A friend and I were having a debate. Can I hear someone else’s opinion about this?
And please give me an explanation. If yes, why? If no, why? Thanks in advance 👍🏼

  • @esi
    2•2 years ago

    deleted by creator

    • @jazzfes
      1•3 years ago

      In my opinion it is pointless and somewhat wrong to discuss permission when there is hunger. I think there are various ways to look at this:

      1. If someone faces the choice between punishment for stealing and hunger for not stealing, punishment cannot be used as a deterrent. Because the person is in a bad situation regardless.

      2. If someone who is hungry steals from someone else who is hungry, I feel likewise, there is little point in laying blame, since the situation is extreme and either way not resolved positively (i.e. whether the stealing happens or not).

      3. If the hunger situation is caused (actively or by omission) by others, society or some process, I do feel very strongly that this cause would have to take the blame for both hunger as well as any resulting crimes, damages or unmoral outcomes. For instance, that dumpster diving is illegal would be a highly unmoral law from that perspective.

      Hunger is an extreme situation and while this would not justify everything, anyone not in that situation should from my POV have the understanding, pragmatism and compassion to address the underlying cause (i.e. hunger), not the consequent outcome (say someone stealing because they are hungry).

      Lastly, there should be some historic view to this question. It was not uncommon historically, that causing extreme economic poverty was used as a justification for punishment which further deteriorated the conditions of the poor. I feel that blame must be laid on the architects of that condition. More openly this question touches on whether economic sanctions are moral.