By the way, I think we’ve invented something: “simulblogging”.

Bribery, a form of pecuniary corruption, is an act usually implying money or gift given that alters the behaviour of the recipient in ways not consistent with the duties of that person or in breach of law. Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in discharge of a public or legal duty.

Of course, bribery is wrong, but I don’t think it’s a parallel either, because if a person alters his behaviour (dig the Brit spelling!) in ways not consistent with his duties or in breach of the law, that’s wrong, whether he receives payment for it or not. The money offered in such a bribe is, certainly, the agent of change, but perverting justice is always wrong, not something that changes from right to wrong by virtue of the introduction of money.

Those are good challenges, Don, but I’m still wondering if there’s a true parallel where a given action changes from right to wrong solely because money changes hands.

What Kim would be doing, were she to purchase something and resell it, profit or no, is not immoral in and of itself, because people do that all the time. What makes it wrong in her case is the fact that she thereby violates store policy; that’s the transgression. Here’s the parallel: she purchases an item from a store for which she does not work, and then gives it away. Great! She purchases an item from a store for which she does not work, and then charges for it. Great! It’s only her status as an employee that changes that, not the fact that money is charged.

Now, to the guy pulling us out of the ditch: that parallel doesn’t work either, because it’s not immoral or wrong for him to charge us, but rather something society has deemed “uncouth” or what-have-you. Here’s my point: people capitalize financially on the misfortunes of others all the time, and we think nothing of it. The hospital makes money when we are sick. The mechanic makes money when my brakes give out. We could name a thousand services that make money off the fact that we have needs, sometimes misfortunes, etc.

Fast-forward to the Good Samaritan: societally, we’ve come to expect that neighbors do those kinds of things when we’re stuck in ditches; I’m glad I live in that kind of society. When someone charges, we think he’s uncouth or rude or what have you, but really, he’s just doing what the mechanic does: making money off our misfortune. I’m not taking up for the clod, because most of us help our neighbors for free, but the clod is providing a very needed service, and while I’d think him a jerk, he’s not doing anything wrong, per se; he’s just engaging in a business transaction. Rude? Yep. Immoral because he charges? No.

Bribery next! But let me reiterate something as together we chase a modest rabbit trail: the lack of a fitting parallel doesn’t mean I’m right; it’s just an interesting challenge that it’s difficult to find a true parallel to this case, and makes me wonder why we single it out here. After all, people do get paid for donating plasma, and hair for wigs. Granted, an organ from a living person is a bigger deal, but people can easily live with one kidney, so is the wrongness of this act because it’s on a larger scale than plasma?

I again maintain that I understand there are issues that are very valid concerns; I just think that this is a discussion worth having in a world where people are dying needlessly.

But it’s really a side point, so I’ll leave that one. On to your parallels in the next post.

Actually, I didn’t respond to it initially because I didn’t think it was germane. Making a buck and earning a living are two entirely different things. The biblical responsibility of the church to care for the physical wellbeing of its ministers can hardly be compared to the exploitation of society’s most desperate. I just didn’t think it applied.

hear

it

for

Paul