Is it Ethical to steal food when in need?

[amicus]

Shades of Les Miserables, but on the cable news channel, msnbc, they have a panel of preachers and educators debating that very subject in terms of the katrina aftermath.

I know pretty much what the general response will be when one questions the ethical behavior of a parent who takes food from a flooded supermarket to feed a hungry child.

A Christian and a Jewish spokesman stated that in both religions their 'bible' said that the taking of food was not to be considered 'stealing', even though, "Thou shalt not steal." was quoted also.

Before you jump into an answer, one might consider that even a loaf of bread has to be mixed, baked, wrapped and distributed for sale. As a commodity, it was created by someone and is that persons property.

Another layer is, 'does need justify theft?'

Then...how do you measure need?

I know, it seem ridiculous to consider that the starving people in New Orleans to be guilty of theft and stealing as they were taking foodstuffs, that were going to waste in flooded supermarkets.

Even so, what circumstances permit theft?

Another, wider question was also debated, that of individual responsibility for ones self in a disaster situation. What role should/does society play in relation to the poorer members of a community?

One can easily understand the ill and the aged, the mentally challenged, programs for those as wards of the state have been in place in most every society. But those aside, just the poor and less capable of providing for themselves, what role does community play and should it be voluntary or mandatory?

Just thoughts and questions...


amicus...

 

[Huckleman2000]

Shades of Les Miserables, but on the cable news channel, msnbc, they have a panel of preachers and educators debating that very subject in terms of the katrina aftermath.

I know pretty much what the general response will be when one questions the ethical behavior of a parent who takes food from a flooded supermarket to feed a hungry child.

A Christian and a Jewish spokesman stated that in both religions their 'bible' said that the taking of food was not to be considered 'stealing', even though, "Thou shalt not steal." was quoted also.

Before you jump into an answer, one might consider that even a loaf of bread has to be mixed, baked, wrapped and distributed for sale. As a commodity, it was created by someone and is that persons property.

Another layer is, 'does need justify theft?'

Then...how do you measure need?

I know, it seem ridiculous to consider that the starving people in New Orleans to be guilty of theft and stealing as they were taking foodstuffs, that were going to waste in flooded supermarkets.

Even so, what circumstances permit theft?

Another, wider question was also debated, that of individual responsibility for ones self in a disaster situation. What role should/does society play in relation to the poorer members of a community?

One can easily understand the ill and the aged, the mentally challenged, programs for those as wards of the state have been in place in most every society. But those aside, just the poor and less capable of providing for themselves, what role does community play and should it be voluntary or mandatory?

Just thoughts and questions...


amicus...

I think you answered your own question - within the system of production, distribution, and medium of exchange, a loaf of bread has value. When that system breaks down, the only value the bread carries is as sustenance. It has ceased being "property", except in the sense that it is a scarce resource for the people who depend on it for survival. As much as one might yearn for absolutes in the realm of "right" and "wrong", the application of ethical principles inevitably leads to contradictions in behavior.

In that sense, the rapid breakdown of what most of us consider "modern society" is one of the truly frightening revelations in this disaster.

 

[amicus]

thanx huckleman..."...In that sense, the rapid breakdown of what most of us consider "modern society" is one of the truly frightening revelations in this disaster...."

I agree...the veneer of civilization seems very thin at times.


amicus...

 

[Huckleman2000]

thanx huckleman..."...In that sense, the rapid breakdown of what most of us consider "modern society" is one of the truly frightening revelations in this disaster...."

I agree...the veneer of civilization seems very thin at times.


amicus...

Actually, a book you would probably like would be "Lucifer's Hammer", by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle (a Libertarian of the first order). It's about exactly that. A comet hits the West Coast of America, and civilization goes to shit in about two seconds. I haven't read it in decades, but I remember that the people who come out of it depend pretty much on an independent survivalist-type and a postal worker (the lone useful remnant of governmental infrastructure).

 

[Weird Harold]

Actually, a book you would probably like would be "Lucifer's Hammer", by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle (a Libertarian of the first order). It's about exactly that. A comet hits the West Coast of America, and civilization goes to shit in about two seconds. I haven't read it in decades, but I remember that the people who come out of it depend pretty much on an independent survivalist-type and a postal worker (the lone useful remnant of governmental infrastructure).

You're confusing Lucifer's Hammer with David Brin's Postman.

Niven and Pournelle also wrote Footfall which adds an alien invasion to the basic asteroid/comet impact scenario of Lucifer's Hammer.

 

[R. Richard]

I think you answered your own question - within the system of production, distribution, and medium of exchange, a loaf of bread has value. When that system breaks down, the only value the bread carries is as sustenance. It has ceased being "property", except in the sense that it is a scarce resource for the people who depend on it for survival. As much as one might yearn for absolutes in the realm of "right" and "wrong", the application of ethical principles inevitably leads to contradictions in behavior.

I can agree with your excellent answer in a static sense. In a group of starving people, stealing a loaf of bread is the gift of life.

However, if the person who steals the loaf of bread tries to continue that theft past the point of real emergency, the provider of the loaf of bread will cease to be the provider. Thus, ultimately, the theft of the loaf of bread is wrong. The only redeeming point of the theft is the saving of life over the short term.

JMHO.

 

[Liar]

Even so, what circumstances permit theft?

A reasonably undeiable lack of options in order to survive. I honestly believe that if it comes down to a conflict between one man's right to life and another man's right to property, the former has first dibs.

But in almost all cases of theft, there are of course options that doesn't violate either right.

In the NO looting situation, the store owner's right to his bread was forfeit anyway in most cases, since he'd never be able to sell it. So it's the equivalence of scavenging trash cans.

 

[fifty5]

Imagine...

...
A "finds" a loaf of bread in a flooded supermarket, which he intends to eat himself because he hasn't eaten for days.

B takes the bread from A by force - to feed his own injured child.

...

I think it is quite easy to invent hypotheticals (or observe actuals) and then confuse the issue.

EG by pointing out that most individuals can survive without any food for tens of days (unlike water), while diabetics may die from lack of sugar in hours.

In practice, just as long as angels-on-a-pinhead are left out of the discussion, the "reasonable man" has little difficulty in making reasonable judgements: those salvaging food in New Orleans are, in general, perfectly moral; those looting flood damaged TVs are either stupid (the damn things won't work, so are worthless), or planning to rip someone off by selling them damaged goods.

 

[elsol]

Are you asking the moral question or the ethical one?

Morality is about right and wrong.

I consider the more exact definition to be about rules of conduct BETWEEN people.

Morally if stealing is wrong, then there's never a circumstance where it's 'right'.

Ethically: Stealing is about an agreement between people--I don't take your shit and you don't take mine.

I believe the social contract broke in New Orleans.


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Liar]

...
A "finds" a loaf of bread in a flooded supermarket, which he intends to eat himself because he hasn't eaten for days.

B takes the bread from A by force - to feed his own injured child.

Looking at nothing but ownership, A is right and B is wrong. The bread was "abandoned", nothing but waste for it's original owner, the store. So A could take it. Then the bread had a new owner, A. So B can not take it.

Looking at common dececy, A should give the bread to B, because (I assume from the information given) B's kid needs it the most.

Looking at it from a owner's right vs survivor's right, I'd say there must be some intermediate way to solve the dilemma.

 

[champagne1982]

I didn't steal that bread,
I merely borrowed it.
You can have your shit back
when I'm through
with it.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Are you asking the moral question or the ethical one?

Morality is about right and wrong.

I consider the more exact definition to be about rules of conduct BETWEEN people.

Morally if stealing is wrong, then there's never a circumstance where it's 'right'.

Ethically: Stealing is about an agreement between people--I don't take your shit and you don't take mine.

I believe the social contract broke in New Orleans.

Sincerely,
ElSol

See, this is where I get confused. I know that moral absolutists like the Catholic hierarchy rail against "situational ethics", but how would a system that places ultimate value on "life" argue against taking the loaf of bread in the situation described? Why is sustaining life by radical modern medical means, as in the Terri Schaivo case, morally 'right', but stealing bread during a life & death emergency is morally 'wrong'? [note - I don't know if that's the position of the Church on the bread thing, but ElSol appears to be arguing a moral absolutist position)

 

[Pure]

sauce for the gander

and here's related ones for Amicus's objective answer:

[Assume there is something a great deal less-than-total breakdown of law and order, ... perhaps something like NO, today, Sunday, Sept 11.]

{{Added For clarity: Supporse there is substantial law and order; mostly civilization is present, even if obviously enforced. For this situation, perhaps somewhat like NO, today, Sept 11, answer the following questions.}}

Is it ethical for the ones with {{legally made or acquired}} supplies of bread to charge what they please--'what the market will bear'-- to those in need?

If necessary to guard privately owned supplies, is it ethical for the owners to hire a private security force and direct it to use lethal force against those attempting to loot or steal. (I.e. 'shoot anyone in the act of breaking into this privately owned warehouse.')

{{For the 'you' form, if you prefer, see below}}

others, of course, feel free to respond, since perhaps Ami will lack the nerve

===
'You' forms:

Is it ethical for the you, assuming you have [legally made or acquired] supplies of bread, to charge what you please--'what the market will bear'-- to those in need?

If necessary to guard your privately owned supplies, is it ethical for you, the owner, to hire a private security force and direct it to use lethal force against those attempting to loot or steal. (I.e. 'shoot anyone in the act of breaking into this, my privately owned warehouse.')

 

[elsol]

See, this is where I get confused. I know that moral absolutists like the Catholic hierarchy rail against "situational ethics", but how would a system that places ultimate value on "life" argue against taking the loaf of bread in the situation described? Why is sustaining life by radical modern medical means, as in the Terri Schaivo case, morally 'right', but stealing bread during a life & death emergency is morally 'wrong'? [note - I don't know if that's the position of the Church on the bread thing, but ElSol appears to be arguing a moral absolutist position)

In my mind the answer is simple.

The 'act' is always morally wrong, but at times, moral wrongs are necessary.

It does not absolve me of the act; even in this situation, I would follow the strictures of my church that would allow me to be forgiven for my sin.

---

The bigger question for me in this situation, is did we (I) make a moral wrong necessary in this case.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[elsol]

Is it ethical for the ones with supplies of bread to charge what they please--'what the market will bear'-- to those in need?

In that situation, there is no social contract, therefore there are no ethics.

Do what you will, but I would keep on thing in mind, there is NO SOCIAL CONTRACT.

If necessary to guard privately owned supplies, is it ethical for the owners to hire a private security force and direct it to use lethal force against those attempting to loot or steal. (I.e. 'shoot anyone in the act of breaking into this privately owned warehouse.')

others, of course, feel free to respond, since perhaps Ami will lack the nerve

[/quote]

Again, NO SOCIAL CONTRACT.

I hope you can find people willing to kill thousands or millions... willing to risk their life when it would be easier to put a bullet in YOU.

If there is no socail contract, I'm killing the bread-owners and hashing out whether or not it was the wrong thing to do with God.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Boxlicker101]

and here's related ones for Amicus's objective answer:

[Assume there is something a great deal less than a total breakdown of law and order, ... perhaps something like NO, today, Sunday, Sept 11.]

Is it ethical for the ones with supplies of bread to charge what they please--'what the market will bear'-- to those in need?

If necessary to guard privately owned supplies, is it ethical for the owners to hire a private security force and direct it to use lethal force against those attempting to loot or steal. (I.e. 'shoot anyone in the act of breaking into this privately owned warehouse.')

others, of course, feel free to respond, since perhaps Ami will lack the nerve

I don't believe the price gouging you describe would ever be either ethical or moral. It might or might not be legal. Suppose a gang of survivors found a grocery store that was on higher ground and had survived the flood. Further suppose the store is stocked with usable food and water and other beverages. Taking those things by force and selling them at grossly inflated prices would also not be legal and the gang would probably be arrested after things got back to normal. If the owner of the store was the one doing the selling, it would be legal. Under no circumstances, though, would it be moral or ethical.

Looting of TV sets and things like that is pretty dumb. Even if they are functional, they are bulky and hard to manage. The thing to steal would be jewelry and things like rare coins and other small, highly valuable items. I suppose the owners of things like that made sure they were secure before leaving the city, or took them with them.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Again, NO SOCIAL CONTRACT.

I hope you can find people willing to kill thousands or millions... willing to risk their life when it would be easier to put a bullet in YOU.

If there is no socail contract, I'm killing the bread-owners and hashing out whether or not it was the wrong thing to do with God.

Sincerely,
ElSol

See, that's what confuses me. If absolute morality has such little to do with the extremes, let alone day-to-day circumstances, of what good is it to people as a code to live by? Aren't we all better off trying to live by a couple of principles, like "do unto others...", than by a codified set of absolute moral rules?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by elsol
Again, NO SOCIAL CONTRACT.

I hope you can find people willing to kill thousands or millions... willing to risk their life when it would be easier to put a bullet in YOU.

If there is no socail contract, I'm killing the bread-owners and hashing out whether or not it was the wrong thing to do with God.

Sincerely,
ElSol

See, that's what confuses me. If absolute morality has such little to do with the extremes, let alone day-to-day circumstances, of what good is it to people as a code to live by? Aren't we all better off trying to live by a couple of principles, like "do unto others...", than by a codified set of absolute moral rules?

There is still a social contract. Because of the extreme circumstances, it is temporarily suspended in NO but, after things are back more or less to normal, people will be held accountable for things they have done. Those who have taken vital necessities from stores will have no reason to worry but those who have been videotaped plundering and raping and shooting will be dealt with. Those who have committed crimes against their fellow refugees at the Superdome or other places will not be permitted to get away with them. That is not to say that everybody will be caught, but a good many will.

 

[amicus]

Two things....Les Miserables, by Victor Hugo concerns a man who stole a loaf of bread to feed his child and was pursued by French law for his entire life for that crime. It is the quintessential question of ethics and morality.

Secondly, in the examples given about property above, move it from the hypothetical to the real, transpose it to 'your' store on high ground, your mini mart, convenience store, supermarket, your investmentment in stock in the building, the utilities the furnishings.

Would 'you' use deadly force to defend it and would you be acting morally and ethically in doing so even though people were in need?

And... I always answer every question, meet every criticism and even admit to error, though it seldom occurs.

Thank you.

amicus...

 

[elsol]

Would 'you' use deadly force to defend it and would you be acting morally and ethically in doing so even though people were in need?

Concequences?

If your answer is none, then I would use deadly force to make certain people shut the fuck up.

Who gives a shit about morality or ethics if there are no concequences.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Liar]

Secondly, in the examples given about property above, move it from the hypothetical to the real, transpose it to 'your' store on high ground, your mini mart, convenience store, supermarket, your investmentment in stock in the building, the utilities the furnishings.

Would 'you' use deadly force to defend it and would you be acting morally and ethically in doing so even though people were in need?

And... I always answer every question, meet every criticism and even admit to error, though it seldom occurs.

You ask if I would use deadly force to protect property?

To take human lifes so that I can keep my...stuff?

If it's moral, ethical and, thirdly, would I do it?

No, no and no. Violence is the lowest and most despiccable behaviour there is, and should be avoided, unless as a means to prevent worse violence. That is the very core value of my personal ethics, and can't be compromized.

 

[Pure]

OK, ami, proceed to the questions:

Amicus: And... I always answer every question, meet every criticism and even admit to error, though it seldom occurs.

---
OK, again, please answer. Since you want to substitute 'you,' in the questions, I have done so, to suit you

[Assume there is something a great deal less-than-total breakdown of law and order, {there is a good deal of law and order, iow}... perhaps something like NO, today, Sunday, Sept 11.]

{For that situation, consider the questions, below.}

Is it ethical for the you, assuming you have supplies of bread, to charge what you please--'what the market will bear'-- to those in need?

If necessary to guard your privately owned supplies, is it ethical for you, the owner, to hire a private security force and direct it to use lethal force against those attempting to loot or steal. (I.e. 'shoot anyone in the act of breaking into this, my privately owned warehouse.')

---
PS to elsol:

I majored in ethics: i have not heard of trying to counterpose 'morals' and 'ethics'. there are various accounts of the different spheres: one is right/wrong for the first, good/bad for the other. It is also sometimes said that ethics deals with higher-order principles, i.e., the question as to judging and act by its consequences (not its motive).

To your suggestion:
The 'act' is always morally wrong, but at times, moral wrongs are necessary.

I would phrase it rather differently, and I *think* the RCC would also. The act of killing a human being, taken in an of itself (or in the abstract) is wrong. In a particular case, say, of killing someone about to kill your child, the act is 'killing to defend one's child'; it is NOT morally wrong.
So it's kind of misleading to say 'at times, moral wrongs are necessary' for the latter case does not, in fact, involve a moral wrong.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Is it ethical to steal food when none is to be had through legal means? Perhaps a better question would be is it rational to starve to death in the pursuit of maintaining your ethical standards?

People are programed by nature to try and survive. It isn't something you can rationalize. It's so ingrained even your body follows it. When the body starves, it begins to feed off itsel;f, and it does so in the most effcient and ruthless manner possible. The last things to be damaged are the organs you HAVE to have to survive. Similarly, if you begin to asphixiate, the body will preserved oxygen flow to the most vital organs.

When faced with starvation, the only move you can make is to eat or to die. This too is shown by people resorting to cannibalism in extreme instances. It is also shown, by the general acceptance of society that such measures were neccessary.

If you are in a ravaged city, where all regular outlest of securing food are denied you, you have to do whatever it takes to continue living.

Society, must offer people in such straights the widest possible latitude.

There is a definte line between stealing to survive and taking advantage of a disaster to go looting.

The ethical decision does not lie with the man stealing formula, bread and peanut butter to feed his family. It lies with those who are not in his situation to decide what was ehtical or not. His decision was value neutral, predicated on drives and instincts which are hard wired into most creatures. The need to survive.

 

[amicus]

Pure...

"...Is it ethical for the you, assuming you have supplies of bread, to charge what you please--'what the market will bear'-- to those in need?

If necessary to guard your privately owned supplies, is it ethical for you, the owner, to hire a private security force and direct it to use lethal force against those attempting to loot or steal. (I.e. 'shoot anyone in the act of breaking into this, my privately owned warehouse.')..."

I will answer the questions, but first: If I answer yes, or no, to either question you can agree and be happy or disagree and be angry.

Since I continually rail against subjective opinions, situational ethics and continually state that morals and ethics are reasonable, rational, 'objective' concepts, then I must do the same, to be consistent, in my answers to you.

Since I have also stated that 'words' have absolute, objective and 'real' meanings, then it is necessary to clarify that we have an understanding about the words we use.

As an example, you used the word 'ethical' in the first line above of your question.

What is the widest definition of the word and what does it mean and imply?

"Ethics: That branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions." (bold face mine)

That is a dictionary definition, not my own personal one, and that concept of 'ethics' is accepted world-wide and in all cultures and at all times. It is what the word means and is defined to be, i.e. an absolute definition.

In reference to your question about bread; from the beginning of time, the value of food was understood. Whether it was a freshly killed carcass, or a butchered 12oz chateau briand.

Customs and styles varied as 'food' is/was more available with less effort in some places than others.

But I think you will agree that 'food' is one of the necessities of life and as such has value.

Many of a certain political persuasion dislike the use of the term 'property' and 'private property' to describe the possessions of an individual.

Have patience, I am building a framework in order that you can visualize the thought process that leads to a conclusion and an answer to your question.

Whether I pick an apple in the aboriginal wilderness where no one claims ownership of the tree, or purchase the apple from a vendor and pay the asked price, the apple becomes, 'mine'. I possess it, I own it, it is 'my' property.

"..."...Is it ethical for the you, assuming you have supplies of bread, to charge what you please--'what the market will bear'-- to those in need?..."

The answer is: Yes it is ethical for me to dispose of my property in any way I see fit, to anyone I choose.

Now, would I be a ratfink bastard if I charged whatever the market will bear in a situation like the Katrina disaster? Yes, I would be a ratfink bastard uncaring about the needs of others, but, my action would be ethical.

It would also be moral. We do not sell or dispose of our 'property' according to the needs of others. We sell or dispose of or consume our property in our own best self interest. That is a moral and a rational act.

Most people will recognize that as a bread seller, I had to pay X amount to purchase the ingredients to make the bread and that my time and effort in making the bread also has value. Most people recognize that I must have a return of at least X to match my original outlay.

Most people also recognize that I must have a 'return', or 'profit' on my investment in order to live another day.

Most people thus acknowledge that the market, what a buyer will pay, is also part if the equasion. If I demand X plus .15X, that would most likely compare with other bread sellers asking price.

Were I to demand 5X or 50X, I would most likely not be able to sell my product under normal circumstances.

Therein enters supply and demand. A starving man or a man suffering from thirst will most likely pay whatever price is asked rather than go without. And if desperate enough might use force or fraud or theft to gain the product.

To extend the scope of your question: Vendors who overcharge for product or deliver inferior, shoddy product are likely to lose customers and fail in his efforts to gain a return on his investments.

Vendors who undercharge, take a loss on their product, will soon fail unless they have unlimited means to support a failing business (such as government).


Okay, thas probably enough to confuse or piss off everyone again, I know you had a second question, and I had wanted to address Colleen Thomas's post also, perhaps later.

amicus...

 

[jeanne_d_artois]

I can't be bothered to change by identity back so this is from jeanne_d_artois.

If a supermarket has been abandoned because of the flooding and is damaged then the goods in it are unsaleable and worthless to the owner except as proof of an insured loss.

If someone then takes food from that supermarket to maintain life then I consider (and that is all it can be, my view,) that a crime was not committed.

If the structure is damaged to gain entrance to take the food, the damage IS a crime because that structure might be salvageable and the owner will have suffered a real loss.

Jeanne D'Artois aka Og