Let’s say you’re the butler to a billionaire who lives alone. The billionaire dies in his sleep. You know he owns a large piece of jewelry that no one else has seen, and you have access to it. If you steal the piece of jewelry, sell it, and give the money to an African charity, you can feed an entire village for a year. The village would otherwise starve. If you don’t steal the jewelry, it will go to his surviving family who has so much money they won’t care about it. Obviously it is illegal to steal the jewelry and feed the starving village in Africa. But do you have a moral obligation to commit the crime for the greater good? And if so, do you likewise have a moral obligation to steal anything else you can get your hands, from dead billionaires or living neighbors, if you can use the stolen property for the greater good? Scott Adams General Nonsense
Why not start more close to home? Most people who post here could probably support one African child, make sure they get food, etc. without putting their asses on the line, risking jail and so on. Do we have a moral obligation not to spend our money on internet cafes, broad band connections, hardware upgrades, coffee and the occasional replacement mouse since this money could go to help a starving child somewhere in the world. Your example is a good one and interesting in the abstract, but the truth is we are basically dealing with something similar every day.
The issue is not of supporting an African child, but of relative morality. Is stealing from another justified if it is for the greater good?
Justified is different from a moral obligation. Many would sympathize with someone who stole in such a situation and gave to the poor. Even the judge might sympathize. In the name of societal order and all the potential side effects of allowing individuals to determine what others should REALLY do with their property, the judge would find for the prosecution. Is it moral to steal it in that situation, yes, I think so. Should that be reflected in the laws of the land? Only in the sentencing phase. Should someone put their ass on the line? In other words are they obligated to do so? No, I don't think so. In that situation it is not my responsibility. To say that I should take the jewelery is to say that it is my responsibility. I must risk myself to save that village. (and jumping to my example, I don't see many leaping to help with no risk at all, so I think most people back me up on this one). There is the hallucination of Godlike responsibility mixed with short term questionable gains. Should society as a whole start moving toward a place where wealth is more fairly distributed? Yes. Should I influence my society in that direction? Yes. I don't need to view the short term crisis situation/opportunity as the only route to a solution. In fact it is a bandaid. How about writing to the papers and saying that YOU COULD HAVE TAKEN IT and raise all the issues? How about putting the time and effort in to actually question the power dynamics of a society that could allow someone to have billions while other starve? To create crisis moral dilemma is really an evasion of how one makes lasting changes. It is a Bruce Willis movie moral decision. I think even thinking in that way is to avoid facing real moral decisions and real courage.
Dogbert told me I should take whatever I want and kill anyone who objects. And then blame it on the rat... that's what he's there for.
So all you're doing is staving off the starvation for one lousy year ...after which they starve anyway. So.....??? Stealing is wrong. Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Simple, huh? Ahh, yes, ....."the greater good." How many times throughout history has that excuse been used to do harm to others? And if it's really for "the greater good", why didn't the butler kill the old bastard and steal his money sooner ....and saved more people (the great good than even the original "greater good")? In fact, why don't we all start killing thousands of rich people and stealing their money so we can feed the remaining people ....for the greater good? Baron Max
Isn't this perhaps the error of "the ends justify the means?" What of all the distrust caused by the stealing? And what of all the other people who could have helped whatever "worthy" charity? I think the cause-and-effect pattern needs to be more firmly established before "taking the law into one's one hands." For example, it should be obviously wrong, to admit to Nazis when they ask, "Are you hiding Jews in your home?" If one was hiding innocent people to protect them from nearly certain death, surely one would be obliged to "lie" and pretend to know nothing about it. Else they would be guilty of betrayal of innocent people to murderous criminal thugs. Perhaps another example could be, some story I heard somewhere, perhaps an illustration, if not true, of some guy operating a drawbridge. He tells his child to stay away from the gears, because they are dangerous. But the child doesn't understand the danger, and is goofing around. After a ship passed through, he sees a speeding train coming. Maybe the train operator didn't see the stop signal or something? To save the train, he has to lower the drawbridge before the train reaches it, but his child has become stuck in the gears. Is he wrong to have "killed" his child, in order to save so many on the train from a deadly crash into the water below? And yet all the people on the train, don't even appreciate his tragedy, because they aren't even aware that anything happened. Isn't that about how we treat Jesus's punishment for our sins?
Answer A) Why didn't you simply present your proposition to the relatives. They might enjoy the tax writeoff, like Gates and his 'foundations' and 'library computers'? Answer B) If the land cannot support the village and people are starving, what makes you possibly think that you do anyone a favor in feeding them, allowing them to spawn further taking more severe drain on the land? Therefore causing more to starve, unless the 'checks' keep flowing forever as their fat population keeps fucking and making more hungry mouths to feed.. You might be, ultimately, hated as the most genocidal atrocity since Hitler! The cause of the greatest mass hunger human die off (when the 'ramen' stops comming) in only one generation of spawning out of synch with the capabilities of the land. Not enough food means that 'consumers' die off till some sort of symbiotic relationship can again be established with environment.. (My definition of charity? Simple.. Don't take more than you need!)
