are important for society to evolve, I believe that a slippery slope could begin to occur when actions that could lead to injury are brushed aside. The father’s actions of lying about driving a semi and handling 25 men, could have put not only himself in danger but also the men insubordinate to him.
ReplyDeleteWhen in a professional situation, especially one involving the law, you must be able to put your personal bias aside and interpret the case based upon the wrongdoing that has occurred. I do feel sympathy towards Nick Smarsh, however he must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Many times it is good people doing bad things for a good reason, that does not excuse the fact that they did a bad thing. Two wrongs don't make a right, heck forty-five wrongs don't make a right. Fraud meant to help oneself is still fraud.
ReplyDeleteI feel sympathy for her father since he's just trying to provide for his family but not inclined to forgive him. I can understand putting something little on the application to help him out but lying about his experience could hurt his experience at that job if they put him there and he didn't know what to do and also if they found out he was lying and fired him it could hurt his future applications and jobs. I think it would be important to take those factors into consideration if I was on a jury. Small crimes just to help others is still a crime and still wrong even if the intentions are good.
ReplyDelete-Aimee Wood
I personally believe that Smarsh’s father was justified in his actions and behavior. He is simply trying to provide for his family. As the man of the house, this is his one and only job. Say his family was starving; neither parent can get a job and their kids are too young to work. Would you really send him to prison for stealing bread to feed his dying family? I personally say no. I am more old-fashioned than most, and I believe a man should do nearly anything necessary to take care of his family. Obviously with the exception of things like rape, murder, etc. Those crimes do major harm to other people. But taking bread from someone who is fortunate enough to not even miss it seems like a fair trade, considering the alternative. Now this obviously is not their situation, they had food to eat, but they were in dire need in almost every other aspect.
ReplyDeleteWhile I would never endorse lying or fraud, I would have sympathy for those who had to in order to provide for their family. In the case of Nick, Sarah Smarsh’s father, facing the loss of property in a fire and the struggle of finding greater employment, it is important to note that his lies, or fraudulent behavior, were with his loved ones good in mind. While there is still some form of punishment that Nick should have faced in the hypothetical situation of a court case, the punishment should not be as severe as someone who did so with the intentions of only causing harm.
ReplyDeleteAs much as i would want to write him off and allow him be punished by the law, I have too much compassion towards him because i know he did it for a good cause. He also felt cheated by the society and wanted to get as much as his could. His crime is also quite small compared to other grievous crimes people commit. The little differences his crime make will not run the company down, or cause so much harm to anyone. i will consider his social class in the economy first and foremost then secondly his personality as a good and hardworking man. If he were not so poor, he would not have to engage in petty stealing. He also worked so hard and got little or no money for his hardwork.
ReplyDelete