One of the more famous scenarios posed in discussions of morality and ethics is whether a man is morally(ethically) justified is stealing a loaf of bread from a merchant to feed his starving family. There’s a collection of strong viewpoints from each pole and a large group in the middle who see both sides and have a hard time falling back on one position.
The quesiton I’m posing involves a third party, the passerby or “Person B,” who observes the scenario, along with the man with the starving family (“Person A”) and the bread merchant:
Is there any moral justification to Person B , upon walking by and seeing Person A’s plight, stealing from the bread merchant in order to feed the Person A and his family?
No, there isn’t. In fact there is a stronger argument against it because their situation is arguably better than the starving man and his family, so why was this person so willing to help by stealing someone else’s property when he had his own property to donate? Charity can only include generousity with your own property, not someone else’s.
I would like to point out that this situation is absurd. The idea that this famliy is so poor (involuntarily) that one couldn’t afford bread. If property rights were correctly understood and enforced there would be no such situation. Think of how cheap food is today. Even if the food is low in quality, one can still afford some.
We are talking about some 1930s situation where the government has basically screwed everything up (high unemployment, high essentials costs). If that is the case then the man should knock over a treasury vehicle and take the governments money, instead of bothering some other guy suffering in the same situation.
Is it correct to molest children if someone will anhiliate the world if you don’t? Stupid hypotheticals. No offense to the OP.
Not only should a man NEVER objectively steal EVER, it should be actively encouraged the bread vendor shoot the thief dead on the spot and put his head on a pike to discourage anyone breaking the law of the sacred property rights.
The question is “Is a third party justified in stealing from someone in order to help another in need?”
The scenario is analogous to the government taxing individuals in order to fund social welfare programs (social security, medicare, etc.).
My position is that as a 3rd party, you are not justified in stealing from someone in attempt to better someone else’s situation. If you truly care, you should contrbute what you yourself have. It is morally comdemnable to theive from other, even if the end is “noble.”
I think the question is: will a starving man steal bread and what will the consequences be if he chooses to do so? In other words, don’t make it a moral question, make it a practical question.
EDIT: Another way of asking the question is: do the laws of society apply to people in miserable/unfavorable/undesirable circumstances? If you say yes, then if there is a law against stealing, the starving man will be in violation of it no matter his condition and is therefore subject to punishment according to the law. If you say no, then the starving bread thief gets a pass and is essentially immune to the law.
Libertarian natural rights ethics tell you what is contrary to justice and how justice can be restored. They don’t tell you what you should do in a given situation.
A starving man should steal bread, except if he is unwilling to commit an injustice. Later on he shold return twice the amount of bread stolen plus interest, except if he does not wish to right his injustice.
“The idea that this famliy is so poor (involuntarily) that one couldn’t afford bread. If property rights were correctly understood and enforced there would be no such situation. Think of how cheap food is today.”
25,000 children die every day due to hunger. Half the world lives on less than $5 a day.
It’s not proper to think an analogy is the real situation. That defies what an analogy is and therfore its purpose. Analogies make a point but are not THE point. Analogies draw a picture of what you are talking about but they are not what is being addressed. What is being addressed is more complicated and thus why some people make an analogy to point out the circumstances in order to simplify a complicated, complex event. But analogies fail when it comes to actually addressing something that can’t possibly be summed up in the analogy itself. If the analogy is made concrete, then by definition it is not an analogy anymore, so be careful.
Where did the vendor get the right to mutilate the corpse as he saw fit? Surely the ownership of the thief’s body would have been passed on to his or her heirs after death. Also, I am not totally sure if shooting a thief is a proportionate response.
