Is it ever OK to steal? Katrina vs 8th commandment

[Cerise]

So you're an "ends justifies the means" kind of guy, Joseph?

 

Seeing human lives in terms of gains and losses...

 

*shivers*

 

You're right. I DON'T have the "guts" for it. Not for relative moralism anyway.

[Amethyst]

If in all honesty you would not have a right to save 9 people from death by taking one life then you are by definition an immoral person by allowing 9 people die that shouldn't have (only nine lives are saved even though 10 are listed because because ONE is going to die in either even).

 

There is the old story about whether if you could cure cancer but you had to kill one person to do it would you?

 

This is an interesting ethical problem. If I could save the world but to do it, I'd have to shoot someone and then spend the rest of my life in jail, I'd do it. The ramifications of not saving the world would be worse.

 

OTOH, if I was being tricked into killing someone, I would be really pissed off afterwards. But I'm assuming I'm not.

 

The problem about curing cancer is also interesting. I would try anything not to kill them (i.e. get a blood sample, etc.) first. If all else failed, and that was it, I would have to cure it, but my mother died from it so I have very personal reasons why I would try to cure it. I would let the person know what their sacrifice was for, and I would do whatever I could to make them comfortable, to enjoy their last day, and to do it in a humane manner, so they wouldn't feel any pain. And then I'd probably be extremely suicidal because I couldn't live knowing I had done that.

[qadeshet]

It is never okay to steal. Not even in a disaster situation.

 

Just my two cents.

77002[/snapback]

 

 

Taking food or water in order to survive is not stealing. It's amazing what ordinary people will do in order to keep themselves and their families alive. There is a great movie you might look for on Amazon or Netflix.

Panic in the Year Zero with Ray Milland.

[RankStranger]

So you're an "ends justifies the means" kind of guy, Joseph?

 

Seeing human lives in terms of gains and losses...

 

*shivers*

 

You're right.  I DON'T have the "guts" for it.  Not for relative moralism anyway.

100291[/snapback]

 

I've got the guts... well, kindof a gut anyway...

 

Cerise- How would you approach some of these hypotheticals that have been brought up? I mean... I would definitely be willing to kill somebody to cure cancer (able is a different question)... you wouldn't? I would also be willing to kill one person to save nine, etc. How could you justify any other conclusion? Wouldn't it be selfish to refuse to save nine people (or thousands of cancer victims) just because you'd feel bad or conflicted?

 

 

Joseph- I gotta say I'm impressed with your moral relativism arguements. I particularly like the temperature scale analogy- I'd like to add to it, and try to reconcile your view and TFT's view. I'd suggest that like a temperature scale, a moral scale could begin with an 'absolute zero'. As with temperature, absolute zero can be approached, but never quite reached. Suggestions that TFT made for moral absolutes (baby-raping, gratuitous torture) would approach absolute zero, meaning that they're damn near impossible to justify.

 

As the temperature of any sample decreases, it becomes more and more difficult to remove heat from the sample, becoming infinitely difficult as -273.15 is approached. As more and more heinous acts are proposed (as has been the case on this forum), it becomes more and more difficult to devise a hypothetical situation to justify said heinous act, becomeing impossible to justify as this "moral absolute zero" is reached.

 

Joseph says nothing is unjustifiable- TFT says some things can't be justified. Maybe they're both right in a sense- some things are very difficult or infinitely difficult to justify, but most things are just shades of gray.

[RankStranger]

This is an interesting ethical problem.  If I could save the world but to do it, I'd have to shoot someone and then spend the rest of my life in jail, I'd do it.  The ramifications of not saving the world would be worse.

 

OTOH, if I was being tricked into killing someone, I would be really pissed off afterwards.  But I'm assuming I'm not.

 

I think for these hypotheticals to be of any use in a discussion, we HAVE to assume that we're not being 'tricked'... that just throws in too many variables takes the discussion off on a tangent.

 

 

Taking food or water in order to survive is not stealing.  It's amazing what ordinary people will do in order to keep themselves and their families alive.  There is a great movie you might look for on Amazon or Netflix.

Panic in the Year Zero with Ray Milland.

100424[/snapback]

 

I'm not big fan (in theory)of stealing... though I've done a fair amount of it myself now and then. Spamandham mentioned a while back that stealing is immoral (I'm too lazy to go look up the quote). Concerns about survival etc. aside, I have a hard time reconciling property rights. Let's say I own an acre of land... why is that land mine? I paid for it... the previous owner paid for it... the previous owner shot an Injun and just took it. The government SAYS it's my land, but some other folks could easily SAY otherwise. Isn't my property right based solely on authority? Aren't ALL property rights similarly based on authority? I know that society NEEDS a system (however arbitrary) of allocating scarce resources, so I do see real value in respecting property rights. But I don't consider deference to authority to be a moral concern, so aren't poperty rights a bit suspect, morally speaking?

[Stormwarden]

In a situation like Katrina, where getting food, medicine, etc, is essential to survival, why wouldn't it be?

[spamandham]

Spamandham mentioned a while back that stealing is immoral (I'm too lazy to go look up the quote).

 

Perhaps I did. But I'm too lazy to look it up as well. In my mind, morality is based on some external authority, whereas ethics are personal (and may simply reflect a personal desire to conform to said external authority). While stealing may be unethical, you can still choose on a case by case basis whether or not to conform to your ethics. I am not a slave to such ideals.

 

Concerns about survival etc. aside, I have a hard time reconciling property rights.  Let's say I own an acre of land... why is that land mine?  I paid for it... the previous owner paid for it... the previous owner shot an Injun and just took it.  The government SAYS it's my land, but some other folks could easily SAY otherwise.  Isn't my property right based solely on authority?

 

Yes, sort of. Property rights are based on consensus, typically backed up by authoritative transfer mechanisms, and are always contingent upon someone else's prior claim. That's why people buy title insurance on real property.

 

  Aren't ALL property rights similarly based on authority?  I know that society NEEDS a system (however arbitrary) of allocating scarce resources, so I do see real value in respecting property rights.  But I don't consider deference to authority to be a moral concern, so aren't poperty rights a bit suspect, morally speaking?

 

Property rights are fundamental to civilization, and people value civilization enough to kill for it. It's up to you to decide whether or not you are willing to live with failure to respect such rights.

[Cerise]

I've got the guts... well, kindof a gut anyway...

 

Cerise-  How would you approach some of these hypotheticals that have been brought up?  I mean... I would definitely be willing to kill somebody to cure cancer (able is a different question)... you wouldn't?  I would also be willing to kill one person to save nine, etc.  How could you justify any other conclusion?  Wouldn't it be selfish to refuse to save nine people (or thousands of cancer victims) just because you'd feel bad or conflicted?

 

It's selfish either way. It's selfish to sacrifice one for the many. It's selfish to sacrifice many for the one. How about if you wanted to cure cancer you had to kill your daughter? Could you do it then? And would it be selfish of you to not do it, or would it be selfish of you to do it?

 

And why would it be selfish? Is it because we can quanitify human life, so that it is obvious that nine people are worth more then one person, but only if they are "good" people (because it's already been said that the death of one person to save the lives of nine serial killers is not beneficial, because one "good" person is somehow worth more than nine "bad" people)? Is the life of one nuclear physicist more valuable than the life of one cashier? Is the life of a teacher more valuable than the life of a bar tender?

 

I don't think I can make that choice. I don't think I can stand there with the measuring stick and say "well it's a ratio of six babies to ten hundred cancer patients...which is worth more?" and still keep my humanity. Maybe that's a personal failing.

 

Don't misunderstand, I know that moral relativism works as a theory. It's just applying it....I can know that the structure is in place, but I cannot LIVE as if it is in place. Kind of like how you can muse about the possibility that this isn't reality, merely a dream of some other real entity out there, but if you actually tried to live that theory, you'd end up in a corner in which to curl up and die.

 

I think if I tried to live "moral relativism" I'd turn into a monster. And I don't really want to do that.

[RankStranger]

Property rights are fundamental to civilization, and people value civilization enough to kill for it.  It's up to you to decide whether or not you are willing to live with failure to respect such rights.

100450[/snapback]

 

I know I've got us off topic... but oh well...

 

Your statement isn't exactly true. Property rights as we define them may be fundamental to OUR SOCIETY, but there have been lots of governments and cultures with an entirely different view of property rights. A modern example would be communists. Some native americans had a totally different concept of property rights. You may believe that our concept of property rights is the 'best' or 'right' one, but it's definitely not the ONLY one- nor is it the only 'civilized' one. When making a moral evaluation of a given situation, should I neccesarily defer to the consensus view? I could understand making a moral judgement on this matter based on social consequences (not punishment) or even efficiency, but I don't see any reason to outright dismiss other concepts of property rights.

[RankStranger]

It's selfish either way.  It's selfish to sacrifice one for the many.  It's selfish to sacrifice many for the one.  How about if you wanted to cure cancer you had to kill your daughter?  Could you do it then?  And would it be selfish of you to not do it, or would it be selfish of you to do it?

 

And why would it be selfish?  Is it because we can quanitify human life, so that it is obvious that nine people are worth more then one person, but only if they are "good" people (because it's already been said that the death of one person to save the lives of nine serial killers is not beneficial, because one "good" person is somehow worth more than nine "bad" people)?  Is the life of one nuclear physicist more valuable than the life of one cashier?  Is the life of a teacher more valuable than the life of a bar tender? 

 

I don't think I can make that choice.  I don't think I can stand there with the measuring stick and say "well it's a ratio of six babies to ten hundred cancer patients...which is worth more?" and still keep my humanity.  Maybe that's a personal failing.

 

Don't misunderstand, I know that moral relativism works as a theory.  It's just applying it....I can know that the structure is in place, but I cannot LIVE as if it is in place.  Kind of like how you can muse about the possibility that this isn't reality, merely a dream of some other real entity out there, but if you actually tried to live that theory, you'd end up in a corner in which to curl up and die.

 

I think if I tried to live "moral relativism" I'd turn into a monster.  And I don't really want to do that.

100472[/snapback]

 

I don't think it's a personal failing to say that you couldn't make such a decision- sounds honest to me. Maybe the difference in our outlooks is that you're taking into account what you feel you "could" do, then stating what you "would" do. Myself, I'm full of shit, so I'm stating what I "would" do, qualifying that by saying that I don't know that I "could" do it.

 

No, I don't think I could sacrifice my own daughter to cure cancer, even though I think it would be morally the right thing to do("could" and "should" and "would" are very different ideas though). I guess this could mean that a temperature scale of immoral to moral, or evil to good is a gross oversimplification- or maybe it means that in some cases I'm just not capable of practicing what I preach.

 

The way I see it, the value of human life has already been quantified- there have been lots of studies done on exactly what value we place on a single human life, and I think the number usually comes out around 1-3 million dollars, depending on who did the study. Even without studies, we unconciously quantify human life every day with our economic and medical systems decideding who gets what treatment, when and for how long. For that matter, we quantify human life when we decide how much to spend per automobile on safety devices, or when we decide that it's worth the risk to drive to work every day. Even if I'm not sure that I could actually carry out what I'd consider to be a more moral alternative (say, kill my daughter to save ten random people), I think it's worth considering. Similar decisions (thought less definite and less abstract) are made every day... might as well have some reason behind them.

[Vigile]

I'd suggest that like a temperature scale, a moral scale could begin with an 'absolute zero'. As with temperature, absolute zero can be approached, but never quite reached. Suggestions that TFT made for moral absolutes (baby-raping, gratuitous torture) would approach absolute zero, meaning that they're damn near impossible to justify.

100429[/snapback]

 

Excellent theory. Are all hillbillies equiped with this kind of brain power? Is it the moonshine?

[Vigile]

Is it because we can quanitify human life, so that it is obvious that nine people are worth more then one person, but only if they are "good" people (because it's already been said that the death of one person to save the lives of nine serial killers is not beneficial, because one "good" person is somehow worth more than nine "bad" people)? Is the life of one nuclear physicist more valuable than the life of one cashier? Is the life of a teacher more valuable than the life of a bar tender?

100472[/snapback]

 

You are right, only the likes of Stalin or other autonomous dictators have come anywhere close to being in the position to make these kinds of decisions.

 

I would ask, how are we not all selfish in some way? Aren't we all pretty much ultimately guided by self interest?

 

I think if I tried to live "moral relativism" I'd turn into a monster.  And I don't really want to do that.

100472[/snapback]

 

Perhaps taken to its extremities, but what form of objective morality do you follow now? The law as it is written? All of it? Just curious.

[RankStranger]

Excellent theory.  Are all hillbillies equiped with this kind of brain power?  Is it the moonshine?

100536[/snapback]

Some call it inbreeding. We call it line-breeding.

[Amethyst]

It's selfish either way. It's selfish to sacrifice one for the many. It's selfish to sacrifice many for the one.

 

How much more selfish to let thousands of innocents die in the cancer situation? IMHO, the greater evil is the one to be avoided.

 

I do hope that someday, there will be a cure, and the price will not be too high. That was one of the things I prayed for when I was religious.

[Cerise]

How much more selfish to let thousands of innocents die in the cancer situation?  IMHO, the greater evil is the one to be avoided. 

 

I do hope that someday, there will be a cure, and the price will not be too high.  That was one of the things I prayed for when I was religious.

 

How are we classifying "innocents" here? Anyone who has cancer is an innocent? Any good person with cancer is an innocent? Do bank robbers who have cancer get to benefit from this blanket weighing of the scales?

 

Are you saying that you, personally, would be able to get an axe out and kill nine people in order to obtain this cure for cancer? You could justify that to yourself?

 

Whoever said they would have to suicide after doing such a thing, I'm with you.

 

Six guys on a lifeboat after their ship sank. They float in the water for a couple days, but eventually five of them decide that they must kill one of them, let's call him Frank, and eat him in order to survive. Frank doesn't want to die, didn't volunteer to be meat, and doesn't really know of this plan of the other five. The five strike, Frank is killed and eaten against his will. The five people survive on Frank's body and are picked up by a rescue ship two days later.

 

Should these five people be tried for murder?

[Vigile]

 

Should these five people be tried for murder?

100602[/snapback]

 

Should all six have died? I don't know

[Cerise]

I would ask, how are we not all selfish in some way?  Aren't we all pretty much ultimately guided by self interest?

Perhaps taken to its extremities, but what form of objective morality do you follow now?  The law as it is written?  All of it?  Just curious.

 

As it is written where? If you mean government law, than no, I don't follow all of it. Such a thing would be impossible, and probably useless as well. If you mean biblical law, no to that as well. I'm pretty sure I've deliberately forgotten the sabbath and coveted junk and all that other stuff I'm not supposed to. I think I follow laws of reciprocity more than anything, but even those are not exclusive.

 

But there are points on which even I take an absolutist stance. And to cross that line would be to lose myself.

[Asuryan]

About the poll, I chose the last possibility.

 

It's not because I'm not sure if it's ok to steal in a situation akin to Hurricane Katrina, but because I find there is a difference posed by where are you stealing from.

I think it's wrong, even in such a situation, to steal from another human being who has as much need of food as I have, and needs it to survive (her and/or her family) as much as I do. Of course if she had plenty of food, and I had none, and she'd refused to give me some even if I asked her nicely and politely, even offering to help her with something else (such as water or energy or gasoline), I could resort to stealing from her, but I would feel guilty after that just the same.

 

The thing, though, is different in my eyes if I'm stealing from a grocery, or a supermarket, or whatever else is there that keeps HUGE quantities of food - surely more than what's needed for just a person or a family.

I wouldn't feel guilty at all, should I break inside a supermarket, aisles filled with food (some already spoiled, maybe, so it's leave everything where it is and rot, or at least take what you need and feed your family...think about it, no energy, means all the milk and cheese and fresh sausages and frozen food aisles will start smelling really BAD in just a handful of days or hours...), and come out without assaulting the cash registers too, but only taking what I need for me and my family (maybe my friends and my friends' families too?) to survive. Nope, I wouldn't feel guilty at all.

[Amethyst]

How are we classifying "innocents" here? Anyone who has cancer is an innocent? Any good person with cancer is an innocent? Do bank robbers who have cancer get to benefit from this blanket weighing of the scales?

 

Anyone who has cancer. I'm not discriminating.

 

Are you saying that you, personally, would be able to get an axe out and kill nine people in order to obtain this cure for cancer? You could justify that to yourself?

 

If you had read my previous post, I said that I would do it as humanely as possible, and I would have serious qualms about it, and probably commit suicide afterwards. But I couldn't go to my grave knowing that I could have cured cancer, because I saw my mother suffer firsthand from it. I couldn't die knowing that future generations would die from it, possibly millions, suffering needlessly because I couldn't cure it. See, IMHO, that would be the far greater evil, knowing that you could have saved millions and did nothing.

 

Whoever said they would have to suicide after doing such a thing, I'm with you.

 

That was me.

 

Six guys on a lifeboat after their ship sank. They float in the water for a couple days, but eventually five of them decide that they must kill one of them, let's call him Frank, and eat him in order to survive. Frank doesn't want to die, didn't volunteer to be meat, and doesn't really know of this plan of the other five. The five strike, Frank is killed and eaten against his will. The five people survive on Frank's body and are picked up by a rescue ship two days later.

 

Should these five people be tried for murder?

 

Yes, tried. Found guilty, I don't know. I think some in the jury would be sympathetic, and others would not be. See, I would never consider doing such a thing, but causing physical harm to another person unncessarily is one thing. OTOH, if someone was going to rape me, and they had a gun and threatened to kill me, I would have absolutely no qualms about grabbing their gun from them and shooting them. Self-defense is one thing.

 

It's one thing when you know there's no hope of rescue. It's quite another when there is hope. If the world ended, there was no food, and those 6 were the last people left alive, and there was no way of growing anymore food that they knew of because the soil had been irradiated from a super nuke or something, I can't justify throwing the 5 in jail. OTOH, if there was a possiblity of survival, then yes.

 

The thing with cancer is that there is a possibility of survival, but it depends on whether or not you catch it early. It'ts better these days than when my mother had it, but people still die from it. I could honestly not go to my grave knowing that I could have done something to prevent future generations suffering, if it was in my power to stop it.

 

OTOH, it also depends. Is killing millions of people justifiable for finding a cure for cancer or AIDS or something? I don't think so. The numbers are too great and the ends don't justify the means.

 

Then you have the whole stem-cell debate. If those 9 people were embryos, could you destroy them to get the stem cells for the cancer cure? I would, because IMHO it's not a baby until it's born. But that's my personal opinion. However, 9 adults (or even 9 children) is a whole lot different because they are PEOPLE with experiences, who have lives. See, it depends entirely on the circumstances.

[spamandham]

When making a moral evaluation of a given situation, should I neccesarily defer to the consensus view?  I could understand making a moral judgement on this matter based on social consequences (not punishment) or even efficiency, but I don't see any reason to outright dismiss other concepts of property rights.

 

I'm not claiming the society you and I find ourselves in is superior in some absolute sense to all alternatives. But, the consequences of your actions are related to expectations others have.

 

In a society where there is an expectation of property rights, failure to honor them violates the implicit agreement you have with others, and they will generally try to harm you in response.

 

Even in communal societies, you can not simply take what you want without consequence. Within such societies there is an expectation of modesty regarding consumption, which may be codified or simply a community standard. So then, property rights still exist even in communal societies, but they start off assigned to the community as a whole rather than individuals, until they are distributed. At that point, they become personal property rather than community property. In a communist society, you can't simply walk into someone else's house and declare it to be yours. In a tribal society, you can't simply walk over to someone and take his drums.

 

The natural extension of failure to respect such rights is that no-one ends up having such rights. If you have no expectation of being able to keep any portion of what you work for, you have no incentive to work. If we all lived that way, humans would revert to being hunter gatherers killing eachother over a handfull of berries.

 

If it doesn't bother you to act in a hypocritical way (expecting others to honor your property rights while not honoring theirs), then you should at least consider the potential consequences of such behavior.

 

Now, back to Katrina. In an unusual circumstance such as that, the expectation of property rights begins to fade, or is dispensed with entirely. Few people would expect you to honor their property rights regarding property that is likely to be destroyed anyway when usage of it will save your life. In such a case, people do in fact revert to hunter gatherers, just as predicted when property rights break down.

[Cerise]

Yes, tried.  Found guilty, I don't know.  I think some in the jury would be sympathetic, and others would not be.  See, I would never consider doing such a thing, but causing physical harm to another person unncessarily is one thing.  OTOH, if someone was going to rape me, and they had a gun and threatened to kill me, I would have absolutely no qualms about grabbing their gun from them and shooting them.  Self-defense is one thing.

 

I'm not arguing self-defnese. I don't think anyone ever has, really, except maybe extreme pacifists.

 

It's one thing when you know there's no hope of rescue.  It's quite another when there is hope.  If the world ended, there was no food, and those 6 were the last people left alive, and there was no way of growing anymore food that they knew of because the soil had been irradiated from a super nuke or something, I can't justify throwing the 5 in jail.  OTOH, if there was a possiblity of survival, then yes.

 

Then is it even worth it to speculate about whether you could kill or rape some babies in order to cure cancer? Or any other doomsday scenario we can dream up? Just the fact that we are human and not omniscient should probably render all this speculation fruitless. We're never going to know if our actions are 100% necessary in order to save the world. We're never going to know if that country could have survived if only we'd killed off a few select people. We're never going to know for sure what the lesser evil is, or the consequences ahead of time. Part of being human.

 

OTOH, it also depends.  Is killing millions of people justifiable for finding a cure for cancer or AIDS or something?  I don't think so.  The numbers are too great and the ends don't justify the means.

 

I don't know. I don't feel comfortable with numbers games. It's too..calculating. Whne do you draw then line? Is 500 deaths for a million okay but 501 for a million is immoral? It just seems weird to me to think in those terms.

[Jose]

I don't think a lot of people know what it was like during Katrina.

 

At the best of times, the most ethical or moral person in the world is 72 hours without minimum necessities from committing murder to procure them. Katrina was not the best of times.

 

All of my relatives except one cousin live in New Orleans or right across the river in Gretna. Of the four uncles I have there, three are active firemen and the other is retired so I've heard stories about Katrina's aftermath that no news channel would ever dare to run.

 

There is no such thing as morality when dealing with the survival instinct that is required to outlast a situation like that.

 

For example...

 

My favorite uncle (the retired fireman) just left after spending Thanksgiving with us. He's 64, in pretty good shape, a Eucharistic minister at his church, he works for soup kitchens, he's a guest speaker all over the AA circuit in Orleans and Jefferson parish (he's been sober 22 years), but most of all, he's a really nice, very laid-back guy.

 

He's still suffering PTSD because he had to shoot two guys trying to break into the truck he had packed with what he and my aunt would need to survive for two weeks without the infrastructure. He thinks they saw the truck from the street behind him (it was parked in the backyard under a tarp and invisible from the front of the house), so they jumped three fences to get to it and were in the process of breaking out the windows when he saw them. He warned them to stop, then one of them pulled a gun, so he shot them both. He dragged the bodies out to the curb and tried to call the police, but all communications had stopped, so he just left them there. The bodies stayed there for over a week before they were picked up. The National Guard guys questioned him and when he told them what happened, they just nodded and left.

 

This is a guy who volunteers his time for hospice because he believes in dignified death. This is a guy who I have personally never seen get angry. This is a guy who, up until Katrina, was the most stable of all my relatives.

 

He's a total fucking wreck now, but at that time, he did what he needed to do to survive.

 

Period.

 

Morality doesn't even factor into it when you're going through something like that.

[Guest Big Mac]

I'd "loot" the damn grocery store if my ass was going to die. NOt just that, but I'd rather get gunned down by the cops than hand over my gun. Only the foolish man hands over his weapon in a time of turmoil and chaos.

[ML13]

A few years ago I would have said No it's never alright to steal. However, I walked a mile in someone elses shoes who was extremely needy. I didn't have a bed to sleep on or a sheet to cover me with. And let me say this, in order to survive sometimes and under special circumstances, it is ok to steal. Although I would have preferred not to.

[Asimov]

I'd like to re-iterate that what Jose said rings true.

 

"There is no such thing as morality when dealing with the survival instinct that is required to outlast a situation like that."

 

Morality is meant for societies...disaster zones are not societies.

 

It's not ok to steal, ever. Who's to say that the person you steal from wont give you the clothes off their back or the food that you need if you just asked for help?

 

Forcing people to help you is wrong.