Is it Ethical to steal food when in need?

[amicus]

Og...I am quite sure you will perceive this as 'picky', but in a damage warehouse or not the product, commodity had an owner.

I really need and want a 40inch wall hanging television set should I take your because you leave your door open...or pass away and your heirs have not yet appeared?

There is right and wrong, there is ethical and moral and we do live by a code of law that protects ownership of property.

I can't see where you have any support or foundation for your argument except the implied 'need' of the looter.

Then if it is 'moral' to loot, steal, for 'need' of one kind, then anything goes; I might need a heart transplant here one day soon." says amicus as he glances around the room at possible donors. "Why should I not take it from a good and healthy Litster?"

 

[Boxlicker101]

If the question comes to this: Which is the more ethical?

A. Take food and other necessities from a store that has its windows broken out by a windstorm. or

B. Refrain from taking anything from that store, even though most or all the contents will just go to waste anyhow, and let yourself and your family suffer?

I think most people would choose "A". If you want to be really honest, you can keep track of what you take and pay for it after the store has reopened. If it never opens again, maybe you can figure out something else to do with what you would have paid, such as relief for other victims.

 

[amicus]

A rational and logical answer boxlicker...yes...and you draw attention to the fact that honesty and integrity are also values and still respect the property rights of the owner.

thanks...amicus...

 

[Liar]

Then if it is 'moral' to loot, steal, for 'need' of one kind, then anything goes; I might need a heart transplant here one day soon." says amicus as he glances around the room at possible donors. "Why should I not take it from a good and healthy Litster?"

Because they still have use for their hearts. Same thing with my big-ass TV set. Your examplification is not relevant.

Like I said: Food in a supermaket in a disaster area will not ever be sold. It will only rot and get inedible. Thus it is not a commodity anymore. It is not a resource for the store owner - it is equivalent garbage. So the "looters" of food there is not stealing anything.

If I throw my big-ass TV set out, by all means, help yourself. Or if I go blind, and can't watch TV anymore. Although in that case, it still has value for me, since I have the opportunity to choose who I want to give it to.

Bottom line: Goods that are null and void as a commodity for it's original owner, is public domain. My heart is not null and void. My TV is not null and void. Not even a TV in a NO warehouse or home is null and void, because it can wait for the rightful owner's return.

Bread can not. Of if it is, I don't want to know what it's made of.

 

[SeaCat]

Amicus,

I will not attempt to answer this with Ethics or Morals. Nor will I attempt to answer it for other people. I will answer it only from my own personal viewpoint.

If, in a time of need I find that I have the choice of taking food and/or other supplies in order that myself or others may live then the choice is quite easy. I will take those supplies and deal with the consequences later. For me it is a matter of honor.

On the other hand I will not take something that I or others don't need for our survival. Again it is a matter of honor.

As for the taking of anothers life in order to protect my life or the lives of others under my protection, (and yes this does include the protection of any supplies we need for our survival.) Not to sound flip but I have to be alive to deal with the consequences of my actions,

Cat

 

[amicus]

I understand, Seacat and perhaps none of us would know what our actions might be in a real situation.

We are in essence practicing rhetoric here, speculating on what actions might be necessary if we found ourselves in a situation such as the residents of New Orleans in the Katrina aftermath.

I am suspicious of those who justify their actions based on 'need', without regard to honesty and integrity and the actual ownership of the property the take without permission or payment.

And I fully agree the taking a life in self defense or the protection of others and even your 'property' is also moral and ethical and a 'right' thing to do.

amicus...

 

[Pure]

sizing up 'objective ethics' as described by Amicus

There were two questions relating to emergency situations, like Katrina, in the last couple days: 1)one about charging what you will, for 'bread,' and 2)the other about defending your privately owned warehouse of food, using lethal force.

To 1) Amicus says, 'ethical', 'moral,' yes. That's after a couple hundred words, including a dictionary search of the term 'ethical' he himself introduced in the thread title.

But, he says, he'd be a ratfink to follow this ethical rule in the case at hand.

So 'objective ethics' dictates (or allows) an act--gouging-- that makes you a ratfink.

More strongly: NOT to be a ratfink, you have to ignore your objective, rational ethics conclusion, and, presumably, look to your compassion.

For question 2), it *seems* Amicus' answer is 'yes, ethical' to kill to keep one's food warehouse intact. No doubt a bit ratfink-ish too. So again Amicus must ignore the objective ethics and follow his heart, and out of its flowing beneficence open his warehouse to the clawing hands of the unwashed.

One can see that such an ethic is radically incomplete, if not inconsistent.
Sort of like the theologian who says to you, "The scripture, which I believe, says you'll go to hell for sure, but you're a heck of decent guy, and I'd be sorry as hell--excuse the pun-- to see it happen. It would be fine with me if God saved you."

Amicus has the same problem in another thread, when as a 'minimal government' (and 'framers intent' for the Constitution) person he should be saying --'get the Feds out', and 'why are they forcing Montanans to pay for the improvidence of poor NO folk who refused to leave?' Instead he waxes lyrical about the 'human family' and how we all care for each other, and sure he supports relief.

Ayn Rand spoke for the "virtue of selfishness" and the morality of it. Ami doesn't quite have the guts to endorse it, having to say, in effect
"But I'm no rat fink, I'm a nice guy; trust me, I won't follow the 'objective ethics;' I wouldn't charge $100 for a loaf of bread, to a starving New Orleander."

But then, of course, he's 'seldom wrong,' and maybe I've missed something, as liberal pukes are wont to do.

=======


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?..."

Ami: 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.

====
AMi And I fully agree the taking a life in self defense or the protection of others and even your 'property' is also moral and ethical and a 'right' thing to do.

 

[amicus]

Thanks for the chuckle, Pure...I appreciate that.

The trouble with you is that you are looking for something to believe in.

I, on the other hand search for truth through understanding.

I used the 'couple hundred' words merely to demonstrate a rational thought process, for your benefit.

I could have used language more similar to Ms. Rand and much shorter, but you usually just snort at that.

In philosophical debate, the path you have chosen is the 'lifeboat ethic'; i.e. X number of people in a life boat with limited supplies that will support only X-2 individuals, who goes?

One does not derive an ethical or a moral system from an emergency situation; one pursues understanding during normative times and sets a rational standard of behavior in ones own best self interest.

My use of 'ratfink' was an attempt to commicate in your terms, on a subjective level, I did not expect to suceed.

The essential point in my post was that ethics and morality are branches of formal philosophy worthy of serious consideration.

I offered a fundamental value of human life as a starting point and an avenue to follow if you had interest.

I should simply have said, yes, you have a right to own and dispose of your property in any way you see fit and yes you have an absolute right to defend your life and property with lethal force.

But you would have argued or disagreed with that also. With you, a lose, lose situation.


amicus...

 

[shereads]

Anyone who claims they would put ethics before survival when faced with dehydration or starvation is either lying or crazy.

The thing about taking food and water from an abandoned store is that you can always track down the owner and pay for it, assuming you both survived.

Taking advantage of a disaster to steal a TV set is a criminal act. Taking the necessities of survival when there is no better alternative is an act for which you can easily make amends later. Taking them at the cost of the owner's survival would obviously be unethical.

 

[Weird Harold]

The thing about taking food and water from an abandoned store is that you can always track down the owner and pay for it, assuming you both survived.

If I concerned myself about the owner of an abandoned store at all, it would be to bill him for the "clean-up" performed in saving him the trouble of clearing out the abandoned food before restocking.

 

[shereads]

If I concerned myself about the owner of an abandoned store at all, it would be to bill him for the "clean-up" performed in saving him the trouble of clearing out the abandoned food before restocking.

Don't forget the cut on your hand from when you broke the window. There's a class action lawsuit here somewhere...

 

[Weird Harold]

Don't forget the cut on your hand from when you broke the window. There's a class action lawsuit here somewhere...

I'm not dumb enough to cut myself breaking a window -- that's what bricks are for.

Seriously though, if I ever found myself in a situation where I needed to forage from an abandoned store to survive, I'd take what I need while doing as little damage as possible. There's no survival benefit in destroying things just to be destroying something and if the store is still in a condition that it needs to be broken into, I'd seriously consider moving into it for shelter as well as food.

 

[shereads]

I'm not dumb enough to cut myself breaking a window -- that's what bricks are for.

As long as you paid for the brick or brought one of your own.

 

[oggbashan]

Og...I am quite sure you will perceive this as 'picky', but in a damage warehouse or not the product, commodity had an owner.

I really need and want a 40inch wall hanging television set should I take your because you leave your door open...or pass away and your heirs have not yet appeared?

There is right and wrong, there is ethical and moral and we do live by a code of law that protects ownership of property.

I can't see where you have any support or foundation for your argument except the implied 'need' of the looter.

Then if it is 'moral' to loot, steal, for 'need' of one kind, then anything goes; I might need a heart transplant here one day soon." says amicus as he glances around the room at possible donors. "Why should I not take it from a good and healthy Litster?"

Isn't it amazing how you answer a point I never made.

I, as Jeanne, was discussing the morality of taking a loaf of bread for preservation of life from an abandoned store and saying that damaging the store was not acceptable.

You mentioned other products, a television, looting. I didn't.

I have been in that situation and I 'looted' food and water from a dead body. No doubt his heirs might have disputed my action but by the time they recovered the body the food and water would have been spoilt beyond use by the decomposition. If they could have recovered the body earlier then I wouldn't have been in need. I didn't and don't regret my act. I didn't remove and wouldn't have removed any item of value from the body.

Og

 

[shereads]

Isn't it amazing how you answer a point I never made.

It is, isn't it?



If I didn't know better, I'd think amicus was really five college fraternity brothers competing to see whose posts can generate the most frustrated replies. The truth is, he's five bored prison inmates competing to seeing whose posts can generate the most frustrated replies.

The one og just spoke to is in third place.

 

[Pure]

Nice try, though it's great to see civility

Amicus,
As i quote you below, you claim I've set up a 'lifeboat' situation, where, of course, ethics are going to be pretty harsh or go by the board, i.e., it's (on some views) ethics or survival.

Neither question in fact involved that situation. In question 1), I said you had some bread that you could sell. I presumed it was clear that you didn't need it to eat yourself. The question was the ethics of charging the starving NO person a hundred dollars for the bread.

In question 2), a warehouse was mentioned, and I was attempting NOT to make the supply necessary to oneself or family. For example, it's bread I intend to sell, but I don't require this sale's money in order to survive. So neither question pits my life or my family's against the other guy's; simply my [nonvital] 'interest'.

You said 'ethical' but ratfinkish to price-gouge. You're in the odd position of saying, "Following my own ethics would make me a ratfink." Most ethicists are for congruence of ethic and goodness: "Follow this ethic as a way of living like a good person."

Again, your ethic says (below)

a rational standard of behavior in ones own best self interest.

for 'normative' [sic], i.e., normal times.

Consider again, in the somewhat non \normal time of scarcity, but not total civil breakdown, is it 'rational' to look only to your 'best self interest'?

In effect you say, 'rational', but ratfinkish. Again, you're proposing to discard rationality in this scarcity situation (in order not to be a rat fink).

I myself see nothing particularly 'rational' or 'ethical' about using scarcity to get a hundred bucks for a loaf of bread (that I want to sell; i.e., one that I and my family and Fluffy don't need; neither is $100 necessary for my kid's medicine, etc.)

Indeed I hold it both rational and ethical to have some concern for the welfare of the other guy, and for the 'overall' benefits in the situation.
I.e., I can do quite well getting $5 for my bread loaf, or bread loaves. I.e., do well (selling bread), but not get rich. {This is not the Halliburton approach you endorse as ethical.}

Joe, my customer, if he spends a $100, is going to lack that money to buy his kids other food and medicine. So I see nothing 'irrational' about giving a fellow human being a break. Indeed, a higher ethics of the situation might suggest I simply *give* the bread to the fellow (but not to everyone, all the time, for ever, since I need a certain return to buy further supplies, etc.)

Again, your limited view of reason is what forces you to discard conclusions based on it. I.e., to assure us you wouldn't be such a ratfink as to follow your reason in this case.

----
Amicus said in part:

In philosophical debate, the path you have chosen is the 'lifeboat ethic'; i.e. X number of people in a life boat with limited supplies that will support only X-2 individuals, who goes?

One does not derive an ethical or a moral system from an emergency situation; one pursues understanding during normative times and sets a rational standard of behavior in ones own best self interest.

 

[oggbashan]

Amicus said in part: "In philosophical debate, the path you have chosen is the 'lifeboat ethic'; i.e. X number of people in a life boat with limited supplies that will support only X-2 individuals, who goes?"

I hope I would have enough courage to adopt the Birkenhead drill i.e. women and children have priority because they are the future.

As a time-expired individual I hope I would jump out and swim away.

Og

 

[Boxlicker101]

As long as you paid for the brick or brought one of your own.

I think that if you used a brick that you found lying in the street, used it and returned it, that would be allright, as long as you didn't damage it.

 

[shereads]

I hope I would have enough courage to adopt the Birkenhead drill i.e. women and children have priority because they are the future.

As a time-expired individual I hope I would jump out and swim away.

Don't jump yet, Og. The Birkenhead drill doesn't make a lick of sense if it's about the future. Women past menopause and those of us who don't want children would be in the same boat as you, so to speak. The children will need some adults, male or female, to help them survive. You might limit the eligible adults to ones of reproductive age, who will swear an oath to reproduce if they survive. The rest of us might as well draw straws.

 

[shereads]

BOX: I agree with you about the brick to an extent. But what if the owner of the broken store window files a lawsuit against Harold, and Harold names you as the owner of the brick? You might be held equally liable.

REGARDING THE CONCEPT OF LOOTING:

If someone races into a collapsing store and runs out with a child, we don't assume he's a kidnapper. Why not give the same benefit of the doubt to someone seen running from the same store with a TV set? Maybe he's rescuing it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Somehow, I find it hard to believe that it is somehow ethical to starve or die of thirst, or make your family do so when therer is food and water for the taking, with nobody harmed when you take it.

Looting of liquor or jewelry or tv sets, etc. might be another matter, although for an alcoholic, the booze might be a necessity.

 

[Pure]

Question to shereads and colly

Sher said, Anyone who claims they would put ethics before survival when faced with dehydration or starvation is either lying or crazy.

I think there is evidence that some groups have kept cohesion and 'ethics' in starvation, and 'lifeboat' situations. For instance, the 'drawing of straws' as opposed the the strongest taking what he can, has happened. There are anecdotes of a failing mom, caught under building rubble, letting the babe in arms drink her blood.

Colly also spoke of ethics going out the window, in the place of an instinct to survive. Yes, there are situations of panic, for instance, when each person is (apparently) 'for himself,', though I'd ask, don't the women sometimes try to save the baby as some cost to themselves?

This is not to claim that the rules dont change. More exactly, little reflected upon variations and subclauses come into effect. Instead of 'Don't eat your friend," it's "When might it be morally acceptable? E.g., after s/he dies?".

As one poster said, you can come back to a store and pay, should it re open. I.e., the rule changes from 'don't take without paying before you leave' becomes 'don't take without paying when it's again possible.'

The movie/book "Slaughterhouse Five" contains a scene where an American soldier picks up a fine china figurine from a totally destroyed building, in a totally destroyed city (Dresden). He appears to be ready to pocket it, as a kind of souveneir, gift to his family, whatever. He is observed, and shot for 'looting.' I'd argue, that taking the figurine is not looting, even though he lacks the defence of 'needing it' as in the case of food.

In Jewish law, there is an interesting wrinkle. Force or coercion is a defence [precludes finding of guilt] regarding some things-- e.g., like Patty Hearst helping rob the bank. OTOH, it is not a defense for murder, incest, and some other heinous crimes. You don't get--as a moral freebie-- to blow up NY with an A bomb because there is a gun at your head.
----

So I wonder if the above indicates craziness, or lying? Can I be both

 

[Boxlicker101]

BOX: I agree with you about the brick to an extent. But what if the owner of the broken store window files a lawsuit against Harold, and Harold names you as the owner of the brick? You might be held equally liable..

Then I would claim I had never given permission to Harold to use it, and I would file a lawsuit for damage to my property.

REGARDING THE CONCEPT OF LOOTING:

If someone races into a collapsing store and runs out with a child, we don't assume he's a kidnapper. Why not give the same benefit of the doubt to someone seen running from the same store with a TV set? Maybe he's rescuing it.

If the child were then turned over to a parent or other such person, it would not be kidnapping. However, if the person kept the child as a prisoner or hostage, it would be. Likewise, if somebody turned the TV over to the store owner, it would be allright. If he or she took it home or tried to sell it, that would be theft.

 

[shereads]

Sher said, Anyone who claims they would put ethics before survival when faced with dehydration or starvation is either lying or crazy.

I think there is evidence that some groups have kept cohesion and 'ethics' in starvation, and 'lifeboat' situations. For instance, the 'drawing of straws' as opposed the the strongest taking what he can

I should have made myself clearer, Pure. I was remembering an earlier conversation about looting, so I applied a narrower interpretation to the thread question than what was intended. My answer was based on an assumption that the food is being looted from an abandoned store, not taken away from someone else who needs it to survive.

That, I'd consider unethical. I can't swear that I wouldn't do it, anymore than I can swear I'd run into a burning building to rescue a loved one. Like the impulse to recoil from pain, the desire for water might become stronger than the need to do the right thing. I hope I never find out.

 

[shereads]

If the child were then turned over to a parent or other such person, it would not be kidnapping. However, if the person kept the child as a prisoner or hostage, it would be. Likewise, if somebody turned the TV over to the store owner, it would be allright. If he or she took it home or tried to sell it, that would be theft.

Look, I didn't want the kid but I rescued him anyway. You want the TV back? Fine, but you have to take the kid too.