Justifications

[Elok]

My electrical system has been freed of the cruel shackles of Isabel, and I am now free to inflict obscure philosospam upon the world once more, so I thought I'd give it a whirl.
A certain other thread(the mods seem to get twitchy about referring to other threads and I'm not sure why so I'll play it safe and zip me lip) got me thinking about the concept of justification by desire, which I do not believe in personally but which makes sense to others. In case you have no idea what I'm gibbering about, I'm talking about the concept that certain activities which might otherwise have been considered wrong are condoned given that the people who do them are under sufficient emotional pressure to do so. I'm not dumb enough to cite any of the examples that actually brought this idea to mind, as that would be just begging for a threadjack, but let's apply the "is it okay for a man to steal bread to feed his starving kids" cliche, which is an extreme but loosely applicable example. I would say no in this case, simply because I believe the idea of theft is repugnant in and of itself, and the fact that innocent people were helped by the proceeds of the activity does not make it right. I could understand showing mercy in sentencing or just looking the other way for the greater good, but in absolute, black-and-white terms, I call crime crime and leave it at that. Partly this is because I'm one of the few people on this board who believes in black-and-white absolutes (has anyone else ever noticed how hard it is to make personal attacks on someone who's already made them for you? ), but aside from that, how does everyone else look at this? What should the law say, and where should it draw the line between "pardonable" and "just making excuses to dodge accountability"?

[SKILORD]

The guy whose kid's are starving?

Well, he should move to a neighborhood with more charitable people in it.

I'm pretty sure that I couldn't see a crime as justified due to the ends and when faced with the paradox no attorney should ever attempt to use the ends as a cop out to establish the innocence of his client. A crime is a crime.

[MrFun]

Re: Justifications

Originally posted by Elok
My electrical system has been freed of the cruel shackles of Isabel, and I am now free to inflict obscure philosospam upon the world once more, so I thought I'd give it a whirl.

[Ned]

Elok, we know that the end justifies the means, which is the bread example; however I think your post also is directed to crimes requiring mens rea. So even though the actions of two individuals might be the same, one might be guilty of a crime while the other not depending upon his state of mind.

Btw: If it is illegal and immoral for Robin Hood to steal from the rich to give to the poor, why is it legal and moral for a democratic majority to do the same? (I am thinking here of steeply progressive income and estate taxes.)

[Zero]

Ned leave democrat bashing out of this one. This thread has enough potential for T.J, spam and flame fest in itself.

[GePap]

The problem with such a complete black and white schema is that, well, it is NOT trully absolute: After all, you need to define Black and White right off, don't you? And when it comes to morality, well, what is black and white?

As for the bread example..IF there was absolutely no other ways by which this individual could meet the needs of his family in any other way, then I would not prosecute (even Hobbes in Leviathan gives all men the right to self-defense, and I assume warding of famine would be such a case); if there was another way this man could have met the needs, I would prosecute, though the sentance would be based on how accesble these other option's were.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
Btw: If it is illegal and immoral for Robin Hood to steal from the rich to give to the poor, why is it legal and moral for a democratic majority to do the same? (I am thinking here of steeply progressive income and estate taxes.)

So why is he the Hero?
Oh, and it was NOT a crime for King John to set taxes as he pleased (with the baron's permission, but hey)..cause he was sovereign...and in a democracy, the legislature is sovereign, and able to set whatever tax rate it pleases in whatever tax scheme.Sorry to wreck this poor attempt.

[Elok]

Originally posted by GePap
The problem with such a complete black and white schema is that, well, it is NOT trully absolute: After all, you need to define Black and White right off, don't you? And when it comes to morality, well, what is black and white?

Black and white: either/or. The perception of the problem as one of two possibilities, A or B, with minimal shades of gray in between. "We are all flying walruses, or none of us are flying walruses. There is no chance that some of us are flying walruses and some are not." Black-and-white in itself establishes no new truths, it simply says that there is no middle ground between the values established. Socrates has already pretty much proven that for true absolute social values you need either a religion or a very very very very very long time to think them through, because for every truth there are an infinite number of falsehoods. I guess from your POV the whole argument's daft. (shrug)

[Ned]

Elok, isn't Manicheism discredited?

Btw, I find no distinction between Robin Hood actions the same actions imposed by the sovereign when one is considering the morality of the action. The former is illegal and the latter legal - but the actions are the same. Why is the same action defined to be immoral if done illegally while the other moral if done legally? I think they are both immoral essentially because I believe in a higher principle - that all should be equal before the law.

[SKILORD]

Originally posted by GePap


So why is he the Hero?
Oh, and it was NOT a crime for King John to set taxes as he pleased (with the baron's permission, but hey)..cause he was sovereign...and in a democracy, the legislature is sovereign, and able to set whatever tax rate it pleases in whatever tax scheme.Sorry to wreck this poor attempt.

Quite simply he wasn't. It was a tragedy told, strangely enough from the point of view not of the protagonist, but of the antagonist.

-

In democracy the legislature is not sovreign, the people are sovreign, and the sole sovreigns of a nation. The Legislation is nothing but a tool of the people, it is chained to them, not sovreign of them.

[Japher]

Doing something because "you want to" is fine, but if there are laws in place that prohibit you from doing something (and even if there aren't) then be prepared to be held accountable for your actions... that's all I ask.

---

Now,

Let's see, what will happen if I spam the hell out of this thread?

While I could care less about this topic, my extreme emotional condition requires me to spam topics I don't see any use for discussing. While Elok may get mad becasue I spam his thread, why would I care? Are there any rules to prevent me from doing so, and what are the consiquences? Will Ming, rah, or MtG care?

[GePap]

Originally posted by SKILORD
In democracy the legislature is not sovreign, the people are sovreign, and the sole sovreigns of a nation. The Legislation is nothing but a tool of the people, it is chained to them, not sovreign of them.

No, the people are not sovereign... they are the Source of sovereignty. Only from the people can one claim sovereignty, BUT that person who gets soverignty fom the people does rule the people, if only for as long as a majority of the people care to have them rule.

Socrates has already pretty much proven that for true absolute social values you need either a religion or a very very very very very long time to think them through, because for every truth there are an infinite number of falsehoods

How can there be an infinite number of falsehoods without an infinite number of truths as well? If things are either or, how can there be a large number oif lies? One choice is correct, one false. If you begin to state that there are many flase, what justifies saying there is only one true?

I think they are both immoral essentially because I believe in a higher principle - that all should be equal before the law.

Being taxed at different rates has nothing to do with equality under the law.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap

I think they are both immoral essentially because I believe in a higher principle - that all should be equal before the law.

Being taxed at different rates has nothing to do with equality under the law.

Huh? Person A is taxed at 10%. Person B is taxed at 50%. How are they not be treated differently?

[Verto]

Hm...King John, who gave little to nothing into the system, received all the benefits(money).

The poor, who give little nothing into the system, receive most benefits.

Hm...

[David Floyd]

To directly answer the question originally posed, it is NEVER OK to steal bread to feed a starving child. If it is OK to do this, then stealing is not always wrong, and if stealing isn't always wrong, just how do you go about setting up the conditions for when stealing is right?

Even further, stealing is defined as "to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully". So, then, if it is ever "right" to steal, then what you are basically saying is that it is right to wrongfully seize the property of another. Obviously this is a contradiction. This leaves us with a couple of solutions:

1)Redefine "stealing", and eliminate words such as "right", "wrongfully", etc., from the definition. Problem is, this defeats the purpose.

2)Find another word for "stealing bread to feed a starving child". The problem here is that this invites all kinds of redefinitions for any activity anyone wants - after all, if it is OK to take bread that isn't yours to feed your child, then maybe it's OK to rob a candy store for your kid's sweet tooth. I understand those are different situations, but without a consistent, black and white basis, this kind of thing is wide open.

No, the only thing to do is to consider stealing wrong in all cases, in accordance with the definition of stealing. If someone steals bread to feed their starving child, then prosecute them for it if the owner of the bread wishes. But at the same time, allow the owner of the bread to refuse to press charges - if the situation is really as dire as it is made out to be, odds are the owner of the bread would let it slide. I would.