Self-defense or class war -what is this scenario?

[fakename]

Would it be a sin for a starving man to use deadly force against a rich man to get the latter’s food?

I don’t think it would since “anyone can kill someone (if they have to) in order to protect their property”

But food and necessities for survival are the property of all men (indeed anything needed to have a slightly less than subsistence life-style is a person’s property from what I’ve read), such that it is considered theft not to donate to poor people. So there is no sin done in the above scenario.

Seems like a dangerous conclusion though, so I ask, is it true?

(this is sort of a continuance of the self-defense thread)

 

[promethius]

Would it be a sin for a starving man to use deadly force against a rich man to get the latter’s food?

I don’t think it would since “anyone can kill someone (if they have to) in order to protect their property”

But food and necessities for survival are the property of all men (indeed anything needed to have a slightly less than subsistence life-style is a person’s property from what I’ve read), such that it is considered theft not to donate to poor people. So there is no sin done in the above scenario.

Seems like a dangerous conclusion though, so I ask, is it true?

(this is sort of a continuance of the self-defense thread)

Absolutely false. Necessities for survival are still property, even if another person has need of them. It would positively be sinful for a poor person to kill a rich person to take their property.

The proper course of action would be to ASK the rich person for food, money, etc. It then behooves those who have more than they need to live to give to the poor. If they don’t, then yes, it could be very sinful of THAT person to withhold vital necessities from someone… but it is still not grounds for the rich person to be murdered. God will judge the morality of their choice not to give.

 

[fakename]

But the Summa Theologica says, "In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another’s property, for need has made it common. "

So it’s not even theft to take what is yours, what is part of your property. And all things needed are everyone’s property, so you can simply take things from a rich man. But if he resists, and the property is important enough for you, and defense of property being what it is, I don’t see any reason why killing the rich man would be bad.

 

[sw85]

Natural law property rights are not so unlimited as to justify withholding property from someone in need, so I don’t imagine it would constitute stealing to attempt to strip him of needed goods (and no more than what is needed). Licit means must be used, however, so unless the failure of the rich person to give the item would result in immediate death, I can’t see how murdering him would be justified.

 

[smichhertz]

But the Summa Theologica says, "In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another’s property, for need has made it common. "

It’s not stealing if what you take is only for your survival and will not cause another to die.

But its another thing entirely to deliberately kill someone to take something.

 

[promethius]

But the Summa Theologica says, "In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another’s property, for need has made it common. "

So it’s not even theft to take what is yours, what is part of your property. And all things needed are everyone’s property, so you can simply take things from a rich man. But if he resists, and the property is important enough for you, and defense of property being what it is, I don’t see any reason why killing the rich man would be bad.

I’m sorry, I must have missed where Summa Theologica is an ex cathedra document or where Thomas Aquinas gained the magisterial authority to make doctrinal teachings on faith and morals.

I agree, it is morally wrong for a rich person to claim those things which are items of general necessity for survival and not to share such belongings when need arises for others and that need could result in their death… but the fact that it is wrong for a rich person to deny others of their needs unto their death is NOT justification to murder, or even to steal from, said rich person.

I think the best argument here is that God says “thou shalt not steal”. He doesn’t follow that up with a list of exceptions to that policy.