☆ TexasFreethinker ☆ Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Fundamentalist christians are fond of telling the rest of us that we don't have firm morals - that our morals are relative. In contrast, most fundamentalists insist that their morals are god-given and absolute. By this, they mean that you can take a commandment such as "Thou shalt not steal" and it will apply to all persons in all situations at all times. Hurricane Katrina provides a good test of this. People were trapped in New Orleans for days without access to food or water. Many resorted to "looting" of grocery stores - taking/stealing what they needed to survive. According to the 8th commandment, this is morally wrong. What do our resident and visting fundamentalist christians think about this? ******* As to the charge of moral relativism focused on those of us who base our morals on secular reason, rather than on revealed religion, I would disagree. It's true that huge blanket statements such as "Thou shalt not steal" don't apply in every situation. However, behavior in any single situation can be judged to be moral or not. Here's my take on it: In normal circumstances, it is not moral to steal food if you're able to pay for it or get it from another source. However, in a situation such as Hurricane Katrina, it is moral to take food that would otherwise go to waste if you need it to survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 I totally disagree TFT ..... Just wondered what it would be like to say that .... of course really I agree with you 100% I used to harbour a desire to be a journalist. I like to think that if I'd been on the ground in this capacity - what I would have done is .... Persaude my TV station to screen my action live. Make a noisy announcement that a group of adults was needed to liberate some food supplies before any more vulnerable people succombed to the lack of food and water, then defy the looting ban. Would I have been shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ TexasFreethinker ☆ Posted September 7, 2005 Author Share Posted September 7, 2005 Would I have been shot? Some of the on-the-scene reports were so angry I'm surprised they didn't try that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtdude Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Give me the food and water any time, and get outta the way. Of course taking the food and water is the moral thing to do. Those folks needed it. Thank god the stores were there, since no one showed up for five days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 IMHO, it's better to face a few months in jail or community service for stealing bottled water or food, then to die or let another family member die. That being said, it's one thing to take a package of ramen noodles, and quite another to take a TV set. Anyway, survival is my priority in life. Next is my family's survival (okay, I live alone, but I do have parents and relatives.) Also, if a family member of mine were starving, or even another human being I had just met, and the only option was to steal to get them food, I'd take that option. But that's only if there was no alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffXL Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 In the Katrina aftermath, stealing is necessary, especially in light of the government's callous inaction. Letting one's family die because you did not seize supplies would be a horrible consequence. I would steal a terrorist's plans if I had the opportunity as well. In both these cases, I would say *not* stealing would be the wrong moral or ethical choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunar Shadow Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 I was reading in the news that the law enforcment down there was ordered not to give anytrouble to looters in the event that they were taking food or clothing... However if they were taking TV's and DVD players to give chase and arrest the suspects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamandham Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 As a rationalist, the only thing that matters are the consequences. Are the consequences of stealing food and water better or worse than the consequences of not doing it? The same applies to any crime/sin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JP1283 Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 You can bet your ass that if there was ever a situation such as Katrina where I live and my life depends on looting a store for some food, I will definitely be doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Fundamentalist christians are fond of telling the rest of us that we don't have firm morals - that our morals are relative. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I voted for "not sure", but I think it depends on what you are stealing and from where you are stealing. Like SN, I don't think the "word" stealing really fits what we are talking about. There are certainly extreme situations, where it is perfectly okay to break into a store to take basic things needed for survival. Laws are only valid within a certain context, and therefore I wouldn't even call it stealing. But if a person take things from others in a similar difficult situation, I am not sure it is okay. I don't know, but it is understandable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalidasa Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 It is never okay to steal. Not even in a disaster situation. Just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 In contrast, most fundamentalists insist that their morals are god-given and absolute. That's because the binary logic that comes from exposure to their pastor's mind-boggling idiocy puts their brains in a sling. There is nothing wrong with moral relativism and if they want to condemn me for stating the obvious I'll just laugh at them as they back themselves into a corner as they face the impossibilities of their own absolutes. Like they would pray to god to drop a bottle of water from the sky while their child withers next to them in dehydration. Talk about an immoral act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 It is never okay to steal. Not even in a disaster situation. Just my two cents. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I do not like the idea of stealing either. But how about extreme situations when your life, and the life of your family is at risk? I guess it is generally accepted, that in some rare situations where your life is at risk, it may sometimes be okay to kill another person. What makes stealing different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamandham Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 It is never okay to steal. Not even in a disaster situation. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixentrox Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 It is never okay to steal. Not even in a disaster situation. Just my two cents. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is it OK to kill to protect your family? Is it OK to kill if your thrust into a war? Is it OK to kill when your life is threatened with early termination by some assialent? Just curious how far your adherence to law goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reach Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 It is never okay to steal. Not even in a disaster situation. Just my two cents. I feel the same way. It's not okay by me, either. Being as human as the next guy, I would probably steal food and water but I would not be completely free of the guilt from doing so. The decision and activity of stealing would come with repercussions. If I was to be free of guilt and I was to be free from the nagging need for eventually making restitution, then I could say that it was morally acceptable. Nevertheless, moral or not, I'm certain I could eventually steal to feed my family and myself. I'd like to know if cannibalism would be acceptable also, given certain circumstances. If not, why not? What's the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reach Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 I'd like to know if cannibalism would be acceptable also, given certain circumstances. If not, why not? What's the difference? We just watched Alive the other day and in that case, I am fine with cannibalism although I don't think that I personally would be able to eat another human being. That movie is about a sports team that crashed in snow ridden mountains. They ate the people that had died while out there but they didn't kill them in order to eat. I would not approve at all of cannibalism if it meant people killing others to eat and survive. It's different because it's murder, not taking beans off the grocery shelf. In case anyone needs a clarification on the definition, cannibalism is not referring to killing or murdering people to eat them. Cannibalism simply refers to the practice of eating the flesh of your own kind. SerenityNow, this subject, as portrayed in the movie Alive, made for provocative discussion with my children when they were little. I remember telling them that were they ever to be caught in some extreme hardship, with frozen dead people around them, they might have to accept that meat was meat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamandham Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 ...frozen dead people... Icy dead people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ TexasFreethinker ☆ Posted September 8, 2005 Author Share Posted September 8, 2005 Icy dead people. Just putting in your six cents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ TexasFreethinker ☆ Posted September 8, 2005 Author Share Posted September 8, 2005 I'd like to know if cannibalism would be acceptable also, given certain circumstances. If not, why not? What's the difference? That's a good poll topic too! I'd have to say that I'm ok with cannibalism under necessary conditions (and with the right wine ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixentrox Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Xtians should have no problem with it. Most enact ritual canibalism anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ TexasFreethinker ☆ Posted September 8, 2005 Author Share Posted September 8, 2005 Xtians should have no problem with it. Most enact ritual canibalism anyway. And the catholics think they really are eating flesh and drinking blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reach Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 That's a good poll topic too! I'd have to say that I'm ok with cannibalism under necessary conditions (and with the right wine ) How about a dark red? Which one? ;-) I didn't mean to derail your topic, TF. I felt that the mention of cannibalism was morally relative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ TexasFreethinker ☆ Posted September 8, 2005 Author Share Posted September 8, 2005 I didn't mean to derail your topic, TF. I felt that the mention of cannibalism was morally relative. I didn't mean it that way, Reach - I really think that's an interesting topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaded Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 I don't think it is okay to steal, but I would do it in a similar situation. Though shalt not steal takes a back seat to though shalt not kill when letting people die of dehydration and medical conditions when you have the ability to do something about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts