Which Is Worse, The Fact That A Man Steals, Or The Fact That He Has To

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty

Edited February 22, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[Autumn Dusk]

I think the "has to" is a bit of a loaded question.  

 

does "has to" include

-someone with a compulsive disorder

-someone who is high on a hunger inducing drug

-someone who has no clothing because they were reckless

-someone who is "addicted" to TV and must watch cable

-someone who squats in a house for shelter while it's occupants are on vacation, rather than go to a crowded homeless shelter

-someone who is hungry but because of their own neglect?

-someone who has no money to pay their bills and will loose their house due to gambling.

 

 

Besides all that, even stealing from Walmart, you're stealing from someone the greater the cost of stealing the lower Wally world pays it's employees to keep the cost/profit ratio down.

[Slappo]

If I remember my moral theology class correctly, morally it is not theft if it is required for survival (food for a starving person) and there are no legitimate means for the individual to obtain the goods.

 

Destruction intentionally caused when obtaining the goods may be an injustice and injury towards the person from whom said goods were stolen depending on circumstances (smashing car window, breaking grocery store door etc).

 

In otherwords, I disagree with the definition you have used of stealing.

[PhuturePriest]

I asked Tim Staples the moral question of "Is stealing always a sin" last year. He said that if you are truly starving and you have no food, and your neighbor has more than enough for himself and won't give any to you, it's not a sin to take some of his food, because as far as God is concerned, that's rightfully your food. However, he did say if you wanted to it's a noble thing to suffer and die of starvation in atonement for your sins.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i agree w the idea of taking when u need it.

 

id question how it's morally consistent though for catholics to say that, while also cliaming the ends never justify the means

[Slappo]

i agree w the idea of taking when u need it.

 

id question how it's morally consistent though for catholics to say that, while also cliaming the ends never justify the means

 

To satisfy the ends never justify the means, you simply clarify that people have a natural right to sustinence which trumps personal property laws in cases of destitution.

[PhuturePriest]

i agree w the idea of taking when u need it.

 

id question how it's morally consistent though for catholics to say that, while also cliaming the ends never justify the means

 

The means of taking the food is not evil in this case because in God's eyes it is rightfully yours. Therefore, there is no sin, and it does not contradict the teaching that the ends do not justify the means.

[Anomaly]

Then what about telling a lie to save a life?

[PhuturePriest]

Then what about telling a lie to save a life?

 

That's different from taking food when you are starving. It's morally licit to take food when you are starving and have no other way to obtain it because in God's eyes it belongs to you. A lie isn't the same.

[BG45]

That's different from taking food when you are starving. It's morally licit to take food when you are starving and have no other way to obtain it because in God's eyes it belongs to you. A lie isn't the same.

 

He's possibly trying to trap you.  Next up will be the "so you would turn over the Jews to the Nazis" rhetoric.  Or at least that's usually how this sort of debate goes. :|

[Evangetholic]

Lying to save a life isn't ok either. One should have a sense in mind by which the statement is technically true.

 

Nazi: Are there Jews here?

 

Catholic: No. (By which he really means they are hiding in the next room.)

Edited March 1, 2013 by Evangetholic

[Anomaly]

That's different from taking food when you are starving. It's morally licit to take food when you are starving and have no other way to obtain it because in God's eyes it belongs to you. A lie isn't the same.

 

Not playing games, just making your think it out.

 

Why does the food "belong to you"?  Who are you stealing from?  Isn't it somebody else's food, fruit of their efforts?  Do you really KNOW they stole or cheated for the food that you are now stealing?  Is it the same as stealing money for food?

 

 

Is the food yours because you're life is important?  Is the food owed to your family because their life is important?

 

If asked where you got the food, should you tell the truth and admit you stole it?  What if you lived in draconian times like Les Mis' and knew it was a serious crime that would take you from your family and put you in jail for years?

[Papist]

Has to? 

[dairygirl4u2c]

there are compelling points about stealing premade bread v growing your own. one has one's labor involved and one doesnt.

 

i see the point about "not stealing or wrong to begin with". but couldnt that be said about many things? "the man wasnt entitled to his body being in peace to begin with... torture"

not to necessarily open that can of worms again.

there are many conservative catholic types who see the "not really stealing, just taking etc" as a cop out

Edited March 1, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[Gabriela]

I object to the "has to" bit as well. It forced me to presume things that aren't always the case for theft (in fact, rarely are, I think). But if someone was starving, it would certainly be worse that no one had fed him than it would be that he should steal to survive.