Morality: Stealing to Feed your Children

Yes. Taking someone's property is wrong no matter what. I now people might side with the poor father, but that doesn't mean his act was right.

No. The life of one child is not equal to the lives of one thousand children combined.

Is human life just mere statistics to you?

Well I personally dont believe in an objective morality. Seeing how our morals have changed so much over the centuries and vary over countries it's hard to think how you believe there is? An objective morality by definition would never change.

I'm rational.

In which way can one child life be worth that of a thousand? Please explain.

If by killing one child you save a thousand, that's perfectly rational. Better that then letting a thousand be killed.

What if that child was yours or the child was you yourself, would you still stick to your "rational argument"?

Also the question that arises, if you stick to your viewpoint, is how do you measure the value of human life? Is it just numbers or how much benefit you think each child can bring to humanity by sparing his or her life?

I'm rational.

In which way can one child life be worth that of a thousand? Please explain.

.......

Like I said before I don't believe we should ever consider using our fellow human beings as tools towards a goal that we think is somehow more valuable than they are. You shouldn't deny an individual's dignity even if means saving others.

Question: Do you support torture of terror suspects?

Rational thinking obviously does not cover personal involvement with the child. Obviously, thinking rationally would go out of the window if it was my own child.

Depends. In a case of 1 v 1000, they must obviously both be from, say, a first world country, otherwise it becomes radically unequal anyway in terms of how long they'd live afterwards, how much they can contribute etc.

For example, is a child born to parents who are both nobel laureates in physics more valuable to a child born to parents who both failed school and are a burden to the state (in terms of income support)?

But then you're "denying the dignity" of the thousand other children. How is that fair or justified?

No, I don't. Depends of course on the exact circumstances, but on a whole, no.

Interesting. That's assuming the children will both follow in their parents' footsteps - not necessarily true.

No. Both lives = 1. I'm not saying I wouldn't be able to make a choice between who lives and dies, but that's not the same as saying they're actually more valuable.

I have not denied their dignity. For example, a man takes 12 children hostage inside a school and demands from the police officer, who he is communicated with, that he will let go these children on the condition that the police officer kills a random child? Has the police officer committed murder in your eyes by not complying with the hostage taker? Has he denied justice to the children inside the school?

If you try to measure human life by giving it a price, wouldn't these issues come up? I mean is the life of the child of nobel laureates more valuable than the lives of a 1000 children born to parents with learning disabilities?

I think people don't talk about morality enough. It is one of the most engaging, thought provoking and difficult subjects around and think most people would benefit from discussing it more. I'd like to make some threads to talk about certain issues of morality. Plus it might spice up the Philosophy sub forum. God, it needs it!

So this thought experiment will question is mostly concerning the effect of context on morality and the implication of 'harm' on morality. It will look at the morality of an individual action in isolation and considering all its affects. It will also look on intent and its consideration on morality.

So, a man and his family are dying of hunger. It's because of reasons beyond his control, ability to predict and even comprehend. He is blameless for their starvation. He has no wife but a wide eyed child. Wide eyed children are the hungriest! He goes to the local baker and steals a loaf of bread to feed his family.

Was this action immoral?

Firstly, consider the basic act and any intrinsic morality. Is it wrong to steal? Is it wrong to steal in any circumstances?

Next, consider the the act of allowing a child to starve when you can prevent it.

Quickly, I see the question becomes a balance of which act is worse. Which is the lesser of two evils.

However I believe it is impossible to compare the acts severity without considering the 'harm' done. Obviously there is great harm in letting a child but what is the harm in stealing a loaf of bread? Lets think of the possibilities.

If the baker is part of a nationwide chain of businesses the harm done is almost certainly minor. He is paid the same wage regardless of if the bread is stolen. The only harm done is a matter of a few pence from the company owners final profit list. Something it is unlikely anyone will even notice. Still not a good thing but not an evil one.

Now consider if it is a small family buisiness. The baker is struggling to make ends meet. The loss of the bread is the straw that breaks his budget and his buisiness goes under. The man has lost his job, his source of income and his ability to provide for his family.

An identical act can causes a very different amount of harm.


So in deciding on which act is more immoral it is impossible to say without looking at context. Which will cause greater harm? It is impossible to fully judge an act's morality without knowing the harm it causes. Nothing is intrinsically immoral.

Now lets look at one more possible outcome. The baker realises the bread it gone. The loaf was a special loaf for his mother. He is so ashamed to have lost it he kills himself. An overeaction and ridiculous I know but bear with it for our thought experiment.

So, through his action of stealing the bread the man has caused the death of the baker. However it was not his intention to, he did not even know that the act could cause it, so does that make the act itself any more immoral. If the man had stolen the bread WITH the intention of causing the baker it certainly is far more immoral.

Intent plays a massive role in determining if an action is immoral.

So is the act of stealing to feed his family immoral at all? If his intent is not to harm the baker in any way, it is only to save his child, is it immoral on his part? I think the theft is as an isolated incident. Regardless of not wanting to harm it is still an act that causes harm that the man is aware of. However his action is a choice between allowing a greater harm to happen by not causing what is likely to be a very small one.

But this being another moral problem! The man acts to prevent an evil by committing an evil. Although I believe he is right to do so how far can that go? Can the man save his daughters life by stealing, punching, enslaving, raping, killing? At what point does the evil committed become more evil than the on prevented? Surely it is not ok to rape a random, innocent girl to save another? (Don't ask me when that would happen! It's all theoretical!)

Man that's a lot to think about. If you've stuck with it to the end well done. I almost didn't! I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks whether you think differently or the same or whatever.

Thanks!

If it could be somehow proven that those twelve children will DEFINATELY be let go (which of course is impossible but this is all hypothetical), then the twelve should be saved and one should die. He has not committed murder as he did not kill them.

That situation takes into account too many variables though, which is why hypotheticals are much better to deal with in these discussions.