3 ms·

Could you open up the logical process on how it's okay to steal someone's hard earned food?

by Jommi 7y ago

Nasrudith 7y ago
That is actually well established by legal and moral doctrine with necessity as a defense and lesser harms. Just as nobody would be charged with vandalism if they cut open a drain cover to rescue a trapped child - someone dying of starvation is a far greater harm than petty theft. The reason why mugging can be responded to with lethal force but not shoplifting for instance is because the previous includes a threat to another's life and there is no hard guarantee that compliance will save the victim. There are plenty of aspects of nuance with it of course including 'stealing to save yourself from starvation and causing someone else to starve' isn't morally right along with 'stealing when there were other viable alternatives without harm' is wrong. And of course messy matters of scale when things get really messed up like the Great Depression where farmers may have had plenty of food but were fiscally precarious - and many of the hungry couldn't afford it - one person shoplifting bread may be a lesser harm but if farms were robbed enmasse could cause them to go under. TL;DR - It is complicated and circumstantial.
- Jommi 7y ago
  Hey Nasrudith, I think you are on a interesting topic, but seems like you are comparing some quite different things. In your example cutting open a drain cover is not directly away from anyone, where as stealing food is. The thing you seem to be missing in your case, is that you are not taking into account the time factor and only looking at a single action. I agree that cutting open a drain cover (vandalism) is less bad when saving a trapped child. However, I do not agree that there should be nothing bad happening to the cutter. Imagine if instead of a drain cover it was someone's house. Would breaking a window and then being absolved of all responsibility be okay? Should there not be a middle ground where nobody is solely at a loss. Perhaps the breaker could pay for part of the new window? Perhaps the city could pay for the window as appreciation for the effort of saving one of their citizens? Perhaps here instead of stealing, the bread could be loaned, or sold at a cheaper price to those in need. Do you see what I am saying here?

Could you open up the logical process on how it's okay to steal someone's hard earned food?

by Jommi 7y ago

Could you open up the logical process on how it's okay to steal someone's hard earned food?

That is actually well established by legal and moral doctrine with necessity as a defense and lesser harms. Just as nobody would be charged with vandalism if they cut open a drain cover to rescue a trapped child - someone dying of starvation is a far greater harm than petty theft. The reason why mugging can be responded to with lethal force but not shoplifting for instance is because the previous includes a threat to another's life and there is no hard guarantee that compliance will save the victim. There are plenty of aspects of nuance with it of course including 'stealing to save yourself from starvation and causing someone else to starve' isn't morally right along with 'stealing when there were other viable alternatives without harm' is wrong. And of course messy matters of scale when things get really messed up like the Great Depression where farmers may have had plenty of food but were fiscally precarious - and many of the hungry couldn't afford it - one person shoplifting bread may be a lesser harm but if farms were robbed enmasse could cause them to go under. TL;DR - It is complicated and circumstantial.

Jommi 7y ago
Hey Nasrudith, I think you are on a interesting topic, but seems like you are comparing some quite different things. In your example cutting open a drain cover is not directly away from anyone, where as stealing food is. The thing you seem to be missing in your case, is that you are not taking into account the time factor and only looking at a single action. I agree that cutting open a drain cover (vandalism) is less bad when saving a trapped child. However, I do not agree that there should be nothing bad happening to the cutter. Imagine if instead of a drain cover it was someone's house. Would breaking a window and then being absolved of all responsibility be okay? Should there not be a middle ground where nobody is solely at a loss. Perhaps the breaker could pay for part of the new window? Perhaps the city could pay for the window as appreciation for the effort of saving one of their citizens? Perhaps here instead of stealing, the bread could be loaned, or sold at a cheaper price to those in need. Do you see what I am saying here?