Of course there is - being mugged(or having stuff stolen from you) can ruin your life, not even in any physical sense but psychologically it can be devastating. I've had a bike stolen from my house, I didn't even witness it being stolen or anything, just one morning I woke up and the house was broken into and my bike gone - relatively minor financial inconvenience in the grand scheme of things, but for the next 2 years I hated living in that place, I was uncomfortable in my own house and scared of walking around, I honestly felt violated in the sanctum of my own home and couldn't get relaxed around there again. Eventually we moved and in the large portion it was exactly because of that.
So please tell me, even assuming if that person stole my bike to buy bread - how can it possibly have been moral given the impact it had on the life of another person?
It's a little odd that you've changed the topic from stealing food to survive, to stealing someone's bicycle (regardless of your halfhearted comment about the possibility that they stole your bike so they can go buy bread... which... what?).
If someone needs to steal something (anything) in order to survive (an actually survival need), hopefully they will be able to do so in a way that doesn't cause a bystander the kind of difficulty you're talking about. Like they could steal the bicycle from a bike shop instead of a person's home.
But ultimately, if it's actually a survival need, I hope if push came to shove, I wouldn't put my psychological well-being (something that, when hurt, can be healed) above someone else's life (something that, when lost, cannot be returned).
>>It's a little odd that you've changed the topic from stealing food to survive,
Why is it odd? OP said stealing to survive is never immoral, to which I said that of course it is, because theft has a profound impact on the victim, no matter the reason for stealing. People who are victims of theft rarely know why they were stolen from, so they cannot adjust their emotional response as if every thief is stealing to feed their families - and I think acting as if that's a reasonable assumption in any way is well, unreasonable. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
>>But ultimately, if it's actually a survival need, I hope if push came to shove, I wouldn't put my psychological well-being
Sure, and neither would I, but I don't accept that stealing is the moral choice - the person could have literally knocked on my door and asked for food and I would have given them food, and I'm sure majority of people would as well. Again there is a bunch of assumptions there, but I find the whole conversation a bit disingenuous - there is of course actual undeniable theft where the alternative is death in various places around the world, but I refuse to accept that this is the kind of theft most people are talking about here - no one in any modern country is stealing to survive, literally every developed country has programs that will just give you food if you ask - dying from starvation should not be happening anywhere with even a semi functional social system.
You think the sanctity of your home and peace of mind is worth another man dying, rather than eating, when your bike could have saved him?
... You and I both know that your bike wasn't robbed to prevent starvation, making your example completely beside the point. If it had been robbed to prevent the starvation of a human, you ought to feel happy rather than violated - your small sacrifice saved a whole life!
America has more than enough wealth to feed everyone on the planet, but 10 million kids are hungry in the US right now. Someone is stealing that wealth, and it isn't muggers. Try to gain some perspective, despite the daily news telling you to be scared of the poor.
Your approach is gross. Blessing theft the way you do creates two victims, the one from whom it is stolen and one who is not steered towards a better way to live.
The US even still has tremendous opportunity to build a life and earn money. Stealing undermines one's ability and focus to build such a life and undermines the surrounding community as well.
You clearly think you're a great guy/gal/whatever for thinking that someone should be thrilled to be stolen from and you're oblivious to the nothing-but-more-misery this approach practically generates.
I'm kinda on your side here, but you did say "you ought to feel happy" after being robbed by someone who needs it more than you do, which is a bit ridiculous.
The hypothetical situation wasn't "someone who needs it more", it was someone who is literally starving to death.
A contrived situation, no doubt (though not mine). But despite HNers claims to the contrary, some people actually do starve to death because they can't earn for a variety of reasons. And, rather than take care of those people, the US vilifies them.
This leads to a society where tech-bubbled freaks get slightly rabid at the notion that it's morally ok to steal to survive - even going so far as to flag such comments.
I laugh, but the tech community keeps putting up these red flags the last few decades, and it's actually worrying. The disconnect from reality is unfathomable. There's people here claiming that stealing bread to save your life is just as bad as stealing 8 billion dollars - that's unhinged on a level that's hard to imagine.
>>You think the sanctity of your home and peace of mind is worth another man dying, rather than eating, when your bike could have saved him?
Yes, because they could have just asked and I would have given them food. Literally anyone would I'm sure.
The thief in that case choose the path that inflicts psychological damage, because they were too cowardly to just ask for food. In that case they have literally zero of my sympathy. Thieves are the worst people in the society just after murderers and rapists.
Saving that human life is the job of the institutions that we all sacrifice a huge portion of our resources and freedoms to.
It's not the job of an individual to keep their property available in case a desperate person needs to steal it in order to survive.
The implication of what you're saying is that any crime is morally justified as long as the perpetrator is doing it in order to survive, and the victim isn't killed. Which is insane.
> The implication of what you're saying is that any crime is morally justified as long as the perpetrator is doing it in order to survive, and the victim isn't killed. Which is insane.
That doesn't seem insane to me. I think you've phrased it in a somewhat unfair way. But I don't think doing what you need to do to survive is really a moral issue. Certainly it's best to secure your survival without hurting anyone else. But if the choice is between death and making someone else uncomfortable, I don't think I'd blame someone for choosing life if they have to make someone else uncomfortable or inconvenience them.
Certainly the scales have more trouble balancing when it moves from discomfort/inconvenience toward physical harm, especially permanent physical harm. But also consider that in many cases people do have a choice how they react: a shopkeeper, when confronted with someone stealing bread, can get physically involved and risk their safety for the sake of that bread, or they can let it go and consider it the cost of doing business.
This is why most people recommend that if you get mugged, you don't try to play the hero: you just hand over what the mugger wants, and let them go. Your wallet or phone or laptop isn't worth your life. This doesn't make it ok for the mugger to do what they did, but ultimately what matters is the outcome: do you want to get out of it relatively unscathed, or do you want to risk injury or death? Once you're in that situation, you do get to choose how you react.
Anyhow, that doesn't make it "right" or moral or whatever if the thief ends up hurting the shopkeeper during the theft, but it's hard for me to get too up in arms if the thief has no alternative than stealing food. It's understandable, even if it's a bad outcome.
The consequences of robbing someone under threat of violence go far, far beyond them losing their property, even if they aren't physically harmed at all. Calling this making someone "uncomfortable" or "inconveniencing them" is disingenuous bordering on dishonest. In many cases, the victims of robberies are simply unable to continue leading normal lives, even though their limbs are still attached to their body as before.
Of course there is - being mugged(or having stuff stolen from you) can ruin your life, not even in any physical sense but psychologically it can be devastating. I've had a bike stolen from my house, I didn't even witness it being stolen or anything, just one morning I woke up and the house was broken into and my bike gone - relatively minor financial inconvenience in the grand scheme of things, but for the next 2 years I hated living in that place, I was uncomfortable in my own house and scared of walking around, I honestly felt violated in the sanctum of my own home and couldn't get relaxed around there again. Eventually we moved and in the large portion it was exactly because of that.
So please tell me, even assuming if that person stole my bike to buy bread - how can it possibly have been moral given the impact it had on the life of another person?