6 ms·

His argument was certainly not rational.

by javert 17y ago

nkurz 17y ago
How so? I take a pretty dim view of most organized religion, and found this to be one of the more rational sermons I have read or heard. He suggests that in a dire situation, stealing from the shelves of a major chain store is a less evil alternative than violent crime or prostitution. The obvious flaw in his argument would pointing out that this is a false dilemma, that there are many other alternatives. But for the example of the recently released prisoner he cites, I'm not sure which obvious ones he's failing to consider. I'm not pro-shoplifting, but given his scenario it seems better than robbery.
- pmorici 17y ago
  "I'm not sure which obvious ones he's failing to consider." Soup kitchen?
  - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
    I've camped out in sub-zero temperatures and been unfortunate enough to only afford one meal a day (but a good sized one). Surely being homeless and living on a bowl of soup most days, in winter, is going to leave one close to starving.
    - pmorici 17y ago
      "Soup Kitchen" is just a name given to a place that feeds the poor. They usually serve more than soup.
      - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
        The only ones I've visited served bread and a bowl of something like curry or stew. Shorthand "soup". The point is it's a simple meal unlikely to provide a complete days _nutrition_ and enough energy for warmth in Winter; but probably enough for medium term survival.
- hugh_ 17y ago
  But for the example of the recently released prisoner he cites, I'm not sure which obvious ones he's failing to consider. Begging and dying would seem to both be more morally acceptable than stealing.
  - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
    As someone else pointed out the Church holds that the right to live is greater than the right to [individual?] ownership of property. This has some interesting consequences which I'll enjoy meating out with friends in the Church in the next few weeks - very apposite. Begging, agreed. Though when I look at it hard and consider that begging demands the poor to give up their dignity then it reinforces in me that we should endeavour not to leave people in a position where it is ever necessary. I think just the fact that so many are now considering the position of the poor facing moral choices of theft or starvation makes this an excellent sermon.
    - hugh_ 17y ago
      I think just the fact that so many are now considering the position of the poor facing moral choices of theft or starvation makes this an excellent sermon. When was the last time anybody actually managed to starve to death in Great Britain? Great Britain is already a welfare state. It's easy to get paid for not working. If you fall through the cracks of that system there are dozens of charities devoted to helping those in genuine need. In addition, there's a beggar on every street corner. Oh, and there's always the Church, which really should be working on feeding the hungry itself (perhaps by reducing its own gold-plated candelabra budget) instead of sending 'em to knock over Tesco's. Finally, if you somehow manage to be completely unable to find food anywhere, and you haven't eaten for days and you're actually in danger of dying of starvation, all you need to do is go to hospital, where they'll say "hey, this guy is dying of starvation" and give you free food and medical treatment. In conclusion, dying for lack of food in modern Britain is very, very difficult.
      - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
        When I said "not to leave people in a position ..." I wasn't really thinking of people in the UK. If you can walk into hospital then you're not going to be treated for hunger, if you can't then you'll possibly die where you sleep. I'll agree, in winter in the UK you'll die from exposure before you die technically from starvation. Yes, in my city the best (in fact only) street work is paid for by the local Church - they do a rolling program of food/shelter moving between a few of the city centre church buildings. "Finally, if you somehow manage to be completely unable to find food anywhere" Isn't the point kinda that you can walk into this huge building, nearby and full of food, 20% of which will probably just be binned, and help yourself?? [I'm really not a strong advocate of theft!]
- javert 17y ago
  Thanks for the thoughtful response. (1) No argumnet based on religion (that is, faith) can also be based on reason. Most of his sermon is about religion. It revolves around religion. Thus, it cannot be considered (as a whole) to be rational. (2) I think it would be rational to say stealing from a major chain store is less evil than violent crime, and possibly prostitution. But it's not rational to encourage people to steal. As you point out, most of the time, there are more choices than those presented--it's a false dilemma. There may be some cases in which steadling is the best option. However, the theif would certainly have a moral obligation to repay the store when he could, and that is not mentioned here. (Really, we need a basis for both 'rationality' and 'morality' to have this discussion, which can be had, but not in the space of a comment.)
  - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
    No argumnet based on religion (that is, faith) can also be based on reason. Something like faith that the universes speed limit is the speed of light - this makes GR completely devoid of reason? Or that our arithmetic can't be shown to be complete and consistent with and of itself - this makes all of maths (based in this common arithmetic, cf Godel's I.T.) devoid of reason? The Bible says, James 1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%201&version=NIV http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%201&ve... : "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
    - astine 17y ago
      Assumptions are prerequisite for reason. Faith is a prerequisite for assumptions,. Therefore, faith is a prerequisite for reason. Put more simply: absolute proof of anything being impossible, some degree of faith is a universal requirement of human beings wanting to live a productive life. Thus to conclude that faith precludes reason is to conclude that every human on earth is incapable of reason. Which is quite a pretentious claim, I think.
      - javert 17y ago
teamonkey 17y ago
It was, I think. Having exhausted every legal avenue, what is the most moral (socially-acceptable/least-harm) illegal option you need to do in order to keep alive? His answer: steal the bare minimum required from places where you will do the least damage to individuals, i.e. large supermarkets where the cost is spread thinly over many people. It sounds like the sort of thing you could model with game theory if you wanted to "prove" it.
- nandemo 17y ago
  Having exhausted every legal avenue, what is the most moral (socially-acceptable/least-harm) illegal option you need to do in order to keep alive? This is a fair summary of a very twisted argument. He's talking about very poor Brits, and his audience are supposedly the not-so-poor British. Now, UK has an extensive welfare system. How many people come even close to starving to death there? And assuming his audience is composed of mainly middle-class people, why doesn't he simply ask them to donate to the poor? He claims that "the hard reality is that a vicar's salary is not designed to meet the needs of everyone", but somehow it doesn't occur to him that he's not the only one who could donate. How come shoplifting is better than begging? The passages below One might tell them to get a job, but it is at the very best of times extremely difficult for an ex prisoner to find work the likelihood is that, found begging, they will quickly be in trouble with the police, and therefore in breach of their parole. made me suspect this was an elaborate satire. I also wonder if the shoplifting suggestion also applies to poor people without a conviction history.
- javert 17y ago
  (This comment is a copy of a comment I made in response to a similar reply to my comment...) (1) No argumnet based on religion (that is, faith) can also be based on reason. Most of his sermon is about religion. It revolves around religion. Thus, it cannot be considered (as a whole) to be rational. (2) I think it would be rational to say stealing from a major chain store is less evil than violent crime, and possibly prostitution. But it's not rational to encourage people to steal. As you point out, most of the time, there are more choices than those presented--it's a false dilemma. There may be some cases in which steadling is the best option. However, the theif would certainly have a moral obligation to repay the store when he could, and that is not mentioned here. (Really, we need a basis for both 'rationality' and 'morality' to have this discussion, which can be had, but not in the space of a comment.)
jpr 17y ago
Neither was yours.
anigbrowl 17y ago
Eponysterical * * Entertainingly ironic, given the poster's username
- astine 17y ago
  I noticed that too, but wasn't sure if I should bring it up.
  - nkurz 17y ago
    Could you explain? My name or javert's?
    - astine 17y ago
      Javert's. In the novel Les Miserables, the protagonist, Jean Valjean, steals bread in order to survive and is arrested. Later he skips his parol. Javert, a police officers chases him to the ends of the earth to bring him to justice. ("The ends of the earth" being figurative) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javert
anigbrowl 17y ago
It's a lot more rational than rational than paroling an experienced criminal back into society without the most basic means of economic support. While in prison, convicts typically work but the costs of their incarceration are set against their earnings, such that the amount they make is trivial, basically equivalent to pocket money for a child. Now while I don't think anyone should expect to go to prison for financial gain, society has an interest in motivating a convicted criminal to act within the law after their release. For petty and less serious crimes, providing some sort of economic incentive and organizational assistance following release from prison is probably more likely to reduce recidivism. I mean, in prison you have a roof over your head and a few meals every day - your physical basic survival is assured. In the case described in the sermon, a newly-released prisoner is then put into a position of trying to reintegrate into society with the equivalent of about 2 days' pay at minimum wage, which is not at all adequate to ensure basic physical survival, especially in winter. No matter how sincere a prisoner's remorse and intention of reform, putting them into a drastically worse economic situation immediately after release massively increases the temptation to crime - either for its immediate gain, or as a deliberate strategy to get sent back to prison and the surety of a bed/ roof/ meal.
- selven 17y ago
  We don't just kick them out without basic economic support. Especially for some classes of criminals, like sex offenders, we put a large sign on their back saying "I'M DANGEROUS". We ostracize them from society and make them feel like they don't belong. So it's only natural for them to want to go back to prison, where their troubles are the same as the troubles of the guy next to them and where they feel like they do belong.

His argument was certainly not rational.

by javert 17y ago

His argument was certainly not rational.

nkurz 17y ago

How so? I take a pretty dim view of most organized religion, and found this to be one of the more rational sermons I have read or heard. He suggests that in a dire situation, stealing from the shelves of a major chain store is a less evil alternative than violent crime or prostitution. The obvious flaw in his argument would pointing out that this is a false dilemma, that there are many other alternatives. But for the example of the recently released prisoner he cites, I'm not sure which obvious ones he's failing to consider. I'm not pro-shoplifting, but given his scenario it seems better than robbery.

pmorici 17y ago
"I'm not sure which obvious ones he's failing to consider." Soup kitchen?
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  I've camped out in sub-zero temperatures and been unfortunate enough to only afford one meal a day (but a good sized one). Surely being homeless and living on a bowl of soup most days, in winter, is going to leave one close to starving.
  - pmorici 17y ago
    "Soup Kitchen" is just a name given to a place that feeds the poor. They usually serve more than soup.
    - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
      The only ones I've visited served bread and a bowl of something like curry or stew. Shorthand "soup". The point is it's a simple meal unlikely to provide a complete days _nutrition_ and enough energy for warmth in Winter; but probably enough for medium term survival.
hugh_ 17y ago
But for the example of the recently released prisoner he cites, I'm not sure which obvious ones he's failing to consider. Begging and dying would seem to both be more morally acceptable than stealing.
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  As someone else pointed out the Church holds that the right to live is greater than the right to [individual?] ownership of property. This has some interesting consequences which I'll enjoy meating out with friends in the Church in the next few weeks - very apposite. Begging, agreed. Though when I look at it hard and consider that begging demands the poor to give up their dignity then it reinforces in me that we should endeavour not to leave people in a position where it is ever necessary. I think just the fact that so many are now considering the position of the poor facing moral choices of theft or starvation makes this an excellent sermon.
  - hugh_ 17y ago
    I think just the fact that so many are now considering the position of the poor facing moral choices of theft or starvation makes this an excellent sermon. When was the last time anybody actually managed to starve to death in Great Britain? Great Britain is already a welfare state. It's easy to get paid for not working. If you fall through the cracks of that system there are dozens of charities devoted to helping those in genuine need. In addition, there's a beggar on every street corner. Oh, and there's always the Church, which really should be working on feeding the hungry itself (perhaps by reducing its own gold-plated candelabra budget) instead of sending 'em to knock over Tesco's. Finally, if you somehow manage to be completely unable to find food anywhere, and you haven't eaten for days and you're actually in danger of dying of starvation, all you need to do is go to hospital, where they'll say "hey, this guy is dying of starvation" and give you free food and medical treatment. In conclusion, dying for lack of food in modern Britain is very, very difficult.
    - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
      When I said "not to leave people in a position ..." I wasn't really thinking of people in the UK. If you can walk into hospital then you're not going to be treated for hunger, if you can't then you'll possibly die where you sleep. I'll agree, in winter in the UK you'll die from exposure before you die technically from starvation. Yes, in my city the best (in fact only) street work is paid for by the local Church - they do a rolling program of food/shelter moving between a few of the city centre church buildings. "Finally, if you somehow manage to be completely unable to find food anywhere" Isn't the point kinda that you can walk into this huge building, nearby and full of food, 20% of which will probably just be binned, and help yourself?? [I'm really not a strong advocate of theft!]
javert 17y ago
Thanks for the thoughtful response. (1) No argumnet based on religion (that is, faith) can also be based on reason. Most of his sermon is about religion. It revolves around religion. Thus, it cannot be considered (as a whole) to be rational. (2) I think it would be rational to say stealing from a major chain store is less evil than violent crime, and possibly prostitution. But it's not rational to encourage people to steal. As you point out, most of the time, there are more choices than those presented--it's a false dilemma. There may be some cases in which steadling is the best option. However, the theif would certainly have a moral obligation to repay the store when he could, and that is not mentioned here. (Really, we need a basis for both 'rationality' and 'morality' to have this discussion, which can be had, but not in the space of a comment.)
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  No argumnet based on religion (that is, faith) can also be based on reason. Something like faith that the universes speed limit is the speed of light - this makes GR completely devoid of reason? Or that our arithmetic can't be shown to be complete and consistent with and of itself - this makes all of maths (based in this common arithmetic, cf Godel's I.T.) devoid of reason? The Bible says, James 1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%201&version=NIV http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%201&ve... : "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
  - astine 17y ago
    Assumptions are prerequisite for reason. Faith is a prerequisite for assumptions,. Therefore, faith is a prerequisite for reason. Put more simply: absolute proof of anything being impossible, some degree of faith is a universal requirement of human beings wanting to live a productive life. Thus to conclude that faith precludes reason is to conclude that every human on earth is incapable of reason. Which is quite a pretentious claim, I think.
    - javert 17y ago

teamonkey 17y ago

It was, I think. Having exhausted every legal avenue, what is the most moral (socially-acceptable/least-harm) illegal option you need to do in order to keep alive? His answer: steal the bare minimum required from places where you will do the least damage to individuals, i.e. large supermarkets where the cost is spread thinly over many people. It sounds like the sort of thing you could model with game theory if you wanted to "prove" it.

nandemo 17y ago
Having exhausted every legal avenue, what is the most moral (socially-acceptable/least-harm) illegal option you need to do in order to keep alive? This is a fair summary of a very twisted argument. He's talking about very poor Brits, and his audience are supposedly the not-so-poor British. Now, UK has an extensive welfare system. How many people come even close to starving to death there? And assuming his audience is composed of mainly middle-class people, why doesn't he simply ask them to donate to the poor? He claims that "the hard reality is that a vicar's salary is not designed to meet the needs of everyone", but somehow it doesn't occur to him that he's not the only one who could donate. How come shoplifting is better than begging? The passages below One might tell them to get a job, but it is at the very best of times extremely difficult for an ex prisoner to find work the likelihood is that, found begging, they will quickly be in trouble with the police, and therefore in breach of their parole. made me suspect this was an elaborate satire. I also wonder if the shoplifting suggestion also applies to poor people without a conviction history.
javert 17y ago
(This comment is a copy of a comment I made in response to a similar reply to my comment...) (1) No argumnet based on religion (that is, faith) can also be based on reason. Most of his sermon is about religion. It revolves around religion. Thus, it cannot be considered (as a whole) to be rational. (2) I think it would be rational to say stealing from a major chain store is less evil than violent crime, and possibly prostitution. But it's not rational to encourage people to steal. As you point out, most of the time, there are more choices than those presented--it's a false dilemma. There may be some cases in which steadling is the best option. However, the theif would certainly have a moral obligation to repay the store when he could, and that is not mentioned here. (Really, we need a basis for both 'rationality' and 'morality' to have this discussion, which can be had, but not in the space of a comment.)

jpr 17y ago

Neither was yours.

anigbrowl 17y ago

Eponysterical * * Entertainingly ironic, given the poster's username

astine 17y ago
I noticed that too, but wasn't sure if I should bring it up.
- nkurz 17y ago
  Could you explain? My name or javert's?
  - astine 17y ago
    Javert's. In the novel Les Miserables, the protagonist, Jean Valjean, steals bread in order to survive and is arrested. Later he skips his parol. Javert, a police officers chases him to the ends of the earth to bring him to justice. ("The ends of the earth" being figurative) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javert

anigbrowl 17y ago

It's a lot more rational than rational than paroling an experienced criminal back into society without the most basic means of economic support. While in prison, convicts typically work but the costs of their incarceration are set against their earnings, such that the amount they make is trivial, basically equivalent to pocket money for a child. Now while I don't think anyone should expect to go to prison for financial gain, society has an interest in motivating a convicted criminal to act within the law after their release. For petty and less serious crimes, providing some sort of economic incentive and organizational assistance following release from prison is probably more likely to reduce recidivism. I mean, in prison you have a roof over your head and a few meals every day - your physical basic survival is assured. In the case described in the sermon, a newly-released prisoner is then put into a position of trying to reintegrate into society with the equivalent of about 2 days' pay at minimum wage, which is not at all adequate to ensure basic physical survival, especially in winter. No matter how sincere a prisoner's remorse and intention of reform, putting them into a drastically worse economic situation immediately after release massively increases the temptation to crime - either for its immediate gain, or as a deliberate strategy to get sent back to prison and the surety of a bed/ roof/ meal.

selven 17y ago
We don't just kick them out without basic economic support. Especially for some classes of criminals, like sex offenders, we put a large sign on their back saying "I'M DANGEROUS". We ostracize them from society and make them feel like they don't belong. So it's only natural for them to want to go back to prison, where their troubles are the same as the troubles of the guy next to them and where they feel like they do belong.