5 ms·

I agree that they main point of ethics is providing a decision framework in the grey areas (if they were clear-cut, there would be no discussion). But that see

by bumby 4y ago

I agree that they main point of ethics is providing a decision framework in the grey areas (if they were clear-cut, there would be no discussion). But that seems off-place here. It leads to the question about "when is it okay to steal?" There's an obvious "defense of necessity", but that doesn't stop at stealing someone's means to a living. If it's legal to steal food in a disaster, it doesn't matter if that food comes from a neighbor's pantry or the bakers shelfs. The colloquialism described seems like one of those heuristics that feels true at first glance but quickly breaks down on further inspection (which is what a lot of ethical debate seeks to accomplish).

klyrs 4y ago
It's important to discuss alternatives, teach problem solving, etc. But at the end of the day, teaching your kid to starve to death because stealing is always wrong is only going to erode their trust in you. This isn't something that I brought up with my kid, btw. He led the conversation, he was asking honest and innocent questions. Shutting the door in his face loses the opportunity to discuss nuanced ethics when he's receptive to the conversation. If I drive, then it's just an abstract lecture.
- bumby 4y ago
  >But at the end of the day, teaching your kid to starve to death because stealing is always wrong is only going to erode their trust in you. This is a misinterpretation of my point, though. When I brought up the "defense of necessity", it was a direct acknowledgement that sometimes stealing is ok (or is at least, the more moral action). However, communicating vague heuristics based on shaky principles can set the ground for rationalization that leads to immoral behavior. When we read about abhorrent behavior (like in the featured article), it's more often than not the result of a line of rationalizations rooted in human biases rather than a principled moral stance. All I'm saying is the OP's guideline of "don't steal tools or a vehicle" isn't a particularly good first principle (for one, as the previous example shows, it could still result in starving).
- esoterica 4y ago
  Nobody in America will starve to death unless they have a severe mental illness that prevents them from obtaining help that is otherwise accessible to them. The welfare system is not great, but it's not that bad. Food stamps and food banks are a thing.
mistrial9 4y ago
I am really trying to reconcile the earnest goody-goodyness here against watching the low income housing at length in my crowded city, where stealing in multiple forms is a common and in fact relentless occurrence, for lots of reasons, with lots of attitude, with loud vulgar cursing in front of the multiple children standing in plain sight while it happens (once in a while). There are plain lies and made-up on the spot allegations, name-calling and posturing sometimes, sort of like a social theater. But much more often it is out of sight and some kind of sneakiness is involved. Next in line would be a completely different situation -- small business. Multiple times over long years of small business, I have seen crooked things done with money, by ordinary people.. probably parents. Some of those small business owners may have been from recent migrants, and felt pressured that way in a new city, but also not. Some small business people have certain words, phrases, they brush off the story, make it sound like it is the other person's fault, or that the questioner is confused somehow. And it continues... do they "teach their children not to steal" those small business people ? I dont know, but these stories are real.
hnfong 4y ago
> It leads to the question about "when is it okay to steal?" There are certainly situations where it is _morally_ OK to steal. You're confusing the question with when it is _legal_ to steal, which by definition there is none. > If it's legal to steal food in a disaster See above. > The colloquialism described seems like one of those heuristics that feels true at first glance but quickly breaks down on further inspection Slippery slope?
- bumby 4y ago
  The OP is making a moral case, not a case that it's legal to steal as long as it's not someone's vehicle or tools. >which by definition there is none. This is not true, if you consider stealing to be theft of property. See my comment below, where it is not illegal to steal in times of necessity. Legally, you are allowed to takes someone else's property to protect life or seriously bodily harm. This is because we recognize a hierarchy of legal rights. If you consider stealing to be whatever the law says is a crime of theft of property, then it's a begs-the-question fallacy. >Slippery slope? No. This is quite literally what ethicists do. The point of finding use-cases where a maxim breaks down is to find the limits of an ethical framework and to determine the first principles. E.g., if you say it's illegal to steal, full-stop, and I show you an instance where it is not illegal to take someone's property, it is a demonstration that your first principle is incorrect.

by bumby 4y ago

klyrs 4y ago

It's important to discuss alternatives, teach problem solving, etc. But at the end of the day, teaching your kid to starve to death because stealing is always wrong is only going to erode their trust in you. This isn't something that I brought up with my kid, btw. He led the conversation, he was asking honest and innocent questions. Shutting the door in his face loses the opportunity to discuss nuanced ethics when he's receptive to the conversation. If I drive, then it's just an abstract lecture.

bumby 4y ago
>But at the end of the day, teaching your kid to starve to death because stealing is always wrong is only going to erode their trust in you. This is a misinterpretation of my point, though. When I brought up the "defense of necessity", it was a direct acknowledgement that sometimes stealing is ok (or is at least, the more moral action). However, communicating vague heuristics based on shaky principles can set the ground for rationalization that leads to immoral behavior. When we read about abhorrent behavior (like in the featured article), it's more often than not the result of a line of rationalizations rooted in human biases rather than a principled moral stance. All I'm saying is the OP's guideline of "don't steal tools or a vehicle" isn't a particularly good first principle (for one, as the previous example shows, it could still result in starving).
esoterica 4y ago
Nobody in America will starve to death unless they have a severe mental illness that prevents them from obtaining help that is otherwise accessible to them. The welfare system is not great, but it's not that bad. Food stamps and food banks are a thing.

mistrial9 4y ago

I am really trying to reconcile the earnest goody-goodyness here against watching the low income housing at length in my crowded city, where stealing in multiple forms is a common and in fact relentless occurrence, for lots of reasons, with lots of attitude, with loud vulgar cursing in front of the multiple children standing in plain sight while it happens (once in a while). There are plain lies and made-up on the spot allegations, name-calling and posturing sometimes, sort of like a social theater. But much more often it is out of sight and some kind of sneakiness is involved. Next in line would be a completely different situation -- small business. Multiple times over long years of small business, I have seen crooked things done with money, by ordinary people.. probably parents. Some of those small business owners may have been from recent migrants, and felt pressured that way in a new city, but also not. Some small business people have certain words, phrases, they brush off the story, make it sound like it is the other person's fault, or that the questioner is confused somehow. And it continues... do they "teach their children not to steal" those small business people ? I dont know, but these stories are real.

hnfong 4y ago

> It leads to the question about "when is it okay to steal?" There are certainly situations where it is _morally_ OK to steal. You're confusing the question with when it is _legal_ to steal, which by definition there is none. > If it's legal to steal food in a disaster See above. > The colloquialism described seems like one of those heuristics that feels true at first glance but quickly breaks down on further inspection Slippery slope?

bumby 4y ago
The OP is making a moral case, not a case that it's legal to steal as long as it's not someone's vehicle or tools. >which by definition there is none. This is not true, if you consider stealing to be theft of property. See my comment below, where it is not illegal to steal in times of necessity. Legally, you are allowed to takes someone else's property to protect life or seriously bodily harm. This is because we recognize a hierarchy of legal rights. If you consider stealing to be whatever the law says is a crime of theft of property, then it's a begs-the-question fallacy. >Slippery slope? No. This is quite literally what ethicists do. The point of finding use-cases where a maxim breaks down is to find the limits of an ethical framework and to determine the first principles. E.g., if you say it's illegal to steal, full-stop, and I show you an instance where it is not illegal to take someone's property, it is a demonstration that your first principle is incorrect.