4 ms·

I see it as simple moral calculus. The right to eat is prior to the right to property. I don't see how any other position is morally defensible.

OfSanguineFire 3y ago
Have you ever spent time with antifa and anarchists, of the sort who would post on Mastodon the slogan I mentioned above? Their approval of shoplifting is not merely about the hungry having a basic human right to eat; they commonly approve of non-starving people stealing from chain supermarkets – even if it’s an unessential item like a chocolate bar – as the working class’s act of resistance to corporations or whatever.
- pasabagi 3y ago
  I don't care what other people think about it. The moral argument is unambiguous, and that doesn't change because assholes take one side or the other.
justsomehnguy 3y ago
> The right to eat is prior to the right to property It's so easy to deal in absolutes. There are enough of people who are shoplifting not because they need to eat. As someone who was on the government support, you really should do nothing to be in need to shoplift to sustain yourself.
- pasabagi 3y ago
  Easy for whom? If you were a politician and said what I said, you would be called a communist. You'd be demonized in the media. You'd never get a ministerial position for the rest of your life. Yet, it's still obviously true. What is easy is to pretend that a simple issue is a complex and ambiguous one, and so, we don't need to ruffle feathers.
Seanambers 3y ago
Moral Calculus? What you are describing is anarchy and lawlessness - it is not moral to steal no matter the reason.
- pasabagi 3y ago
  Do you consider the right to property as more fundamental than the right to life? If not, then it must sometimes be moral to steal.
  - Seanambers 3y ago
    Right to life? First of all stealing as a last resort to avoid death is not whats happening. And yes there is a case to made that if all other options are exhausted you do what you need to do, even if it is morally wrong. That is not the same as shoplifting luxury goods, clip ons, apple products, shoes or whatever. You are very focused on rights, but everyone has rights, and there is a limit to where your rights can go, based on when they start to infringe another person rights. Also in basically all western countries there is support structure in place to feed the poor, so that no one should go hungry.
    - pasabagi 3y ago
      > in basically all western countries there is support structure in place to feed the poor, so that no one should go hungry. There is no such support structure in the UK. There are the informal 'food banks', but they are overstretched and ad-hoc. So, unsurprisingly, people do go hungry. So, prima facie, there must be cases where the shoplifters are right and the law is wrong, at least until you have put an adequate foodbank system in place.

OfSanguineFire 3y ago

Have you ever spent time with antifa and anarchists, of the sort who would post on Mastodon the slogan I mentioned above? Their approval of shoplifting is not merely about the hungry having a basic human right to eat; they commonly approve of non-starving people stealing from chain supermarkets – even if it’s an unessential item like a chocolate bar – as the working class’s act of resistance to corporations or whatever.

pasabagi 3y ago
I don't care what other people think about it. The moral argument is unambiguous, and that doesn't change because assholes take one side or the other.

justsomehnguy 3y ago

> The right to eat is prior to the right to property It's so easy to deal in absolutes. There are enough of people who are shoplifting not because they need to eat. As someone who was on the government support, you really should do nothing to be in need to shoplift to sustain yourself.

pasabagi 3y ago
Easy for whom? If you were a politician and said what I said, you would be called a communist. You'd be demonized in the media. You'd never get a ministerial position for the rest of your life. Yet, it's still obviously true. What is easy is to pretend that a simple issue is a complex and ambiguous one, and so, we don't need to ruffle feathers.

Seanambers 3y ago

Moral Calculus? What you are describing is anarchy and lawlessness - it is not moral to steal no matter the reason.

pasabagi 3y ago
Do you consider the right to property as more fundamental than the right to life? If not, then it must sometimes be moral to steal.
- Seanambers 3y ago
  Right to life? First of all stealing as a last resort to avoid death is not whats happening. And yes there is a case to made that if all other options are exhausted you do what you need to do, even if it is morally wrong. That is not the same as shoplifting luxury goods, clip ons, apple products, shoes or whatever. You are very focused on rights, but everyone has rights, and there is a limit to where your rights can go, based on when they start to infringe another person rights. Also in basically all western countries there is support structure in place to feed the poor, so that no one should go hungry.
  - pasabagi 3y ago
    > in basically all western countries there is support structure in place to feed the poor, so that no one should go hungry. There is no such support structure in the UK. There are the informal 'food banks', but they are overstretched and ad-hoc. So, unsurprisingly, people do go hungry. So, prima facie, there must be cases where the shoplifters are right and the law is wrong, at least until you have put an adequate foodbank system in place.