Generally speaking, breaking into a cabin is obviously “wrong”, yes. However, there are certain hypothetical scenarios in which its ‘wrong-ness’ is contestable. If I get lost in the woods, fear for my life, sneak into an empty cabin (without the owner’s permission) to use his phone and call for help - is that wrong according to the non-aggression principle.
The logical fallacy of isolation usurps lifeboat situations. What are good to make a point are Crusoe models but they are assertions, not problems to be solved, as far as I know. People incline to make interpretations of the lifeboat situations introducing generalizations, usually preconceivably. Lifeboat situations are good intellectual exercises but don’t meet general reality.
Before it even goes this far or maybe you are changing the scenario (ridding the cabin example), which is fine. I don’t see a problem with that to improve the dialogue. If you are not, then the scenario is still stuck in a whether you are saying ‘just(ice) is stealing’ or 'there is actually a problem with ‘just(ice) is stealing’. I think these are valid inquiries or you are staging the event, ie. performing a Crusoe model, which isn’t a problem to be solved but rather an assertion by you.
It need not be considered “utilitarian”; really, all that the argument is stating is that human life is the most valuable moral principle. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas made such an argument apart of his philosophy of natural law far before the advent of modern utilitarian ethics.
So would you consider it right/ethical to steal x for the purpose of saving a life?
Of course, human life is the most precious, and sacred end of society. The purpose of property is to mollify the ills of life, it does not exist for its own end, rather it must be utilized toward the end of benefiting, and improving the human condition. I would like to emphasize that trespassing upon property rights in order to save a life should never be taken lightly, it should only be done in a situation of dire need, and it should be done with the solemn knowledge that the need for such an act is tragic per se.
curious, can you point to where are you getting this from?
We hold this truth to be self evident.
Not enough information.
presumably you would like enough information so as to be able to make an inter-personal comparison of utility?
No. That is the last thing I would do.
indeed, so you do not want to establish that the person for whom the item would be taken, is in dire life threatening need of the item (and so it has particularly high utility for him) and that conversely the item is of a trivial ‘low utility’ to the rightful owner, something along the lines of a mere cabin, or bandage… have i got you all wrong?
exactly!
and also the phrasing of the question. how can any sensible person answer it. again right equated with steal. ethical equated with steal. who falls for this kind of stuff?
I thought you were busting my balls.
No, you are basicaly right, but this “utility” is only important in comparison to a single watershed rating that determines wheter the guy who stole the item is actually going to be in a position where he can pay back double or not. It is not a sophisticated ladder of utility ratings, which is how I understood your inquiry.
But the intention to repay is also important, not just the ability. If the thief does no intend to pay back then he is in a certain sense similar to a thief who steals an item knowing his stealing of it will cause death or other irreparable damage.
Honestly, I believe that the statement is self-evident, a principle that should be explicitly understood in every single political idea, but if you really want a source see St. Thomas Aquinas’ writings on natural law, though I have not my books with me so I cannot give you a precise citation.
How can you say that this is not utilitarian?
I would not counter. I would say that the reason that this dilemma exists is because the consequences are not causal and don’t necessarily follow the act of employing the means of “breaking and entering another person’s property” in order avoid hunger. Instead the consequences suggested in this forum are ones that involve coercion. The only foundation being suggested in this thread to the consequences of such an act is a coercive judicial system. So instead of focusing on the causal consequences of coercion, which seems to me to be one of the primary concerns of libertarianism, the NAP has shifted focus to people breaking into another person’s cabin in order avoid hunger. Such an act is clearly a violation of the NAP, and if the suggested solution to the violation of NAP is coercion, then the NAP is just another legal system determining when it is appropriate to employ the means of force or coercion.
Because this is the traditional response of the natural law school, to call it utilitarian is simply mistaken because this answer is apart of the natural law tradition dating back from St. Thomas Aquinas.
Society doesn’t even exist, it can hardly have any ‘ends’.
Very good point. Perhaps Iam is just using it metaphorically though.
Absurd, society does exist, and while it may not be a moral actor, to deny its existence is blind. Man does not live in a Robinson Crusoe existence, and society, and social realities do have an effect upon him.
Why do men come together in the division of labor? What are the ends that men seek when they do this? When I speak of the “end of society”, I speak of the ends that men are seeking when they congregate, and cooperate in the economic order. Without a doubt, what man seeks first, and foremost is the preservation, and mollification of his life.