Relationship between crime and ethics

[Traitorfish]

C'mon, theft is wrong. This is like basic stuff.

Is it wrong for a man to steal bread to feed his starving family?

 

[Mise]

I think there is a great deal of overlap between the law and our ethics, and I think that ethics certainly informs the law. Imagine if there was a law that compelled an individual to act unethically: it seems obvious that this law is unjust. Is the set of just laws, therefore, a subset of the set of ethical obligations?

No. There is overlap, sure, but there are certain laws that ethics has nothing to say about. Presidential term limits, for example: what does ethics have to say about a President serving a maximum of 2 terms of 4 years per term? Not a great deal.

So I think we can say that laws that compel a person to act unethical cannot be just. However, laws that compel a person to act ethically may be unjust. And laws that are just may have nothing to do with ethics.

I can't think of a just law that compels someone to act unethically, but if anyone else can I'd be most interested.

 

[HannibalBarka]

My argument is that one human right cannot "Dominate" another, or otherwise rights do not really exist at all. Rights are always wrong to take away, unless naturally lost (For instance, if you murder, you lose the right to your own life, if you steal, to some of your money, equal to that which you stole, exc.)

Say you and I are the only human beings in existance, and I own all the food. Either I do not have an ownership right to that food (And so my witholding it from you is criminal) or I do have an ownership right to that food, in which case for you to steal it from me is theft.

I don't disagree with you that "Society should change so that people don't starve" but I think it is immoral to use force to extract food from its owners to give to other people. As I said, I'm not a utilitarian and so I consider a right thing being attained by wrongful means to still be wrong.

What are the basis that makes you think that "it is immoral to use force to extract food from its owners to give to other people." and "it is moral to keep all the food and let people starve"?

 

[HannibalBarka]

The logical conclusion is a near 100% tax rate on everyone in the west to feed starving children in Africa... Would you go for that?

I am willing to allow that the kind of social democratic redistributionism that many of you guys advocate would work in the short run, but in the long run, it would seriously reduce production and would make everyone poorer. Capitalism may make the rich richer than everyone else, but it makes virtually everyone, and society as a whole, richer.

I do believe that there are nonviolent ways to make sure that everyone gets fed, but I suppose you wouldn't have a whole lot of interest in that...

Oh, and a wrong thing done for a right reason is still wrong. Utilitarianism is such a fluffy crap morality that justifies doing virtually anything that seems like it would be a good idea no matter who you are screwing over in the process. It reduces people to numbers.

I'd be really interested to see any hard figures to back this. Sociaux-democratic "holes" like Sweden, Denmark, Germany etc had a much better growth rate in the last
decades than a "natural ressources rich" "capitalist USA.

 

[Flying Pig]

Is it wrong for a man to steal bread to feed his starving family?

He robbed a house!

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'd be really interested to see any hard figures to back this. Sociaux-democratic "holes" like Sweden, Denmark, Germany etc had a much better growth rate in the last
decades than a "natural ressources rich" "capitalist USA.

America wastes all its resoures killing people

In all seriousness, I don't really know what kind of hard figures to look for but I know that obviously the less you profit from producing, the less you will produce. It may be that the countries you mentioned are doing better than America IN SPITE of this, but I don't think they are doing better BECAUSE of this.

 

[Traitorfish]

He robbed a house!

I don't follow?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Is it wrong for a man to steal bread to feed his starving family?

I find it highly unlikely that this should ever happen in the US. Even if we eliminated welfare tomorrow, private charities, private food banks, and people who do have money that they may be willing to part with if asked, would still exist. Barring that, there are still trash cans. Not to say that that's a good situation at all, but it is less bad than starvation.

If it really came down to starvation, I don't know if it would be immoral, its certainly a significant mitigating factor. I wouldn't blame the guy. But it shouldn't be legal.

 

[Traitorfish]

If it really came down to starvation, I don't know if it would be immoral, its certainly a significant mitigating factor. I wouldn't blame the guy. But it shouldn't be legal.

You concede her that you don't know if theft, in this instance, would be wrong. This is contrary to your bold claim in the quoted post that "theft is wrong"; that theft is categorically and ambiguously immoral. So why is it that if you're willing to acknowledge at least the possibility of ambiguities on a personal level, you revert to absolutes at a political level?

 

[GhostWriter16]

You concede her that you don't know if theft, in this instance, would be wrong. This is contrary to your bold claim in the quoted post that "theft is wrong"; that theft is categorically and ambiguously immoral. So why is it that if you're willing to acknowledge at least the possibility of ambiguities on a personal level, you revert to absolutes at a political level?

My normal answer would be "Don't steal, do the right thing and trust in God" but I realize that that doesn't really work as an argument as such (Even though I've seen it happen.)

The difference is at a political level it becomes institutionalized. I'm not going to crucify the guy who steals to feed his starving family, if he has no other options, but this still shouldn't be supported by institutional violence.

Considering how many wealthy liberals there are, if this even happened it would just show a massive degree of hypocricy.

 

[Flying Pig]

I don't follow?

Oh. I thought you were referencing Les Misérables - when Valjean protests the length of his sentance (nineteen years!) on the grounds that he 'stole a loaf of bread', the officer retorts back that he robbed a house, which he clarifies to 'broke a window pane'.

My normal answer would be "Don't steal, do the right thing and trust in God" but I realize that that doesn't really work as an argument as such (Even though I've seen it happen.)

Oh my... even my fairly traditional moral compass has difficulties digesting that. That's... very youthful of you, GW.

Well, he actually got five years for the theft, and fourteen for trying to escape, at least in the movie.

Yes, the book and the musical are the same - he doesn't really draw a distinction, though.

Which is still absurd. Theft shouldn't be punished by prison unless it was done with a weapon.

Which is the point, but not for that reason!

 

[GhostWriter16]

Oh. I thought you were referencing Les Misérables - when Valjean protests the length of his sentance (nineteen years!) on the grounds that he 'stole a loaf of bread', the officer retorts back that he robbed a house, which he clarifies to 'broke a window pane'.

Well, he actually got five years for the theft, and fourteen for trying to escape, at least in the movie. Which is still absurd. Theft shouldn't be punished by prison unless it was done with a weapon.

 

[Traitorfish]

My normal answer would be "Don't steal, do the right thing and trust in God" but I realize that that doesn't really work as an argument as such (Even though I've seen it happen.)

The difference is at a political level it becomes institutionalized. I'm not going to crucify the guy who steals to feed his starving family, if he has no other options, but this still shouldn't be supported by institutional violence.

Considering how many wealthy liberals there are, if this even happened it would just show a massive degree of hypocricy.

That's grand, but it's missing the point. If theft is not categorically wrong, then it becomes necessary to define in what circumstances it is wrong, and why; it can no longer be taken as axiomatic. And it's not immediately obvious that, if theft ceases to be wrong, why any of the acts of theft you deride as so totally unconscionable are, in fact, wrong.

Oh. I thought you were referencing Les Misérables - when Valjean protests the length of his sentance (nineteen years!) on the grounds that he 'stole a loaf of bread', the officer retorts back that he robbed a house, which he clarifies to 'broke a window pane'.

Oh, whoops. Never seen it. I was just going for the traditional counter-example to "theft is always wrong".

 

[GhostWriter16]

That's grand, but it's missing the point. If theft is not categorically wrong, then it becomes necessary to define in what circumstances it is wrong, and why; it can no longer be taken as axiomatic. And it's not immediately obvious that, if theft ceases to be wrong, why any of the acts of theft you deride as so totally unconscionable are, in fact, wrong.

Its still wrong. I'm just not excessively judging because I don't really know what I would do in that situation. It is likely that I would in fact steal in that case, but it would still be immoral and should still be punished by the law.

Which is the point, but not for that reason!

I don't know the time period of Les Miserables very well, but considering it was the early 19th century, I would not be surprised if it was oppressive policies as such that created starvation, rather than simple property rights. Even if we assume, however, that Valjean was in a completely legitimate society however, and was starving simply by vritue of being down on his luck, five years, let alone nineteen, is an extreme punishment for what he did. He should have had to pay for the bread and the window pain (times 2) and nothing more.

 

[Flying Pig]

Obvious follow-up - if he can't afford a loaf of bread, how will you make him pay for the loaf, the window pane, and the punitive charge?

 

[Traitorfish]

Its still wrong. I'm just not excessively judging because I don't really know what I would do in that situation. It is likely that I would in fact steal in that case, but it would still be immoral and should still be punished by the law.

So you think that it is immoral to steal bread to feed a starving family? That the man should prefer death for him and his family than the transgression of property-rights? And I'm looking for a straightforward yes or no, her, no hedging an unpopular answer in softening rhetoric.

 

[Borachio]

I'd go for stealing bread to feed the hungry is immoral, yes. But maybe not as immoral as refusing to give bread to the starving. Or being negligent with regards to finding out who the hungry are and taking steps to make sure they are fed.

That's not to say that the starving thief is behaving inexcusably, though.

 

[GhostWriter16]

So you think that it is immoral to steal bread to feed a starving family? That the man should prefer death for him and his family than the transgression of property-rights? And I'm looking for a straightforward yes or no, her, no hedging an unpopular answer in softening rhetoric.

Yes.

This isn't a realistic situation, however. There are ALWAYS other options.

EDIT: I would also go with what Borachio said. Refusing to voluntarily give food to a starving person who you know is there isn't exactly the most moral of choices either. And I can certainly understand WHY the thief would steal in that case.

 

[Flying Pig]

In modern society, perhaps, but not in all places and not in all times.

I'm quite interested as to your answer to my other question, mind - I certainly know how the Victorians dealt with people who couldn't pay their debts!

 

[useless]

See what I mean? And then you claim you have empathy towards others and do not want to see them reduced to numbers, yet you've just stated that you believe it's less immoral for a family to die than the supposed transgression of property rights.