But I suppose, your point is different from the OC:, you are suggesting to steal food based on moral views.
Which is problematic, as morality indeed is subjective.
Personally, I struggle to conjure a moral ground to steal food if I know where the food banks are. Or if said food is of a treat / luxury category.
The point is, stealing from the wealthy to feed the poor is, in my opinion, a moral good. I would say most people agree with this. That’s why we have so many stories where this is what the hero does.
Which is problematic, as morality indeed is subjective.
I said it is, and you agree, but it’s also important to keep in mind some people do subscribe to a system of universal morality.
Personally, I struggle to conjure a moral ground to steal food if I know where the food banks are.
But this takes limited resource from the food banks that they could use to feed others. I think, as a hypothetical, food banks should be able to take money from the wealthy to fund their work. They aren’t allowed to do this, and it would negatively effect their efforts if they did it and weren’t allowed, so I still see it as a moral good for people capable of taking from the wealthy to do so, before consuming limited resources that could help others.
Or if said food is of a treat / luxury category.
That partially depends on your definition, but that’s fine. Is lobster a luxury? What about steak? What about a salad? What about bread? They’re all providing sustenance. Why does the cost effect the morality? If it’s moral to steal at all for food, where does cost come into that? Personally, I think people arguing that poor people should only get the absolute worst to survive aren’t being considerate of those people. I think they deserve to eat something enjoyable sometimes.
OK, how does that effect the morality? “You’re allowed to steal for sustenance, but you aren’t allowed to steal something that you enjoy.” What is your ethical rule here? You said it’s not cost, so it must be about how much you’ll like something. What if you like the thing that’s cheaper?
I don’t think you’ve really analyzed your beliefs here. I think you’ve been told you’re supposed to think some way but you haven’t really considered the implications of that.
As a hypothetical, let’s say Musk is hosting a big event. You get word on the vehicles bringing in the food. You have an opportunity to steal it with no risk. Is it morally good to do so, and distribute it to the poor? Keep in mind, this food is going to be very expensive and fancy. Does that change if it’s morally good or not?
You ignored the context of everything else. What if you’re stealing for sustenance, but it’s something you enjoy? Why does enjoying it make it morally bad? You said it isn’t about money, so you’re only allowed to do it, in your premise, if you don’t get any enjoyment out of it. Arguably, everything you eat you’ll enjoy if you’re hungry enough, so then stealing for sustenance is not actually allowed.
To justify stealing is a slippery slope, unfortunately.
In order for this to not be a slippery slope fallacy you have to show how it could reasonable lead to whatever you’re claiming it’d lead to (which you didn’t even state). What is the negative outcome to (morally) allowing theft for sustenance? Keep in mind, it’s still illegal, so there are potential negative consequences. There’s just not a negative moral judgement (from those of us who are fine with it).
As the opposite point, hoarding when others are in need, while legal, is immoral (in my opinion). Does that create a slippery slope where people don’t create/collect more things for themselves? No, obviously. This is as close to a universal moral principle that I think exists, yet people still hoard. It doesn’t create a slippery slope.
Excess isn’t a moral term.
But I suppose, your point is different from the OC:, you are suggesting to steal food based on moral views.
Which is problematic, as morality indeed is subjective.
Personally, I struggle to conjure a moral ground to steal food if I know where the food banks are. Or if said food is of a treat / luxury category.
What? What does that even mean? There aren’t “moral terms.” There’s morality and ethics. Those are argued in normal language. For example, here is an discussion about a very similar topic from a Kantian perspective. It’s just normal language.
The point is, stealing from the wealthy to feed the poor is, in my opinion, a moral good. I would say most people agree with this. That’s why we have so many stories where this is what the hero does.
I said it is, and you agree, but it’s also important to keep in mind some people do subscribe to a system of universal morality.
But this takes limited resource from the food banks that they could use to feed others. I think, as a hypothetical, food banks should be able to take money from the wealthy to fund their work. They aren’t allowed to do this, and it would negatively effect their efforts if they did it and weren’t allowed, so I still see it as a moral good for people capable of taking from the wealthy to do so, before consuming limited resources that could help others.
That partially depends on your definition, but that’s fine. Is lobster a luxury? What about steak? What about a salad? What about bread? They’re all providing sustenance. Why does the cost effect the morality? If it’s moral to steal at all for food, where does cost come into that? Personally, I think people arguing that poor people should only get the absolute worst to survive aren’t being considerate of those people. I think they deserve to eat something enjoyable sometimes.
I’ll address one point for now and the rest - later (sorry, I’m in a hurry)
It’s not the cost, it’s intention. If you are hungry - steal bread, not some Jamón Ibérico .
OK, how does that effect the morality? “You’re allowed to steal for sustenance, but you aren’t allowed to steal something that you enjoy.” What is your ethical rule here? You said it’s not cost, so it must be about how much you’ll like something. What if you like the thing that’s cheaper?
I don’t think you’ve really analyzed your beliefs here. I think you’ve been told you’re supposed to think some way but you haven’t really considered the implications of that.
As a hypothetical, let’s say Musk is hosting a big event. You get word on the vehicles bringing in the food. You have an opportunity to steal it with no risk. Is it morally good to do so, and distribute it to the poor? Keep in mind, this food is going to be very expensive and fancy. Does that change if it’s morally good or not?
Exactly.
You ignored the context of everything else. What if you’re stealing for sustenance, but it’s something you enjoy? Why does enjoying it make it morally bad? You said it isn’t about money, so you’re only allowed to do it, in your premise, if you don’t get any enjoyment out of it. Arguably, everything you eat you’ll enjoy if you’re hungry enough, so then stealing for sustenance is not actually allowed.
I’ll clarify my stance: you’re allowed to steal luxury food / treats only if it’s the only food available.
And, of course, you should be starving and have no other means to sustain yourself.
To justify stealing is a slippery slope, unfortunately.
In order for this to not be a slippery slope fallacy you have to show how it could reasonable lead to whatever you’re claiming it’d lead to (which you didn’t even state). What is the negative outcome to (morally) allowing theft for sustenance? Keep in mind, it’s still illegal, so there are potential negative consequences. There’s just not a negative moral judgement (from those of us who are fine with it).
As the opposite point, hoarding when others are in need, while legal, is immoral (in my opinion). Does that create a slippery slope where people don’t create/collect more things for themselves? No, obviously. This is as close to a universal moral principle that I think exists, yet people still hoard. It doesn’t create a slippery slope.