zlacker

Well in this case since they showed me video evidence of murder, I would call the police (assuming I don't live in a CHAZ zone).

This is bogus though. Will Home Depot allow me to buy some rope if I declare to a random employee that I plan on using it to do a lynching on my local colored neighbors? Yes, they will. Does that make Home Depot an immoral organization? Nope.

>>umvi+(OP)
> if I declare to a random employee that I plan on using it to do a lynching on my local colored neighbors? Yes, they will. Does that make Home Depot an immoral organization? Nope.

I'd hope (and expect!) that home depot employees would ask you to leave if you made those statements while trying to purchase rope.

>>umvi+(OP)
You've avoided the question. Suppose that they'd already been on trial for it, found guilty and served their time. Do you sell them the gun, knowing that they intend to use it for violence?

If you showed Home Depot sufficient evidence that you intended to lynch someone with it, and it was Home Depot's policy that we sell rope even if it's used for murder, then yes. I think the issue in your example is that you haven't made the corporate policy clear and you haven't made it clear that the employee is convinced of what you're about to do.

>>joshua+R
They might, but I doubt it. Especially if I made the comments in jest. "What's all that rope for?" "A lynching wink"

Home Depot (the company) will not make any effort to ban me from using their chain even if an employee did make me leave the premises. I could just go home and order it online from HomeDepot.com and have it shipped right to me.

>>umvi+j3
You're sort of moving the goalposts here: when/if you have knowledge that someone is going to do something immoral, there may be an expectation to avoid supporting it. If you can't reasonably have been assumed to have knowledge of the bad thing, then there can't be an expectation to have done anything different, because you couldn't have known.

So, much as after you kick someone out of your store they could order on the home depot website, they could also just go to Lowe's and say nothing. Neither company is really to blame in that case. On the other hand, I wouldn't say that you shouldn't escalate to law enforcement if someone is threatening to go lynch someone in your presence.

>>karpie+y1
Your examples are extremely contrived.

> Suppose that they'd already been on trial for it, found guilty and served their time

Ok, so I'm supposing a convicted felon is trying to purchase a gun, which is illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

> Do you sell them the gun, knowing that they intend to use it for violence?

No, I do not sell them the gun, because it would be illegal to do so.

===

Bottom line, I believe in "innocent until proven guilty." I don't deny services or tools to someone legally able to purchase it because I think they might use it to commit a future crime. I might report them to authorities if my suspicions are backed by evidence, but it's not my job to prevent future crimes. If I work at a glass blowing shop and someone wants me to create a custom bong for them, I wouldn't deny them because they might use it to smoke illegal drugs. Who knows, they might be scientists that need it to conduct a study.

>>umvi+35
Why are you equivocating smoking and lynching?

>>joshua+g7
I'm not, I'm just generalizing the stance to whether people have a responsibility of "preventing future crimes" when considering whether to offer services to clientele.

>>umvi+35
Again, you're avoiding the question; it's a moral question, not a legal one. Yes, it's illegal. But that doesn't mean it's unethical.

I'm asking if it's unethical to sell someone a gun if you're convinced they're going to do something you believe to be unethical with it. I would say yes. I'm not sure if you would say, "no, it doesn't matter if I know they're going to kill children with it", "maybe, if I only think they're going to kill animals with it", or "yes, I don't think I should sell them the gun if I know they're going to do something I don't approve of with it".

To your second point, we're not talking about "maybe they're going to do something bad", we're saying "here's plenty of documentation that they're going to do something bad".

>>umvi+88
You are though. You seem to be claiming that in general there is no moral imperative to try and prevent any crime. But that misses the point that the harm from some crimes is greater than others, and that there may be a moral imperative from preventing potential quantities of harm, irrespective of whether or not something is criminal.

>>karpie+a8
If they are legally allowed to buy it, I would sell it to them but put a waiting period on it ("yep, you own it now. You can pick it up in 5 days"). During the waiting period, if I thought they were going to use it to commit a heinous crime, I would contact the FBI and provide them with all of the buyer's details.

I don't like this contrived example though, and I suspect you've only set it up so that if/when I say "nope, I won't sell the gun to that person" you'll then say "in this case the gun is GitHub and the felon trying to buy it is ICE" which I do not think is an apt analogy at all.

>>umvi+pc
Would you put anyone on a waiting period, or only people who were violent?

And would you have the same answer if you believed that law enforcement wouldn't do anything to stop the buyer from doing anything?