I they both have clear answers, but they’re obscured by which class you’re in. Rich? Obviously it’s not wrong to hoard. Poor? Obviously you need to eat to survive. Because of this bias, the argument for poor’s needing to steal will always be the debate, always leaving room for the rich to argue against it and justify punishment for people who find ways to make ends meet.
When you phrase it like that, it’s lik stealing is the only way to feed your family. If that is the case, sure stealing is obviously justified. If there are other options to feed you family, it becomes a more complicated dilemma.
It probably depends on what these other options are, who you’re stealing from, etc.
But whom are you stealing it from? If its another poor starving family suddenly its not so clear anymore. If its the hoarding rich guy go the fuck ahead, steal it even if you aren’t starving
This is the argument I have issue with. The truth is that the hypothetical isn’t grounded in reality.
Hypothetically, if one stole from another within the same class out of necessity, it’s impossible for any person to assign or deny the morality of the act.
The reality is there exists such an abundance of material needs, so much so that we have landfills for when we overproduce material needs that are not profitable. The hypothetical serves to divide the poor.
That is reality when you look at the entire earth, but seen from an individuals point that hardly matters.
You may also just replace bread with a resource that is actually scarce.
On the other hand, us debating this topic at all proves my original point, nobody felt like debating the other question at all.
Exactly. This man is a role model and did what I hope I would be able to do, but I wouldn’t expect that to be standard behavior, nor would I find it unforgivable if someone wasn’t able to literally starve to death while surrounded by food. Like, it is morally wrong imo, but that’s an incredible amount of self control that I would not have expected to be possible before learning about him.
Unclear, but his community decided together that they would divvy food up as they did, then he followed that. If I were dividing food in that sort of scenario, I’d probably give more to soldiers, doctors, and young people over bakers, because they represent very difficult to transfer skills (at least during a siege) and your city’s future.
Anyone who decided on their own that they need nourishment more than the community would not be someone I want as a baker going forward though, so he wouldn’t have been able to help people with it anyway.
Because one of these has a clear answer
I they both have clear answers, but they’re obscured by which class you’re in. Rich? Obviously it’s not wrong to hoard. Poor? Obviously you need to eat to survive. Because of this bias, the argument for poor’s needing to steal will always be the debate, always leaving room for the rich to argue against it and justify punishment for people who find ways to make ends meet.
When you phrase it like that, it’s lik stealing is the only way to feed your family. If that is the case, sure stealing is obviously justified. If there are other options to feed you family, it becomes a more complicated dilemma.
It probably depends on what these other options are, who you’re stealing from, etc.
But whom are you stealing it from? If its another poor starving family suddenly its not so clear anymore. If its the hoarding rich guy go the fuck ahead, steal it even if you aren’t starving
This is the argument I have issue with. The truth is that the hypothetical isn’t grounded in reality.
Hypothetically, if one stole from another within the same class out of necessity, it’s impossible for any person to assign or deny the morality of the act.
The reality is there exists such an abundance of material needs, so much so that we have landfills for when we overproduce material needs that are not profitable. The hypothetical serves to divide the poor.
That is reality when you look at the entire earth, but seen from an individuals point that hardly matters. You may also just replace bread with a resource that is actually scarce.
On the other hand, us debating this topic at all proves my original point, nobody felt like debating the other question at all.
Exactly. This man is a role model and did what I hope I would be able to do, but I wouldn’t expect that to be standard behavior, nor would I find it unforgivable if someone wasn’t able to literally starve to death while surrounded by food. Like, it is morally wrong imo, but that’s an incredible amount of self control that I would not have expected to be possible before learning about him.
He could have helped more people had he lived, no?
Unclear, but his community decided together that they would divvy food up as they did, then he followed that. If I were dividing food in that sort of scenario, I’d probably give more to soldiers, doctors, and young people over bakers, because they represent very difficult to transfer skills (at least during a siege) and your city’s future.
Anyone who decided on their own that they need nourishment more than the community would not be someone I want as a baker going forward though, so he wouldn’t have been able to help people with it anyway.
This is it.
this is just the commies having “being an individual” problems again
always need a strong man to take over