This House Believes that it is Morally Right to Steal Food for the Poor
Proposition – You should steal food / Opposition – You shouldn’t steal foodNotes / Notes
Main/Most Convincing Argument / Main/ Most Convincing Argument
Some Arguments For
Reverse engineer the situation. This question relies on a red herring. "Stealing" food indicates ownership of the food, which also indicates that someone is purposely and knowingly withholding the food. The phrasing cleverly detracts from a much more serious issue involving humanity. The real moral question would be "is it moral to withhold food from a starving person?" Debate that question, and we will find out who actually cares about human beings.
I think it is moral to steal food for a starving person because you can't let someone die of starvation. The value of human life is much higher than that of personal property. It would be wrong to let someone starve to death, and that is more important than not stealing.
If a person is starving and he/she has no other choice, then the decision to survive is justified. We here in America waste incredible amounts of food. A starving person could live near a restaurant district and survive from the scraps that the rest of us throw out. Should a starving individual walk through an open air market and help himself to some food that has a good possibility of being discarded at the end of the day, I could justify this.
A starving person has to find food I think it is easy for a person who has never been hungry to say no. But, if you experience the pain and agony of hunger you would no that stealing food is making a choice between life or death. Any human or animal that's hungry will steal to survive. At this level morals change and the people who refuse to help the person starving morals come into question.
Risk indirect murder if you don't People say that stealing is immoral; it it more immoral than to stand idle and watch someone starve and potentially die because you refuse to steal? The point of the matter is that if you do not steal, the person will starve. There is no other means of obtaining the food. As an individual, the choice is forced in your hands, you can steal to help, or lay idle to watch the person starve. Refuse to steal and know that it was because of YOU, that the person is still starving. Nobody said you can only help others through "morally perfect ways" eg// you buy them a meal with your hard earned money. Life's situations are not always perfect, in this case it is steal for them to help, or let them starve for some selfish code, that prevents you from helping and makes you feel better about yourself. You choose which one is worse.
Stealing VS. Society It's better to save a life, than lose one, and anyway there is enough food to go and feed all people around the world, but individuals are just selfish and would not share food, that's why circumstances such as theft of food arises. People just base that stealing is wrong due to societal ethics and morals. Yes, theft is wrong in some cases, but when it comes between a life and death situation, stealing should be considered a morally right decision.
It is debatable. In a world essentially run and governed by monetary gain, some people just don't get the opportunity to earn. Some out of laziness, sure, but for some people who genuinely look for work and struggle to feed their families I think it would be okay for them to take what they need to feed their families, within reason of course.
Some Arguments Against
The lesser of two evils is still evil, even if you argue that one evil can be "Justified" over the other This is a difficult argument because it's not only subjective, but it's also arbitrary. Is stealing justified if it's going to save someone else's life? I would say no, even though we might try to rationalize it as being right. You simply cannot fight evil with evil, no matter what the circumstances are.
One might argue, what if you were to steal and the person you stole from could have never found out? After all, isn't stealing wrong because of what one feels and outcome of the situation? My response would be, would you want to live in a society knowing that your things could be confiscated, and it wouldn't be morally reprehensible for the criminal if you you weren't able to find out? I think most people would say no on this; as would I. It does not fit with my moral philosophy, and the standard I apply right from wrong to. We shouldn't have to live in such fear.
If you are starving ask someone if you can do something for them to earn the food. If its your child starving work anywhere you can to feed them or at least look for work to feed them or ask for it.
Lets say that starving person is sitting at home watching tv or sleeping all day doing nothing with their life and decides that their hungry. It's not right for them to actually get up and drive to a grocery store (where other people actually work to provide for themselves) and fill up a cart full of groceries and walk out without paying for them. Especially if they dont even care to try and help themself? Morally its wrong because they have took something that is not theirs.
However, if that same person has been seeking work and they have pleaded their case and the assistance has been given to them and they fill ups their cart, then they have done nothing wrong because it has been given to them for asking.
That is where we have to ask if the person who has given the assistance is the one who has stolen from others to give to them.
Nope. Stealing is wrong. The hypothetical presented here assumes a zero sum for food allocation. Either steal and eat this, or starve. The same set of circumstances would prove to be true for the owner of the food. If their food is stolen, they will die. Is it moral to condemn someone else to death, because you were hungry? Is your hunger morally superior to their hunger, and property rights? Anyone who would suggest so should consider their over-inflated self-worth.
Stealing is wrong. Period. The issue that stealing is wrong is not to be ignored. In our society there are many avenues that one can go through before resulting in stealing. I say it's not moral to steal because it's a slippery slope. Where does it stop? You steal from someone else to eat because you have none, why not steal money because you don't have it or steal a car because you don't have that. Where does it stop? Of course physiological needs such as food are more concerning and may be more morally ambiguous when compared to stealing a car but it doesn't detract from the fact that is still wrong. It goes against rules of society created to maintain order and unfortunately that is more beneficial to the whole than the one starving individual. Sounds cruel sure, but rules are needed and must be upheld or else chaos.
Theft is Theft When one steals bread to feed a family, one causes hunger for the baker's family. Hunger is not eliminated, just shifted to another person. Theft takes from the robbed by definition; any justification of the theft comes with the assumption that the robber's life is more important than the victim's.