| | Post 89
Michael,
I'll agree-- that it is objectively moral for a person that is starving/dying of thirst to steal or even kill in an extreme situation if that is what is necessary just to survive-- even if the person he is stealing from or killing is innocent. I just question whether this situation actually occurs. No matter whether it was objectively moral for that individual to steal or kill, I still think it would always be objectively moral to punish people for stealing from and killing the innocent.
In your grocery store scenario, you have individuals who have no other chance of survival other than to eat the food in the store. The owner absolutely refuses to make any deal with them, he would rather keep the food for himself then let the starving individuals survive.
I wonder, why does the owner absolutely refuse to make a deal? Is he acting in his own self interest or not? We know the starving individuals are acting in their own self interest... because they have absolutely no other option. How can we judge the morality of the individuals in this scenario? What sort of punishment should be given to them?
First, I would want to know:
1. Did the starving individuals attempt to make a deal, or did they simply immediately attempt to steal?
2. Did the looters injure kill the owner? Was it an act necessary to survive?
3. Did the owner injure or kill the looters? Was it an act necessary to protect his property?
The answer to #1 would determine whether the starving individuals were irrational looters or rational beings. It establishes whether they had the intent to make trade rather than initiate force. In my court, this would make a big difference as to the severity of the thieves punishment.
The answer to #2 would determine whether the starving individuals were irrationally destroying the owner's body, or whether they were rationally doing what they had to do to survive. In my court, this would make big difference as to the severity of the thieves punishment.
The answer to #3 would determine whether the owner was killing/injuring the looters when he need only warn them. In my court, all acts of violence to protect one's own property are innocent (non-criminal) until proven that he was using an unreasonably damaging amount of force above and beyond what was reasonably necessary to defend. Unreasonably damaging amounts of force would be grounds for punishment, to the degree it was unreasonably damaging.
What would society be like if we were to punish people for protecting their property, and not punish people when they take other's property against the owner's will? I could stop working, and become starving. Then I would be able to eat anywhere I wanted to-- for free. Who would want to make food?
Judge Dean Michael Gores
|
|
