DaVinci Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 I've been running into this argument recently. The scenario basically goes something like this: If a homeless man can't afford to eat, then it is okay for him to steal food, or steal the money to buy food. If this food or money comes from someone who is wealthy then that person will still be wealthy despite the crime, and the only immoral thing about this situation would be that the homeless man would starve to death if he didn't steal. So essentially the claim is that it's immoral to let a starving man to die. This argument is usually played in such a way as to make arguing against the immorality of theft look petty in comparison to the suffering of a starving man. So what does everyone think of this argument? Is there validity to it? Is it completely ridiculous? How do you respond to the way the argument is meant to pull on heartstrings?
Guest NateC Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 If a homeless man can't afford to eat, then it is okay for him to steal food, or steal the money to buy food. What does the word 'okay' mean? Sure, a man might steal food to survive, but how does that invalidate the argument that stealing is not UPB. So essentially the claim is that it's immoral to let a starving man to die. So am I being immoral at this moment as children in Africa die of starvation? Is a man in a coma immoral because he is not feeding a starving person?
DaVinci Posted May 19, 2013 Author Posted May 19, 2013 If a homeless man can't afford to eat, then it is okay for him to steal food, or steal the money to buy food. What does the word 'okay' mean? Sure, a man might steal food to survive, but how does that invalidate the argument that stealing is not UPB. So essentially the claim is that it's immoral to let a starving man to die. So am I being immoral at this moment as children in Africa die of starvation? Is a man in a coma immoral because he is not feeding a starving person? In this case the word 'okay' would mean 'justified'. He can justify taking food because he is starving. The argument isn't about you though. In your example, if a starving child in Africa stole food from you (assuming that was possible) that would be preferable to them starving and you would really have not lost much. So it isn't immoral.
Stephen C Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 When someone puts forward this argument, steal their stuff to give to a homeless person and see how with it they are. Or, you can just let them know that you're going to inform local homeless people that they can steal the persons stuff without having to worry about the police being called or charges being pressed against them.
Brandon Buck _BB_ Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 So what does everyone think of this argument? Is there validity to it? Is it completely ridiculous? How do you respond to the way the argument is meant to pull on heartstrings? It's a completely invalid appeal to empathy. As to how I respond to these arguments... Why is the man starving? Has he played no part in his plight? If stealing enough money for two meals is moral, is stealing enough money for two hundred meals? If so, where is the cutoff point? Thirteen meals? If not, why not?
SimonF Posted May 20, 2013 Posted May 20, 2013 I've been running into this argument recently. The scenario basically goes something like this: If a homeless man can't afford to eat, then it is okay for him to steal food, or steal the money to buy food. If this food or money comes from someone who is wealthy then that person will still be wealthy despite the crime, and the only immoral thing about this situation would be that the homeless man would starve to death if he didn't steal. Why doesn't this hungry person offer some labour in exchange for a meal? That way no one comes out a loser.
PatrickC Posted May 20, 2013 Posted May 20, 2013 I've been running into this argument recently. The scenario basically goes something like this: If a homeless man can't afford to eat, then it is okay for him to steal food, or steal the money to buy food. If this food or money comes from someone who is wealthy then that person will still be wealthy despite the crime, and the only immoral thing about this situation would be that the homeless man would starve to death if he didn't steal. Why doesn't this hungry person offer some labour in exchange for a meal? That way no one comes out a loser. Further to this, why doesn't the homeless guy just ask the person he is considering stealing from. It seems to me that there are a number of ways to skin a cat, of which theft may well be the last one. Of course a person may decide that given the guys extremity in life that they will go easy on him in terms of restitution. But this is an aesthetic choice in the circumstance.
ribuck Posted May 20, 2013 Posted May 20, 2013 Why doesn't this hungry person offer some labour in exchange for a meal? That way no one comes out a loser. That's how is used to work in the past. If you read novels from a century ago, the hungry person always gets a meal by (for example) offering to chop some firewood. But modern life has been made so complicated that even the most generous people won't offer food in exchange for ad-hoc labor anymore. It brings employment law into the picture, and it messes with the conditions of their insurance. The hungry person will always steal rather than starve to death. It's not about whether it's justified or not. It's about whether the hungry person is prepared to risk the consequences of stealing. If the hungry person has a way to obtain food without the risk of negative consequences, they will do so. Otherwise, they will steal. The way to resolve this isn't to fret about what the hungry person does; it's to remove the barriers that discourage (and sometimes prohibit) the hungry from feeding themselves. When I lived in New Zealand, there was a hungry homeless guy who lived under a bridge. One day he killed a stray cat, then lit a fire and cooked and ate the cat. He was arrested (because in NZ it was forbidden to prepare cat meat for human consumption). He was found guilty, although I can't remember the penalty. And yet at the same time, the local council was using taxpayers' money to eradicate these stray cats.
Stephen C Posted May 20, 2013 Posted May 20, 2013 He probably got more food in prison than he was able to get outside of prison. How is that funded? Theft.
RestoringGuy Posted May 20, 2013 Posted May 20, 2013 It's like answering a loaded question. If it's a moral act, you can argue it doesn't qualify as stealing, it is only taking. Saying "stealing isn't immoral" already sounds crazy, because it loads the act being done with a moral judgement ("stealing") before it is evaluated logically.
Rob_Ilir Posted May 20, 2013 Posted May 20, 2013 Being poor and hungry, and being hungry becouse you are poor are too different things. We all get hungry, poor or not, I got and given free meals all the time, and I would dare call it universal to get hungry . And stealing becouse you are poor, the food is just the projection of attention that really the poor person is starving for., one more meal is just the way to find another door of attention.
DaisyAnarchist Posted May 20, 2013 Posted May 20, 2013 I've been running into this argument recently. The scenario basically goes something like this: If a homeless man can't afford to eat, then it is okay for him to steal food, or steal the money to buy food. If this food or money comes from someone who is wealthy then that person will still be wealthy despite the crime, and the only immoral thing about this situation would be that the homeless man would starve to death if he didn't steal. Why doesn't this hungry person offer some labour in exchange for a meal? That way no one comes out a loser. This, and simply asking is a good idea as well. Who knows, the wealthy person might be resourceful enough to try to find the homeless man a job? Resorting to stealing doesn't work anything out for the homeless person other than living that edgy lifestyle and never improving. One thing that bugs me is, why assume that the wealthy person doesn't need that money? Who's to say that he/she wasn't saving up that money to accomodate an illness or to help a senior in the family? The idea that wealthy people could stand to lose their money is presumptuous and not fair. Who's to say that poor people aren't irresponsible with the money they do have? What it comes down to is that we don't know the full picture of another person's life. Assuming that you can just take their property without any detriment done them is false. In the event that it doesn't burdern the person much, it's still his/her property. There's no right to take it.
Skreimey Posted May 20, 2013 Posted May 20, 2013 DaVinci, I don't think "okay" or "justified" are appropriate terms for this situation. I think people use language like that to cloud the issue at hand (theft) and soothe the paine of cognitive dissonance generated by simultaneous feelings of pity and indignation. I could agree to the argument that stealing food to prevent starvation is 'less wrong' than stealing for pleasure or for gains beyond needs for survival. I think this is true in the same way that calling someone whom has provoked you a "bastard" is 'less wrong' than murdering them. By no means do I mean to say that either of these scenarios is "okay," but rather one is a less serious breach of ethical behavior than the other. The key disagreements I have with utilitarian arguments is that utilitarianism is in itself ends-oriented, which is to say that any moral atrocity is completely justified by a net increase in a population's happiness. The non-aggression principle and the ethics of Aristotle are means-oriented (good is defined by actions, not goals). Also, as another member pointed out, people whom subscribe to utilitarian views rarely volunteer themselves to be the sacrificial lamb for the common good (in my experience). This ethical system almost always seems to apply to everyone else. Finally, is it ever truly impossible that this starving man could provide nothing of value to the shopkeeper or anyone whom could give him the money to buy what he wants? I think there would be at least someone whom might exchange a meal for taking out the garbage or sweeping the street by the shop, even if only out of a sense of charity.
Dave Bockman Posted May 20, 2013 Posted May 20, 2013 Specific actions cannot be defined as either moral or immoral, we can never say definitively that someone stealing a piece of bread or a fire extinguisher or a private boat while adrift in the Atlantic is moral or immoral-- for the very reasons you're citing-- exigent circumstances. Circumstances change the act of stabbing someone in the throat from attempted murder to an emergency tracheotomy. Moral & immoral can only be applied to ethical theories. Logically, 'It is moral to steal' fails before even leaving the starting gate.
SimonF Posted May 21, 2013 Posted May 21, 2013 Specific actions cannot be defined as either moral or immoral, we can never say definitively that someone stealing a piece of bread or a fire extinguisher or a private boat while adrift in the Atlantic is moral or immoral-- for the very reasons you're citing-- exigent circumstances. Circumstances change the act of stabbing someone in the throat from attempted murder to an emergency tracheotomy. Could "circumstances" make taxation a moral act?
Agalloch Posted May 21, 2013 Posted May 21, 2013 Specific actions cannot be defined as either moral or immoral, we can never say definitively that someone stealing a piece of bread or a fire extinguisher or a private boat while adrift in the Atlantic is moral or immoral-- for the very reasons you're citing-- exigent circumstances. Circumstances change the act of stabbing someone in the throat from attempted murder to an emergency tracheotomy. Moral & immoral can only be applied to ethical theories. Logically, 'It is moral to steal' fails before even leaving the starting gate. You've clearly changed the terms of your argument and definitions half way through this post. Stealing implies immorality, taking without permission. Stealing is a word used to define the act *after* it's circumstances have been determined to classify it as immoral. If circumstances meant that you had permission to take the bread, then it's not stealing. "Taking a piece of bread" has no moral context true, I took some bread this very morning, from my own cupboard, and because I own the bread, it isn't stealing. The original poster was specifically refering to situations in which the starving man has no right to, and is therefore stealing, the bread. We wouldn't say that someone performing an emergency tracheotomy is attempting murder, but that the circumstances make it ok, we just don't accuse them of attempted murder. By changing this definition you are also confusing your argument for "exigent circumstances". You give examples that make it sound like the circumstances that determine morality are what you are refering to, and then try to use that to determine that the circumstances of the person who commits an act that is definitely stealing (the subject of this post) might not be immoral.
tasmlab Posted May 23, 2013 Posted May 23, 2013 It's a completely invalid appeal to empathy. THIS. And in some isolated case of a single man stealing a single meal, we're probably going to let him off the hook because our sense of empathy probably trumps an ethics puzzle. The hazzard is that you know somebody is winding up to make a case for the morality of a galactic-size government and tax burden on the wealthy based on this scenario which probably never actually happens in any Western country. In the US our poor are comically obese. On empathy for hunger: if you even go on a fairly pedestrian weight loss diet, you can feel your sense of reason crumble pretty quickly, and you find yourself making all sorts of justifications because of the discomfort of even just being a little hungry, which is why dieting can be tough (eating small portions of food is simple; dealing with the discomfort is lousy)
Libertus Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 1. OK, let's say a starving person tries to steal from you, and you stop him from doing so, with force. Are you now not justified in defending yourself and your property? if you're justified in defending yourself and protecting yourself from the attempt, then the attempt itself can not be justified as well, can it? 2. How about this: "Murder isn't immoral if you really need this person gone." or this: "Rape isn't immoral if you really really need to have sex" or this: "It's OK to beat somebody up if you have a good reason or had a bad childhood."
LovePrevails Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 I believe you could say that in certain circumstances there are 'mitigating circumstances' to stealing Such as in the argument that's given That doesn't make it Right If I come home after a bad day and snap at you You may acknowledge me being under pressure as a mitigating circumstance That doesn't mean I was treating you well.
sahadda Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 Doesn't the question of morality rest on free will? In this scenario the homeless man either has to steal or starve to death.
greekredemption Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 Doesn't the question of morality rest on free will? In this scenario the homeless man either has to steal or starve to death. Could we say then that he has no choice but to steal?
Agalloch Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 Doesn't the question of morality rest on free will? In this scenario the homeless man either has to steal or starve to death. Steal, or starve to death, or work for the food, or borrow money for the food, or beg for the food, or go to a charity, or eat at a soup kitchen, or have food donated to him, or go to friends for food, or go to family for food, or get a job and then use the money earned to pay for the food, or go somewhere to hunt for, catch or forage for food. Wow, that false dichotomy fell apart fast.
Wesley Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 Doesn't the question of morality rest on free will? In this scenario the homeless man either has to steal or starve to death. Someone who is homeless and starving might have had 10,000 choices that lead to that situation. This is akin to someone firing a shot at someone and then as the bullet is traveling toward the victim, saying they had no choice to stop it. The choices have already been made that lead to that situation. I am not exactly equating the situations, only illustrating when the choices were made. Thus, it is not exactly fair to say someone has "no choice" when they have made many choices that put them in that spot. This argument would discount anyone who actually had no choice in the situation of them being homeless and starving, but as I understand it, they are exceedingly rare in modern Western society. I would also say that if someone truly was in a situation like this from no choice of their own, that many people would donate to help support them until they could get back on their feet.
Alice Amell Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 People do get very emotional about these things so I try to make a few things clear. 1. They are creating a scenario out of context. Why is the man starving? Does he have no skills to get a job? No friends? No family? Are there no charities? And if all those are true, is he not at all responsible for the situation he is in? It is hard for people to realize because with government stealing people's money and providing perverse incentives for poverty, a lot of people do end up dependent on welfare (stealing). You could point out before welfare, poverty was declining. The cause of them being in these situations is the result of the government stealing from them. 2. Ask them about the implications of if stealing was okay. Could people simply refuse to gain skills and simply live off stealing from others? And they cannot be punished because living trumps stealing? Are we all immoral by not giving to starving children around the world? Are doctors immoral by asking for pay for their services? Are we all immoral for not being doctors and saving lives? And if this person is worried about starving people, do they give to charities or to the homeless? If not, are they okay with homeless stealing from them? 3. Point out that it being moral or immoral means that it can be enforceable. They think it is bad and therefore you're a bad person if you want to save your life, it is better to die than steal bread. But this is just an emotional response. In other words, I too would opt to save my life if I was in a dire situation rather than respect someone's property. But it being enforceable means I must pay the consequences for it. I can be punished for doing an immoral act. I still have the choice to do it, however, and I think most would choose to live. If it is not enforceable, then the implications from #2 would come into play. Could people just steal at will and not be punished? You may choose to do something immoral, and that's your choice, but you have to pay the consequences. And the choices made beforehand are always a factor. Again, why is someone starving with no one to help them? Are they not responsible for choices they make in life that may lead to bad situations?
WorBlux Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 That's how is used to work in the past. If you read novels from a century ago, the hungry person always gets a meal by (for example) offering to chop some firewood. But modern life has been made so complicated that even the most generous people won't offer food in exchange for ad-hoc labor anymore. It brings employment law into the picture, and it messes with the conditions of their insurance. The hungry person will always steal rather than starve to death. It's not about whether it's justified or not. It's about whether the hungry person is prepared to risk the consequences of stealing. If the hungry person has a way to obtain food without the risk of negative consequences, they will do so. Otherwise, they will steal. The way to resolve this isn't to fret about what the hungry person does; it's to remove the barriers that discourage (and sometimes prohibit) the hungry from feeding themselves. When I lived in New Zealand, there was a hungry homeless guy who lived under a bridge. One day he killed a stray cat, then lit a fire and cooked and ate the cat. He was arrested (because in NZ it was forbidden to prepare cat meat for human consumption). He was found guilty, although I can't remember the penalty. And yet at the same time, the local council was using taxpayers' money to eradicate these stray cats. Lighting the fire was probably against some other law as well. Anyways even if we say a starving man is justified in stealing food as a last resort, such justification does not make the act any less theft, and does not erase the obligation that arises in the act to make the victim whole at some point in the future.
ribuck Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 There's a much simpler way of looking at this situation. Desperation brings the hungry man to the point where he's prepared to steal the food, regardless of any moral issues. The consequences of stealing (future reparation, imprisonment, shunning, etc) are a price he's prepared to pay for a full stomach.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 The theft by the homeless man lead to a series of events that killed millions of people. So was it right to kill millions of people to save this one homeless man (who was a rapist)?
june Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 There's a much simpler way of looking at this situation. Desperation brings the hungry man to the point where he's prepared to steal the food, regardless of any moral issues. The consequences of stealing (future reparation, imprisonment, shunning, etc) are a price he's prepared to pay for a full stomach. but the argument is that he won't have to face any consequences because he did not act immorally The theft by the homeless man lead to a series of events that killed millions of people. So was it right to kill millions of people to save this one homeless man (who was a rapist)? argument from effect. if an act is not immoral then it does not matter what the consequences are.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 argument from effect. if an act is not immoral then it does not matter what the consequences are. There you go. You've answered the original "dilemma".
june Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 There you go. You've answered the original "dilemma". that did not answer whether the original dilemma is immoral or not, because what i said is that the consequences are irrelevant "if" an act is not immoral. it merely showed that your argument from effect is irrelevant. but, to put forward my opinion on the original dilemma: it is incorrect. stealing is immoral; "letting" a man die is not immoral (because it's a positive obligation, for one). any person who thieves is acting immorally, even if that theft would save them from death.
Recommended Posts