Is it immoral to lie, steal, and cheat to survive?

[steve_bank]

I read something by Thomas Moore from the time of Henry 8th.

Paraphrasing as I remember it, society creates the conditions under which some who are born into it are forced to resort to crime to survive, and thesociety punishes them for it.

Here in Seattle there have been progressive sentiments that criminals are victims, and a general social idea that everybody somehow is a victim of something. Some in Seattle have gone as far as to say the criminal justice system should be done away with.

Is there a right to survive even if it involves crime?

Back in the early 70s when I was struggling to get started I knew somebody who broke into homes to steal food, he called it grocery shopping. He took only food.

Why Seattle’s Proposed ‘Poverty Excuse’ for Crime Would Destroy the City’s Economy

“I think it’s insane,” one victimized barber told a local news outlet. He's not wrong.

fee.org

Matthew Humphrey recently lost $4,000 worth of goods in a theft of his Seattle barbershop. Under a new proposal the Seattle City Council is considering this month, what happened to him wouldn’t even be a crime—if the thieves claimed they were driven by poverty, that is.

 

[Emily Lake]

Is it immoral? Yes, by pretty much the standard of every human code of morality.

That said, we're still animals. The instinct to survive is strong. Pretty much every other species on the planet will lie, steal, cheat, and murder in order to save their own lives or the lives of their offspring. Sometimes they'll sacrifice their own offspring to preserve their own life. Kangaroos have been know to punt a joey out of the sack so mamma roo can get away and live to make more babies. There are several species of bird that will kick the weakest of their chicks out of the nest so the others can thrive.

Beyond that, however, there is no right to survive. It simply doesn't exist. Some might wish it did, but it doesn't. Sometimes animals die, whether through predation, starvation, disease, or old age. People are animals too.

 

[steve_bank]

I should not have used the word immoral and just asked if their is a right to survive.

The question is in context of a society that allows socioeconomic conditions in which some turn to crime to survive do those people have a right to surve by any means?

Up through the 19th century if youulod not buy or beg food yu starved.

Today we have more than enough food in the USA to provide nutrition. The working poor from all reporting is having increasing problems paying rent and for food, especially when there are kids.

Do people have a right to survive by resorting to crime, or 'morally' are they supposed to starve?

It is not academic or philosophical, it is reality today.

 

[Emily Lake]

There is no right either way. There is no right to survive, full stop.

People don't have a right to steal from others, or to murder others, in order to secure their own survival. Not having that right, however, isn't going to stop some people from doing it anyway. Nobody has the right to murder people for sheer greed either, but they do so anyway. Nobody has a right to break the laws that apply to us all.

I would also argue from another perspective: Nobody has a right to survival. If anyone were to have that right, it would impose an obligation on all other humans to keep them alive no matter what. And that's simply unreasonable, as well as being unjust. If we had that right, then any person - indeed ALL people - would be entitled to say "I don't want to work or put forth any effort or contribute in any way, but I demand that someone else must provide for my food and shelter". And that would be absurd.

All living things must put forth effort toward their own survival. They must forage or hunt to obtain food so they don't starve. They must seek out water sources so they don't die of dehydration. They must find shade or dig burrows or otherwise obtain shelter from the elements. Even plants must grow in the direction of the sun and compete for that resource with other plants.

Humans are no exception to that. We have more complex social systems, in which there is a trade-off between the individual and the community that can temper the base drive for individual survival. We can make decisions to share with others, because doing so benefits the tribe, and it creates an environment of reciprocity where we understand that someday it might be us who needs a hand. We create laws to balance the needs of the group and the needs of the individual, to reduce anarchy and violence. But even within those constructs, none of us is obligated to guarantee survival to any other person.

I may be lauded for jumping in the raging river to save you from drowning... but I'm not obligated to do so.

 

[Emily Lake]

That said, I also support efforts to provide access to shelter and food for those who have found themselves without. And there are many, many ways for a poor or homeless to access them. There are countless food banks, food drives, church efforts, etc. that are perfectly willing to feed any who come to their door. But they do need to actually go to those places in order to get food.

Unless you're a hermit in the mountains with no access to transportation or communication, there ARE services available. They may require some effort in return, they may require that you show up and fill out some paper work, or help with the cleaning, but they ARE there.

 

[steve_bank]

Th homeless issue is complicated, I live in the middle of it in Seattle.

A significant part of it from police and news reportimg is a front for oganized crie, IOW drugs. Last week I heard several loud explosions followed by popping. When I went outside I saw brush and trees burning in a camp across the highway next to Harbor View a major regional hospital.

The police report said the guy who ran the camp and rgugs in the camp was forced out by somebody else. He made imprvised explosves and paced them around the camp and a tent where people could go and pay to do drugs.

When the bombs went off he started shooting as people ran. Right out of a Hollywood ultra violence movie.

My eye doctors are at Harbor View.

There are homeless who are just down on their luck, but as far as I can tell the majority are gaming the system and usng it as a cover for drugs.

I see it all the time. Healthy lookng peole hanging aroud a camp and on the street when companies can't find people. People offered housing do refuse it, they want no resonsibilty.

So, a related question, do those who are healthy and mentally together have a right to hang around, squat anywhere, and live off charity, panhandling, and social services?

There is a small homeless camp across the street from my building's front door. We have a chronic problem, they wait until someone leaves the parking garage and get in as the gate closes.

 

[bilby]

There is no right either way. There is no right to survive, full stop.

These guys disagree with you:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life...

 

[Elixir]

There is no right either way. There is no right to survive, full stop.

These guys disagree with you:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life...

You have a right to life, but it ends when you die.

 

[TomC]

There is no right either way. There is no right to survive, full stop.

These guys disagree with you:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life...

You do realize that the author of those lofty, immortal, words was a Slaver banging his slave girls?
Owner of their children?

Gave his children a couple of bucks and a head start, because he couldn't afford to just free them? He owed too many people too much money for his lavish travels, parties, and "home improvements". He was too far in debt to give away his assets, after inheriting piles of money.

But, boy, he could talk a good game.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

What Jefferson meant by all men are created equal was theelimination of the British type of aristocratic privileged class. An American meritocracy, at least in theory.

The OP is about society creating or allowing conditions to exist in which people are born who wind up having or thinking they have to commit crime to survive.

Is there a right to survive any way you can, or do you just starve to death if you can;t buy food?

Our free market system is getting worse over time in that it is not providing for increasing numbers of honest working people. Food, medical, gas, and rent costs.

This is the morality and principles forum.

In the area there have been people walking out of stores with full carts. Retail theft is becmming cricak for area businesses. When I walk of of a Walmart someone checks my receipt against what I have.

Reporting says some of the increase in retail theft is due to increasing inability to pay for essentials. Parents are having trouble paying for diapers.

Do people have a right to steal when there are no other options?

 

[bilby]

You do realize that the author of those lofty, immortal, words was a Slaver banging his slave girls?
Owner of their children?

Of course.

Is that relevant to whether or not there's a fundamental right to life?

 

[Politesse]

Summary of OP: If you try to view a very badly paraphrased modern political situation from the perspective of a better but still badly paraphrased 16th century saint, what do you think about that?

If you think that's a less than charitable rendition of the OP, perhaps even libelous... you are coming close to my perspective on the crime that has just been done to both the memory of St Thomas More (not Moore) and the quite diverse set of people, policies and plans you've carelessly jumbled together as The Some People of Seattle.

 

[Emily Lake]

Is there a right to survive any way you can, or do you just starve to death if you can;t buy food?

There is no right to survive any way you can. It's not a right. Not being a right, however, doesn't mean that people will just roll over and die of starvation.

Rights are social contracts. They're agreed upon modes of behavior within a given group, and they define the line between the individual and the group, between private citizens and government entities. Rights limit what others can require you to do, and what you can require of others.

The instinctual drive to survive is in every one of us. In a well-functioning society, that instinct is inactive - our survival is not threatened. In a functioning society, there are communal efforts to see to the needs of law-abiding outliers whose survival is threatened through circumstance and poor luck. On the other hand, however, a well-functioning society also takes steps to mitigate the likelihood of freeloaders and exploiters of goodwill.

Seattle is... not an example of a well-functioning society. There is a ridiculous level of wealth in the city and its surroundings, but there's also incredibly lax policing. Recent policies seem to me to encourage the rampant use of drugs, and to me this invites the victimization of state-sponsored addicts by criminal elements... to the detriment of ALL residents of the city.

 

[Emily Lake]

You do realize that the author of those lofty, immortal, words was a Slaver banging his slave girls?
Owner of their children?

Of course.

Is that relevant to whether or not there's a fundamental right to life?

There is a right to not be forcibly deprived of your life through the direct action of others*. That is not the same as a right to continued living at the expense of someone else.

Just because you got born and made it to adulthood doesn't mean anybody else is obligated to keep you alive.

 

[steve_bank]

I'll play devil's advocate.

Can I assume Emily is a conservative republican who does not support tax paid social programs?

Just because you got born and made it to adulthood doesn't mean anybody else is obligated to keep you alive.

You are born into poverty. You are hungry and can't get a job. Do you steal to eat?

Today it is a fundamental issue, should there be a national minimum living wage?

 

[pood]

There is no right either way. There is no right to survive, full stop.

These guys disagree with you:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life...

You do realize that the author of those lofty, immortal, words was a Slaver banging his slave girls?
Owner of their children?

Gave his children a couple of bucks and a head start, because he couldn't afford to just free them? He owed too many people too much money for his lavish travels, parties, and "home improvements". He was too far in debt to give away his assets, after inheriting piles of money.

But, boy, he could talk a good game.
Tom

All true and it deserves to be pointed out, but it doesn’t make his “right to life” liberty, et all wrong, of course, because tjhat would be ad hom. It just makes him a raging hypocrite.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'll play devil's advocate.

Can I assume Emily is a conservative republican who does not support tax paid social programs?

No... that would be a really bad assumption.

Just because you got born and made it to adulthood doesn't mean anybody else is obligated to keep you alive.

You are born into poverty. You are hungry and can't get a job. Do you steal to eat?

Possibly. Also on the table are hunting, poaching, and random vegetable patches in the mountains.

But let's be clear - the fact that I do steal so I can survive doesn't mean that I have a right to steal.

Today it is a fundamental issue, should there be a national minimum living wage?

Clarification: Are you talking about a minimum wage for ALL work that guarantees livability? Or are you talking about a universal income sort of thing?

I support a minimum wage, I'm not convinced that it needs to be a livable wage for all work. Some jobs hire students part time, and I think that a kid who is being partially supported by their parents doesn't necessarily need a living wage. On the other hand, the full time stocker at Walmart should be paid enough that they don't have to get food stamps. I don't think there's a one size fits all solution to this.

 

[TomC]

All true and it deserves to be pointed out, but it doesn’t make his “right to life” liberty, et all wrong, of course, because tjhat would be ad hom. It just makes him a raging hypocrite.

Or, it just makes him a human.

It's all even more complex than that.
If I understand correctly(I could be wrong) Jefferson wanted to include an end to slavery in the colonies, over time, to the Declaration of Independence. Abolitionist Founding Fathers did not, and prevailed.
Not because they wanted slavery to go on permanently. But because they knew that they had to keep all the colonies united against the existential threat of the British military. If even one colony had pulled out, giving the British a beach head, the whole Independence Project was utterly doomed. South Carolina could have ended the U.S. by deciding to let the British land in the port at Charleston Harbor.
I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who pointed out, "We must all hang together, else we shall all hang separately."

It was all very complex and political.
Tom

 

[WAB]

"All men are created equal" meant, at that time, that all white men were created equal. This did not include black or brown men, or women.

Stuff the forefathers.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I read something by Thomas Moore from the time of Henry 8th.

Paraphrasing as I remember it, society creates the conditions under which some who are born into it are forced to resort to crime to survive, and thesociety punishes them for it.

I think in those times in that geography, it may have been more true more of the time that a human could be enslaved OR surrounded by property of others and government thugs enforcing the will of the elite class. In such circumstance, I DO believe it would be wrong to be forced to starve or forced to comply with enslavement.

The comparison to today in the U.S. in a system of social safety nets, charitable organizations, a modicum of economic mobility, and public property makes me skeptical that a person who claims they are forced into crime, actually is, but instead may have had a series of poor decisions that also contributed to their circumstance. That said, I will be open-minded. Maybe such persons do exist.

Let's suppose they do for this hypothetical exercise. They need food to survive. The only option is to steal it in the hypothetical...not beg for it or other options.

Since I contend that it is wrong to let them die of starvation, I also contend it would be wrong to call them immoral for stealing food to survive, provided the food was excess food (not for an equally needy person). The value of his/her life > the value of excess food.

In the real world, in practice, I view things as multi-variate, probabilities, and unknowns. Hypotheticals about rightness or wrongness dependent upon a single variable and people being forced are bunk. Public policy in Seattle is likely orders of magnitude more complex.