do you steal the bread??

[QuestionAuthority]

i am dropping a little andy bernard (presently my favorite office character) on everyone! I bring forth one of the oldest philosophical questions of all time - your family is starving, and there is no one to help you know. no family, no friends, nothing. you do not have any work and have no money. you have nothing to trade for food. you walk through the market and see a loaf of bread on the edge of a merchant's tray. the merchant is distracted and will not see you if you take the bread. your spouse and children have not eaten for a week.

what do you do??

and no cheating answers like michael from the office a few weeks ago when he said 'i would not steal the bread and i would not let my family starve!'

[daughter]

I would steal the bread.

[Ta-An]

By 'accident' push it onto the floor, and then offer to work in exchange for it...

[QuestionAuthority]

By accident push it onto the floor, and then offer to work in exchange for it...

by 'accident' you mean on purpose, and yes that's a creative idea. but of course the merchant could say no, 'pay me' and then you are in trouble.

[daughter]

Mind you, a loaf of bread big enough to replenish a spouse and kids after a week's starvation would be pretty hard to hide... Could I really be sure I'd get away with it? :lol:

[QuestionAuthority]

Mind you, a loaf of bread big enough to replenish a spouse and kids after a week's starvation would be pretty hard to hide... Could I really be sure I'd get away with it? :lol:

for purposes of this exercise, assume you could escape with it if you tried (either just run off with it or hide it in your coat). afterall, this isn't a fun exercise if its impossible to steal the bread. its kind of a waste of time.

my first instinct would to just take that bread like nobody's business - but i am trying to figure out if there is a more moral answer :hmm:

[Ta-An]

by 'accident' you mean on purpose, and yes that's a creative idea. but of course the merchant could say no, 'pay me' and then you are in trouble.yes, I suppose.... like as in : If you break it consider it sold, like you would see the warning in a glassware shop...

If there was an easy legal way,,, would people not have used it already??:hmm:

[ServantofTruth]

i am dropping a little andy bernard (presently my favorite office character) on everyone! I bring forth one of the oldest philosophical questions of all time - your family is starving, and there is no one to help you know. no family, no friends, nothing. you do not have any work and have no money. you have nothing to trade for food. you walk through the market and see a loaf of bread on the edge of a merchant's tray. the merchant is distracted and will not see you if you take the bread. your spouse and children have not eaten for a week.

what do you do??

and no cheating answers like michael from the office a few weeks ago when he said 'i would not steal the bread and i would not let my family starve!'

The question is flawed. 'You have nothing to trade for food.' :pray: I believe in the power of God, he always shows a way out and that is biblical.

If you are a genuine seeker - are you reading the bible daily? Are you listening to the many answers given in love, by so many of my friends on this site. Fool the words of fools or God/ Jesus. SofTy.

[Ta-An]

You know what,,,,, You ask.... :idea:

[QuestionAuthority]

The question is flawed. 'You have nothing to trade for food.' :pray: I believe in the power of God, he always shows a way out and that is biblical.

If you are a genuine seeker - are you reading the bible daily? Are you listening to the many answers given in love, by so many of my friends on this site. Fool the words of fools or God/ Jesus. SofTy.

this is just meant to be a light hearted philosophical thread - i wasn't getting into the whole 'does god answer prayers' thing. but if you insist on injecting god into the question, let's assume that god, for reasons only known to him, does not want to interfere.

i was thinking about begging on the street for money to buy bread, or for bread directly, but that's too easy of an out. so let's assume no one is going to give you bread or money to buy it.

[daughter]

for purposes of this exercise, assume you could escape with it if you tried (either just run off with it or hide it in your coat). afterall, this isn't a fun exercise if its impossible to steal the bread. its kind of a waste of time.

my first instinct would to just take that bread like nobody's business - but i am trying to figure out if there is a more moral answer :hmm:
Well, for the purpose of the excercise, my family really truly will die, and it appears to me that there is no other option than to steal. In this extreme, very unlikely scenario, it would be dishonest for me to say that I wouldn't steal the bread. I've never starved, though I've met people who have, and I can imagine that while I was stealing I'd have all sorts of attempts at biblical justification running through my head. I'd probably be thinking of David eating the shewbread in the Temple, even though it was unlawful, but also I'd be beating myself up because "man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God."

Despite this though, I believe that I would take the bread, because I'm weak and human.

On the other hand, I don't believe that God would ever put me in a situation where there truly was no option but to break His law. The honest answer to your question is that yes, I would steal. And theft is wrong - unfortunately there is no getting round that. However, allowing one's family to die is also wrong, and I would put their good before my own.

In this one, extreme, and highly unlikely scenario.

[RoadWarrior]

this is just meant to be a light hearted philosophical thread - i wasn't getting into the whole 'does god answer prayers' thing. but if you insist on injecting god into the question, let's assume that god, for reasons only known to him, does not want to interfere.

i was thinking about begging on the street for money to buy bread, or for bread directly, but that's too easy of an out. so let's assume no one is going to give you bread or money to buy it.

QA, this is a Christian forum. We are always going to answer by "injecting God into the question".

In the cemetary near my childhood home is an old tombstone for a man who was buried there shortly after the end of the civil war. His death was caused by gunshot wounds. The legend on the stone states that he died for stealing grits to feed his starving family. I wonder if his family survived? The stone does not tell us that.

None of us really know exactly how we would handle that situation until we are in the middle of it.

What would you do, QA? What morals would guide your decision?

[QuestionAuthority]

QA, this is a Christian forum. We are always going to answer by "injecting God into the question".

In the cemetary near my childhood home is an old tombstone for a man who was buried there shortly after the end of the civil war. His death was caused by gunshot wounds. The legend on the stone states that he died for stealing grits to feed his starving family. I wonder if his family survived? The stone does not tell us that.

None of us really know exactly how we would handle that situation until we are in the middle of it.

What would you do, QA? What morals would guide your decision?

well i wouldn't let my wife and daughter starve. that would be a far greater evil than stealing a loaf of bread. i mean, look at hurricane katrina a few years ago in new orleans. people needed help and there was literally no one to help them! they did what they needed to do to survive. would any of us tell one of those people stealing food from a locked up store that they acted immorally?

[RoadWarrior]

well i wouldn't let my wife and daughter starve. that would be a far greater evil than stealing a loaf of bread. i mean, look at hurricane katrina a few years ago in new orleans. people needed help and there was literally no one to help them! they did what they needed to do to survive. would any of us tell one of those people stealing food from a locked up store that they acted immorally?

And what if you were shot in the process? Would your wife and daughter survive then?

Your question is not as simple as it appears.

[ServantofTruth]

this is just meant to be a light hearted philosophical thread - i wasn't getting into the whole 'does god answer prayers' thing. but if you insist on injecting god into the question, let's assume that god, for reasons only known to him, does not want to interfere.

i was thinking about begging on the street for money to buy bread, or for bread directly, but that's too easy of an out. so let's assume no one is going to give you bread or money to buy it.

How strange that on a Christian web site, in the Christian Answer section (even if it is the sub section of kicking back) that I a Christian would bring God in to my reply.

Sorry but i don't have times when i leave my faith behind and discuss from a 'worldly' point of view.

As i understand it, it is your position to start a topic and believers to answer you, to point you in the direction of Jesus Christ. If you wish to discuss without an issue without God, then you need another site?

So yes i do insist on injecting God into the question. But no i will not assume what God will do in the situation. But whatever it is, it will be done in love and be just.

These questions are created to set traps for believers, like the teachers of the law, pharisees and saducees try in the bible. I don't claim to have the Wisdom of Jesus (God made flesh). I will make mistakes and you will be pleased when people here disagree with eachother.

I just wish you would take seeking God/ Jesus Christ more seriously. That is what you are trying to do here? Softy. :hmm:

[QuestionAuthority]

And what if you were shot in the process? Would your wife and daughter survive then?

Your question is not as simple as it appears.

you are introducing a new element into the scenario. let's say for purposes of the scenerio, you could escape with the bread unharmed. i've already said assume you could get away. i want to boil this down to "would you take the bread" rather than be mired in an endless list of what ifs.

but, oh what the heck, i will toss in another 'what if' - let's says you knew your spouse and children could survive a few more days without food but they would be in unbearable agony the entire time. would you wait until the very last minute before their deaths to take the bread?

[QuestionAuthority]

How strange that on a Christian web site, in the Christian Answer section (even if it is the sub section of kicking back) that I a Christian would bring God in to my reply.

Sorry but i don't have times when i leave my faith behind and discuss from a 'worldly' point of view.

As i understand it, it is your position to start a topic and believers to answer you, to point you in the direction of Jesus Christ. If you wish to discuss without an issue without God, then you need another site?

So yes i do insist on injecting God into the question. But no i will not assume what God will do in the situation. But whatever it is, it will be done in love and be just.

These questions are created to set traps for believers, like the teachers of the law, pharisees and saducees try in the bible. I don't claim to have the Wisdom of Jesus (God made flesh). I will make mistakes and you will be pleased when people here disagree with eachother.

I just wish you would take seeking God/ Jesus Christ more seriously. That is what you are trying to do here? Softy. :hmm:

this question has been around for....well, for a loooong time. i promise i am not trying to 'set a trap' for anyone. i think i have spoken with enough of the people here that they know that. i am just an intellectually curious person. plus i thought this sub-forum was a lot more laid back.

i do apologize for my 'injecting god' comment though. i did not mean for that to be as rude as it sounded.

i guess my only point is that we could NEVER discuss these types of philosophical questions if the answer was always going to be, "god would not let me be in this situation, and if he did, he would provide a way out."

[daughter]

i was thinking about begging on the street for money to buy bread, or for bread directly, but that's too easy of an out. so let's assume no one is going to give you bread or money to buy it.
In that case it becomes less of a conflict for me to steal the bread. The people who deny my family food are breaking God's law respecting the sanctity of human life. They would be murderers by negligence. I'd be less conflicted about stealing from them.

[chal]

what do you do??
'

:pray: I pray.

God is omnipresent. He doesn't have to be injected into anything to be there. He already is. He was in that question long before anyone thought of it.

[Scruffy Kid]

do you steal the bread? i am dropping a little andy bernard (presently my favorite office character) on everyone! I bring forth one of the oldest philosophical questions of all time - your family is starving, and there is no one to help you know. no family, no friends, nothing. you do not have any work and have no money. you have nothing to trade for food. you walk through the market and see a loaf of bread on the edge of a merchant's tray. the merchant is distracted and will not see you if you take the bread. your spouse and children have not eaten for a week.

what do you do??Dear QA, :)
Blessings and greetings, and thanks for your good question!!

In a sense, by posting on a Christian message board, you are speaking to, of course, "as Christians", as well as "as miscellaneous individuals". In my view -- not all here will agree perhaps -- how I think, and what we should think as Christians, has to do with our membership in the whole body of God's people, and thus one way of trying to explore fruitfully the question you have asked includes considering how Christians (and Jews) through the ages have understood it. I would like to do that, in replying.

"Stealing" means something like "taking and using what does not belong to you", or "taking away what belongs to someone else." Therefore, what constitutes stealing has implicit reference to a theory of property, that is, of what belongs to whom. Recognizing this can be helpful for various reasons, but among others because it can help illuminate questions of individual morality in the context of the life of the society in which those individuals live and function.

(That does not mean relativizing moral issues; it does mean considering how moral requisites, including absolutely binding principles, may, if they are to be understood rightly, have to be understood with a sensitive eye to what their actual purport is, and not in some thoughtless, mechanical or literalistic way.)

We live in a highly individualistic society, with notions of property that are heavily influenced by the legal codes that come out of industrial capitalism and the modern state system. Some other ages and cultures, however, may have had somewhat different notions of property, which reflected a more relational and organic view of persons in relationship to society and one another. In this regard it would be interesting to think about how ancient Jewish culture seems to have thought about some of these issues, and about how thinkers from the high middle ages thought about them.

Let's start with the latter. Thomas (i.e. Thomas Aquinas), as I understand it (I haven't actually read the relevant passages), argues that in this kind of situation a man who is starving has a right to bread. Thus, roughly, if I correctly understand, it would be Thomas's view that a merchant who has bread owes the bread to a starving family. For this reason, it would not be, strictu sensu, theft for the man to take the bread to feed his starving family. In other words, in this view (whether it be Thomas's or no) possession of property -- here, right to the bread -- is not something which is in all circumstances determined by the usual legal processes of acquisition, but rather is something conditioned by the overall nature of society and community, according to which we are not to let people starve. Our society feels somewhat similarly about laws of tresspass. Ordinarily, people have a right to keep others off their own property, and to violate that right is to tresspass. But if someone sees a child drowning, or trapped in a burning building, on someone else's property, one has the right, and perhaps the obligation, to do what would, otherwise, be tresspassing, or even to break through windows or doors to rescue the child. There's a special legal name for this, I think, which I've been told, but forget. The view Thomas (I think) sets out also lines up with the OT law. According to OT law, it was permissible for someone passing through a grain field to eat enough to satisfy himself. Also, after crops were harvested, the needy could pass through the fields and glean -- gather and take home -- what had been missed. In fact, owners of land were forbidden to go back and make a second pass through the fields, because it was important that some be left for the gleaners. Similarly, they were not to reap the the very edges of their fields, I believe. (I am writing this stuff from memory and don't have time to go look up references, so I may commit some errors.) There are also various NT passages which are relevant, and support the general line of reasoning I'm developing here, but these involve some other issues which I don't want to get caught up in just now.

Let me sum up.
1) On the view of many, a man who takes bread for his starving family is in fact not stealing in the strict sense, because if others have plenty it is only just that a starving family should be fed from their relative abundance.

2) The way that people look at this is partly conditioned by their culture and moral (ethical) and religious views more broadly. That is not to say that all is relative, subjective, or culturally relative; rather, it is to say that we need to examine our own society's characteristic ways of thinking about these questions in comparative perspective (and -- of course -- for us as Christians especially in light of the BIble and Christian wisdom through the ages) in order to assess whether the way we frame the problem needs, in the light of broader ethical considerations, to be modified.

3) Specifically our society (modern society) may view specific laws concerning property in too rigid, commercial, and individualistic a way: viewing property in the light of the overall good of society has a place in interpreting what would be stealing and what would not.

The point being made here should not be confused with the very different point about whether there are moral absolutes. In general, Biblical teaching and Christian tradition has held that there are indeed absolutes -- things that may not be done regardless of consequences. Thus, the deliberate taking of innocent human life generally is considered wrong irrespective of the consequences. But taking bread to sustain a human life is very different. The difference arises, partly, from the sense of human interrelationship in community as a vital part of morality, and also from the value placed on human life versus possession of items of property.

Sometimes similar disputations come up in regard to lying. Generally, Christian tradition has held that lying is never permissible. Lots of parts of Western moral tradition that are not explicitly Christian hold the same view (which is expressed, for instance, in Sissela Bok's book on Lying). Yet many in these streams of though would see lying to protect an innocent victim from an armed assailant who seeks to destroy the innocent. The modern classic version of this is protecting Jews from Nazis. (There's an ancient story about Athanasius which makes related points.) The general view often is that the absolute prescription against lying is not violated -- but rather waived -- in such a case, because the duty to tell the truth arises from a certain understanding of the need to preserve trust and integrity in society, and that that understanding has been so radically undercut by the immoral persecutor of the innocent that speech with such a person has a different meaning than speech with a person in normal circumstances. Some of the same issues come up in regard to what it means to deal with honsesty and respect with a person who is insane, or drug-crazed, and how those situations condition the usual rules.

As a useful contrast point, I. Kant -- a modern of strict moral cast -- tends to construe moral absolutes (do not steal, do not lie) without these conditioning factors. The bulk of Christian and Western tradition, while generally agreeing with Kant about moral absolutes, would tend to see him as missing the mark at this point, for reasons which reflect the strong individualism (characteristic of modern society) of his outlook, and perhaps a kind of over literal legalism as well.

4) The generally more relational and societal basis which conditions classic Christian and Jewish thought reflects a picture of humanity which places emphasis upon humanity's relational, as well as individual, nature. Thus, in Genesis 1:26 & f. God says "let us make humankind in our own image" and, the text goes on to say, creates humanity, male and female, (with an imperative to populate the earth, that is to have children) in God's image. This does confer a kind of sense that each person is of infinite value as made in God's image, but also a sense that the imago dei, the divine image in humanity, is one that includes humanity as inherently understood as existing in loving community. This important balance between individual dignity and the sense of human unity and interrelationship is, in my view, much distorted in modern thought.

5) Finally, the whole picture -- which derives individual moral commands ("do not steal", "do not lie", "do not commit adultery", "honor your parents", and so on) from a picture of humankind as a family, and one in which the ultimate purpose is to live together in familial love -- is one which is closely linked to an understanding of the whole framework of human life as finding its meaning and value and ultimate grounding in God's goodness, and in humankind's relationship to God, as our maker. That theological element is part of the relational picture of morality which I have been developing, although I cannot explore it much more right here and now. That is, God's goodness and order in creating, God's loving and yet strictly upright character, and the relationship of love (and duty) between God and man, are mirrored in, and implied by, the vision of social relations which is interlinked with the speicfic moral vision of the Bible, OT and NT.

Cheers, :hug:
Scruffy Kid

[QuestionAuthority]

Dear QA, :)
Blessings and greetings, and thanks for your good question!!

In a sense, by posting on a Christian message board, you are speaking to, of course, "as Christians", as well as "as miscellaneous individuals". In my view -- not all here will agree perhaps -- how I think, and what we should think as Christians, has to do with our membership in the whole body of God's people, and thus one way of trying to explore fruitfully the question you have asked includes considering how Christians (and Jews) through the ages have understood it. I would like to do that, in replying.

"Stealing" means something like "taking and using what does not belong to you", or "taking away what belongs to someone else." Therefore, what constitutes stealing has implicit reference to a theory of property, that is, of what belongs to whom. Recognizing this can be helpful for various reasons, but among others because it can help illuminate questions of individual morality in the context of the life of the society in which those individuals live and function.

(That does not mean relativizing moral issues; it does mean considering how moral requisites, including absolutely binding principles, may, if they are to be understood rightly, have to be understood with a sensitive eye to what their actual purport is, and not in some thoughtless, mechanical or literalistic way.)

We live in a highly individualistic society, with notions of property that are heavily influenced by the legal codes that come out of industrial capitalism and the modern state system. Some other ages and cultures, however, may have had somewhat different notions of property, which reflected a more relational and organic view of persons in relationship to society and one another. In this regard it would be interesting to think about how ancient Jewish culture seems to have thought about some of these issues, and about how thinkers from the high middle ages thought about them.

Let's start with the latter. Thomas (i.e. Thomas Aquinas), as I understand it (I haven't actually read the relevant passages), argues that in this kind of situation a man who is starving has a right to bread. Thus, roughly, if I correctly understand, it would be Thomas's view that a merchant who has bread owes the bread to a starving family. For this reason, it would not be, strictu sensu, theft for the man to take the bread to feed his starving family. In other words, in this view (whether it be Thomas's or no) possession of property -- here, right to the bread -- is not something which is in all circumstances determined by the usual legal processes of acquisition, but rather is something conditioned by the overall nature of society and community, according to which we are not to let people starve.
Our society feels somewhat similarly about laws of tresspass. Ordinarily, people have a right to keep others off their own property, and to violate that right is to tresspass. But if someone sees a child drowning, or trapped in a burning building, on someone else's property, one has the right, and perhaps the obligation, to do what would, otherwise, be tresspassing, or even to break through windows or doors to rescue the child. There's a special legal name for this, I think, which I've been told, but forget.
The view Thomas (I think) sets out also lines up with the OT law. According to OT law, it was permissible for someone passing through a grain field to eat enough to satisfy himself. Also, after crops were harvested, the needy could pass through the fields and glean -- gather and take home -- what had been missed. In fact, owners of land were forbidden to go back and make a second pass through the fields, because it was important that some be left for the gleaners. Similarly, they were not to reap the the very edges of their fields, I believe. (I am writing this stuff from memory and don't have time to go look up references, so I may commit some errors.) There are also various NT passages which are relevant, and support the general line of reasoning I'm developing here, but these involve some other issues which I don't want to get caught up in just now.

Let me sum up.
1) On the view of many, a man who takes bread for his starving family is in fact not stealing in the strict sense, because if others have plenty it is only just that a starving family should be fed from their relative abundance.

2) The way that people look at this is partly conditioned by their culture and moral (ethical) and religious views more broadly. That is not to say that all is relative, subjective, or culturally relative; rather, it is to say that we need to examine our own society's characteristic ways of thinking about these questions in comparative perspective (and -- of course -- for us as Christians especially in light of the BIble and Christian wisdom through the ages) in order to assess whether the way we frame the problem needs, in the light of broader ethical considerations, to be modified.

3) Specifically our society (modern society) may view specific laws concerning property in too rigid, commercial, and individualistic a way: viewing property in the light of the overall good of society has a place in interpreting what would be stealing and what would not.

The point being made here should not be confused with the very different point about whether there are moral absolutes. In general, Biblical teaching and Christian tradition has held that there are indeed absolutes -- things that may not be done regardless of consequences. Thus, the deliberate taking of innocent human life generally is considered wrong irrespective of the consequences. But taking bread to sustain a human life is very different. The difference arises, partly, from the sense of human interrelationship in community as a vital part of morality, and also from the value placed on human life versus possession of items of property.

Sometimes similar disputations come up in regard to lying. Generally, Christian tradition has held that lying is never permissible. Lots of parts of Western moral tradition that are not explicitly Christian hold the same view (which is expressed, for instance, in Sissela Bok's book on Lying). Yet many in these streams of though would see lying to protect an innocent victim from an armed assailant who seeks to destroy the innocent. The modern classic version of this is protecting Jews from Nazis. (There's an ancient story about Athanasius which makes related points.) The general view often is that the absolute prescription against lying is not violated -- but rather waived -- in such a case, because the duty to tell the truth arises from a certain understanding of the need to preserve trust and integrity in society, and that that understanding has been so radically undercut by the immoral persecutor of the innocent that speech with such a person has a different meaning than speech with a person in normal circumstances. Some of the same issues come up in regard to what it means to deal with honsesty and respect with a person who is insane, or drug-crazed, and how those situations condition the usual rules.

As a useful contrast point, I. Kant -- a modern of strict moral cast -- tends to construe moral absolutes (do not steal, do not lie) without these conditioning factors. The bulk of Christian and Western tradition, while generally agreeing with Kant about moral absolutes, would tend to see him as missing the mark at this point, for reasons which reflect the strong individualism (characteristic of modern society) of his outlook, and perhaps a kind of over literal legalism as well.

4) The generally more relational and societal basis which conditions classic Christian and Jewish thought reflects a picture of humanity which places emphasis upon humanity's relational, as well as individual, nature. Thus, in Genesis 1:26 & f. God says "let us make humankind in our own image" and, the text goes on to say, creates humanity, male and female, (with an imperative to populate the earth, that is to have children) in God's image. This does confer a kind of sense that each person is of infinite value as made in God's image, but also a sense that the imago dei, the divine image in humanity, is one that includes humanity as inherently understood as existing in loving community. This important balance between individual dignity and the sense of human unity and interrelationship is, in my view, much distorted in modern thought.

5) Finally, the whole picture -- which derives individual moral commands ("do not steal", "do not lie", "do not commit adultery", "honor your parents", and so on) from a picture of humankind as a family, and one in which the ultimate purpose is to live together in familial love -- is one which is closely linked to an understanding of the whole framework of human life as finding its meaning and value and ultimate grounding in God's goodness, and in humankind's relationship to God, as our maker. That theological element is part of the relational picture of morality which I have been developing, although I cannot explore it much more right here and now. That is, God's goodness and order in creating, God's loving and yet strictly upright character, and the relationship of love (and duty) between God and man, are mirrored in, and implied by, the vision of social relations which is interlinked with the speicfic moral vision of the Bible, OT and NT.

Cheers, :hug:
Scruffy Kid

you know this is a serious subject and so you could have at least put some thought into it. :D

seriously, that is a lot to take in. i am going to have to read that again when i have time this weekend. two quick questions do jump out at me though, just from my first reading:

1) we could change the word "steal" to "take" in the scenerio, if that would help address some of your concerns?

2) you mentioned that some moral absolutes exist. what would those be, if we can remove stealing/taking and lying from the list of possible choices? i guess killing would have to removed too. rape? killing of children? do those sound like candidates?

[QuestionAuthority]

:pray: I pray.

God is omnipresent. He doesn't have to be injected into anything to be there. He already is. He was in that question long before anyone thought of it.

i respect that you would pray, but at some point you would have to make a decision. i mean, we all have to make tough decisions in our lives sometimes. what would you ultimately do?

[karenoka27]

I would invite the man over for dinner and if he accepted and asked if he could bring anything, I would say, "Yes! bring the bread!"
(ok, so when he got there and saw how pathetic I was, I would have already been praying that he would still share the bread he brought...if not I might be tempted to trip him and catch the bread in mid air and then run...)
Well....it's not stealing!:rolleyes:

[Scruffy Kid]

Oh, hello again!! :kiss:
...
1) we could change the word "steal" to "take" in the scenerio, if that would help address some of your concerns?

2) you mentioned that some moral absolutes exist. what would those be, if we can remove stealing/taking and lying from the list of possible choices? i guess killing would have to removed too. rape? killing of children? do those sound like candidates?Thanks! I appreciate your thoughtful questions!

I do take your interest seriously, and this kind of discussion is one -- but only one -- way of trying to reply.

Your first point

(1) You ask if changing "steal" to "take" would "help address some of" my "concerns". It's not exactly that I "have concerns", because I wasn't necessarily regarding your post as presenting a "question" on which I have to have a "position": your post seemed to be raising a kind of classic moral dilemma among competing or conflicting duties (and perhaps considerations which involve elements other than duty, also).

Such dilemmas don't necessarily have closed-form answers: what it is right to do might, in some circumstances, depend upon factors that the statement of the dilemma doesn't specify -- such as how the parties all got into this situation, or many other things.

Rather, they are more like gedankun-experiments (thought experiments) whose purpose, often, is to help us get a better understanding of underlying issues (here, moral issues, but in other cases, like Einstein's famous elevator question, perhaps issues about forces, physics, time, and space).

So what I was trying to do, mostly, was to put the question you asked in a context of larger issues and traditions of thinking about ethical problems which, it seemed to me, was relevant to the concerns which probably underlay your question. I tried to indicate a certain amount of variety in those traditions of thought, which also might be useful to thinking through such situations.

Your second point

(2) You ask what moral absolutes I think there might be since apparently I think that there might be moral absolutes, "if" (as you seemed to think I was saying) "we can remove stealing/taking and lying from the list" of such absolutes.

(a) Obviously, morally relevent and even morally binding considerations embraces a much much broader range than indissoluable prohibitions.

For instance, a person is -- on the view of many -- expected to use the gift of life (whether or not you think there's a giver! :lol: ) wisely and well -- not simply by amusing oneself, but for the appreciation, creation, and conservation of beauty, for understanding truth, for serving others, for developing good character, for caring for the earth, and for fulfilling specific obligations to others, including children and parents and students and the poor and so on.

There's no one thing that one is required to do, perhaps. We might feel that Mozart was right in devoting his life to his music, and John Stuart Mill to political economy (etc.), and Mother Theresa, or Vinoba Bhave, in devoting their lives to the poor and perhaps certain union organizers in campaigning for better benefits, health safeguards, and a shorter workweek and higher pay. (The point is not whether you agree with these particular examples.) And lots of precious unsung but equally valuable people in walking through life bravely overcoming various handicaps, and doing right by, and loving, those it was given to them to serve. One would not have to have some coercive (Benthamite? :lol: ) idea about some definite criteria which mandated what each person must do, ideally, in order to feel that a person given the gift of life who spent it foolishly, on trivialities and self-indulgence, was doing wrong even if such a one violated no specific moral prohibitions.

(b) However, if one does think there are moral strictures which one must not violate, and that some of these are not overridden by considerations of what the consequences of ones choices might be (even though, in other respects consequences are, obviously, very relevent to decision-making generally, and moral decision-making in particular) the structure of those binding moral strictures might be somewhat complex. In some cases, but perhaps not all, we might find it helpful to refer to these as "moral absolutes". Roughly, yeah, I do think there are "moral absolutes". (A classic statement of this comes in Dostoievsky's very famous chapter "The Grand Inquisitor" in The Brothers Karamozoff.)

I don't think that I nixed "lying" and "stealing" as moral absolutes. I certainly didn't intend to. Rather (let's take stealing, with which you started): the tradition suggests that the actions you describe as stealing actually are not that. It's not saying that there might not be an absolute duty not to steal, in spite of consequences of not doing so, but rather that the taking of bread in the circumstances you describe aren't stealing. I was trying to suggest that it might be true that there were absolutes about stealing, but that they didn't enter into the case you described. The purport of that would be, I suppose, to explore the idea that what is critical to a satisfactory resolution to moral dilemmas might be possible based on (i) not having made bad moves that unnecessarily got one into impossible situations previously, and (ii) discernment as to where the genuine force of moral considerations lay in complex and difficult circumstances. But I don't know, for sure, about how sustainanble that position ultimately is. I'd need to think more carefully about it. Not this month, that's for sure: I have competing duties!

The problems here are deep, and I don't know much about them

These kinds of dilemmas are very deep, of course. There's a classic about lying and honesty in the Mahabharata (a classic Indian epic, of which, as I recall, the Bhagavad Gita is a short section) in which a guy so holy and, in particular, honest that his chariot does not touch the ground, decides not to lie as such, but to make an obscure response which he's aware his foes will misinterpret to their cost. (After that, his chariot runs on the ground, like everyone else's.) The Sissela Bok book -- I think she was one of three Nobel Prize winners in her family, and married to the Pres. of Harvard U. -- on Lying that I mentioned takes what amounts to a position that lying is absolutely unadmissable under any circumstances.

Generally this type of discussion is good for me in renewing my pained awareness of my moral and intellectual inadequacies and limits! All the resources I can marshall -- including a lifetime of study and, for the most part, earnest moral endeavor -- don't suffice. Just as the depths of mathematics (which I studied as a young man) are beyond me, so the more important depths of a right understanding of life are beyond me: I cannot solve or even understand, all these things, although it's of course a duty to try, and also something that one wants to do, because one should seek understanding with all one's heart (as the Psalms and Proverbs say) and because the unexamined life is not worth living (as Socrates said) and because all human beings by nature desire knowledge (as Aristotle said) and because having compassion ("jen", or human-heartedness) and doing one's duties and living uprightly, is what makes one an educated, a wise,person -- even if one is an illiterate peasant (as Kong Tzu, Confucius, said). But a part of that life of seeking what is good and right consists of the growing awareness of one's own inevitable ignorance, an "apophatic" knowledge concerning these things. Thus Socrates states that if the Delphic Oracle declared him wise, it must be because he, more than others, was aware of his own ignorance. "Your ways are higher than our ways, your thoughts than our thoughts" the prophets acknowledge to God, the God of Israel. "To know what it is you know, and what it is that you don't know -- that is understanding indeed!" as Confucius famously remarked!

This moral and intellectual darkness, though, is not just a consequence of our human limitations, the fact that we are finite -- very finite -- intellects and hearts (as even the angels, after all, are, assuming one supposes -- I do -- that there are such beings). Alas, it also reflects the corruption of the heart within me. Not that people are some sort of refuse: on the contrary, we are made in God's image and precious in His sight, despite our sins and weakness. Yet it remains true, as Jeremiah said, that "the heart is desperately wicked -- who can understand it!?"

Awareness of our own moral and intellectual limits and failures, in fact, points us to One who knows more

The encountering of limits, boundaries, and the like often is something that forces us to look beyond those boundaries. The bounds, the darknesses, that make us acutely aware of the limits of our understanding and of the wounds sin has made in our characters, may dispose us to look beyond ourselves, to the inherent truth, goodness, and moral law to which we aspire, but which is more than we can fathom, and also even to the Source of relationship and love, as well as of goodness and moral right and beauty, and of life and being. In short, our limits direct our hearts to search for that which, inherently, is beyond our capacity to find, that is God. Yet God, who loves us is in fact seeking us -- if we will but (it's not an easy process!) open our hearts to let Him come within.

We could not really know of God -- who is so far beyond us -- unless He chose to reveal Himself to us.

Knowing Jesus teaches me who God is!

I have encountered (in the pages of the New Testament) a human being, one Jesus of Nazareth, whom, from what is recorded of what He said, I know that I believe -- believe as being one who understands the mysteries and goodness and terror of life with a depth that is unfathomably beyond me. Encountering -- just through the book -- this guy convinces me absolutely that whatever He said, he meant, and knew was true.

But, disturbingly, yet also revealing that for which I have spent my life searching, He says that He is the Eternal Word of God. Because of the person (from what else he said) I know Him to be, I believe Him. Believing Him, to me is opened understanding and help at being a better person, and -- above all -- knowledge of God and His goodness that I could never, else, have hoped for. Christ, thus, came to bring to us help, healing, and the love and beauty and truth and goodness of heart which it is, I believe, humanity's vocation to long for.

I appreciate your being here on the board, Question Authority! :hug:
I hope and pray that you too may find Him!

In Christ's love,
Scruff

[markinro]

i am dropping a little andy bernard (presently my favorite office character) on everyone! I bring forth one of the oldest philosophical questions of all time - your family is starving, and there is no one to help you know. no family, no friends, nothing. you do not have any work and have no money. you have nothing to trade for food. you walk through the market and see a loaf of bread on the edge of a merchant's tray. the merchant is distracted and will not see you if you take the bread. your spouse and children have not eaten for a week.

what do you do??

and no cheating answers like michael from the office a few weeks ago when he said 'i would not steal the bread and i would not let my family starve!'

Hypothetical questions have very little merit.

[ServantofTruth]

How many of us when backed into an impossible situation like; should we pay taxes to the Romans or stone an adulterous woman to death, would have just crumbled and the outcome have been awful for us and others around us?

The point is - where we fail, God can not fail.
when we admit weakness, we allow God to be strong.

Many educated people can think up amazing puzzles to confuse, that most of us can never solve - but if put to Jesus like the 2 bible examples above, he would lovingly reply with a clear answer.

You seem, from the little i have seen, to be an educated clever man, who loves reading and quoting men perhaps even cleverer. I have no qualifications to my name, leaving school before my first exams. But let me share a scripture with you. 1 Corinthians 3:18

There is no room for self delusion. Any one of you who thinks he is wise by worldly standards must learn to be a fool in order to be really wise.

Now i'm sure you realise that Paul is not suggesting to the Corinthians that education is pointless and they should all act like idiots every day. Rather that the Wisdom of God, makes even the wisest men look like fools.

I'm sorry, but i don't think pandering to your educated 'nonsense' (for want of a better word) is the way to help you. Rather me pointing to the bible which has the greatest 'mind' in eternity behind it. Could you have saved the woman from stoning? Could you have saved yourself over the paying taxes question? Wake up!!! SofTy

BTW - my children are very high achievers. My eldest is expected to get straight 'A's or A*'s and go on to do more subjects than most, the 3 sciences and higher maths. Yet i still help him with his homework, check it and tell him when it's good enough. He like you, despite reading almost the whole bible, has still not found Jesus Christ. If you feel able, would you pray for him. Thank you.

[chal]

i respect that you would pray, but at some point you would have to make a decision. i mean, we all have to make tough decisions in our lives sometimes. what would you ultimately do?

chal> When I say prayer, I'm not talking about wishful thinking. I'm talking about communication with the living God. Praying is the only decision necessary. I pray for an answer and when I get it, I follow the instructions. Ultimately, I would follow the instructions.

[CoffeeCat]

I would invite the man over for dinner and if he accepted and asked if he could bring anything, I would say, "Yes! bring the bread!"
(ok, so when he got there and saw how pathetic I was, I would have already been praying that he would still share the bread he brought...if not I might be tempted to trip him and catch the bread in mid air and then run...)
Well....it's not stealing!:rolleyes:


I think this one wins "most creative answer". :lol: Awesome, Karen!


I honestly think it was me, I'd recognize that theft was a sin, and wrong, but letting my family starve would be far far worse. I'd sooner lose my own life trying to feed them than letting them starve, so I'd honestly take the bread. I think it's a greater evil for a population with some wealth to be so cold-hearted that they'd refuse to give food to beggars in need of it.... so if I had to answer to God for my theft of the food, I'd accept that.

Now, what came to mind is... what about next week? Would I have to steal MORE bread? Would a vicious cycle break loose? Taking bread in an emergency is one thing, but how about the long term? I think I'd have to come up with SOME way to make money somehow if I wanted my family to survive past the next week.

Of course, as a woman, I'd REALLY be on my husband to get off his butt and help me out rather than sitting there like a baby bird with his mouth open! ;)

[chal]

Now, what came to mind is... what about next week? Would I have to steal MORE bread? Would a vicious cycle break loose? Taking bread in an emergency is one thing, but how about the long term? I think I'd have to come up with SOME way to make money somehow if I wanted my family to survive past the next week.

Matthew 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Matthew 6:31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? 32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. 33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. 34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

[CoffeeCat]

Right. The answer, in this case, would be to rely on God for my needs for the coming days or weeks.

[JesusReignsForever]

I would try to ask the merchant if there was anyway I could work for him to earn the bread.... if not I would distract him and steal the bread...honestly that is what I would do.

[RedBird777]

I think some of you are taking this WAY too seriously...

But anywho...I would probably steal the bread. If I was caught, I would give the shirt off my back.

There may be many factors and many morals to this story, but my family comes first. The Marines have a hierarchy of faithfulness (Semper Fidelis=Always Faithful): God, Family, Country, Corps. I like that enough to follow it.

[CoffeeCat]

RedBird.... if you ask ANY kind of a philosophy question to people posting on a board that is HEAVILY leaning towards philosophy and spirituality.... expect that some people will take things very seriously. ;) Expect it the same way you'd expect to walk into the grocery store and have one of the guys working there tell you ALL about the sales this week. It doesn't matter if you ONLY wanted bread and milk.... you walked in.... you'll hear it all. :D

[chal]

I think some of you are taking this WAY too seriously...

chal> Well in that case, I'll restate my position. I would not "steal," the bread. I would just "borrow it permanently."

[Dragonfighter1]

Actually I perceive the question as so limited it can only mean:
You have only two choices...steal or die?

To compound this question you could substitute a situation where a gun is needed, such an argument is going on in another forum....watch how the steal some bread answers change around then....

"You see a loaded gun lying on the side walk and you know how to use it (Its a simple revolver, such as children play with, except,- this one is real) a deranged man with a 12 inch knife has you trapped in an alley and your 7 year old daughter is his intended victim, if he can kill you he will rape your daughter.... will you shoot him?"
(there are no cops, no neighbors, and no help will come in time etc..)

The anti gun people will say "No Gun Ever." Which is the same as saying "no stealing the bread ever", but some said they WOULD steal the bread to preserve their family, and yet in another thread indicated they would never ever use a gun.

Any one care to clarify as I don't want to put words in anyone mouth...

DF

[Ta-An]

QuestionAuthority......

Actually I'll not even go into the shop where I'll be tempted...

I'll find a Soup-kitchen and / shelter where soup and bread is for free, and get something there for my family to eat...

[mcgyver]

First of all, I want to thank everyone involved in this discussion...it's been a good one, that's for sure! :lol:

However, as it has inevitably gone into areas of theology, Christian philosophy and world view...we're going to have to close it down, as it is no longer in keeping with the Kicking Back sub-forum; but rather is now suited to the main CA forum. :)

Thanks again to all who participated!