Summa Theologica and right to life (stealing)

[wjp984]

I read in my property course packet that St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that if a man is starving they have a right to steal from another in order to live and this would not be wrong. The law says otherwise and I also disagree with Aquinas. What do you all think.

Aquinas argues that we have a moral obligation to help those in need and therefore, if one is forced to steal to live then what he stole was not ours to begin with since we were supposed to help out others in need. At least that is what I think his reasoning was. He also states that only after exhausting all possible options such as looking for any kind of employment whatsoever or begging or seeking help from any possible source can one steal as an absolute last resort for his right to life.

I understand his argument but I still disagree since I think that no one has a right to take what is not theirs no matter what. What if they stole from someone else who also is in severe poverty and can die without that little food that was just stolen from them? Also, aren’t we as Catholics taught the ends never justify the means?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I read in my property course packet that St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that if a man is starving they have a right to steal from another in order to live and this would not be wrong. The law says otherwise and I also disagree with Aquinas. What do you all think.

Aquinas argues that we have a moral obligation to help those in need and therefore, if one is forced to steal to live then what he stole was not ours to begin with since we were supposed to help out others in need. At least that is what I think his reasoning was. He also states that only after exhausting all possible options such as looking for any kind of employment whatsoever or begging or seeking help from any possible source can one steal as an absolute last resort for his right to life.

I understand his argument but I still disagree since I think that no one has a right to take what is not theirs no matter what. What if they stole from someone else who also is in severe poverty and can die without that little food that was just stolen from them? Also, aren’t we as Catholics taught the ends never justify the means?

Aquinas does not say that it would not be wrong, he states that it would not be a grave (mortal) sin provided that the one the food is taken from is not caused to starve himself.

 

[wjp984]

The passage does not mention about the consequences of sin in it. I assume this was specifically in the course packet to have a counterargument to the obvious answer that stealing is wrong and that no one should take what does not belong to another.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The law says otherwise. .

It does?

Can you cite case law for your proposition? (You don’t have to stand up )

VC

 

[baltobetsy]

Here’s what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.

Note that it says “there is no theft,” not “theft is not wrong in this case.”

Betsy

 

[wjp984]

It does?

Can you cite case law for your proposition? (You don’t have to stand up )

VC

There has to be a multitude of cases where someone is placed in jail for stealing even though they were starving. Here is one in my property book where the people were rioting and stole from a grocery market and the I was doing it out of necessity and had no choice excuse did not work: The State of Washington v. Iver Moe. Granted the case was in 1933, I highly doubt the law in this regard has changed. If I read or find a case to the contrary I will post it but I highly doubt the I was stealing out of necessity excuse ever has worked on that basis alone.

 

[wjp984]

Here’s what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

Note that it says “there is no theft,” not “theft is not wrong in this case.”

Betsy

Thanks for the reference to the catechism and I would agree that for purposes of sin one would not be culpable in this situation. However, just because something is not sinful does not mean it is legal and of course the other way around. I mainly was wondering if Aquinas was arguing that stealing should be legal in this situation as well as not being sinful. I got the impression that he was and that is what I disagree with.

 

[BobP123]

Keep in mind that it is possible to survive for over 60 days without food, only a few days without water, and a matter of minutes without air. At least it’s that way for an adult. If you’re going to steal to keep yourself alive, I think it would be morally wrong to feed yourself before your kids, for example. And you certainly don’t steal if you have only skipped one meal.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

If I read or find a case to the contrary I will post it but I highly doubt the I was stealing out of necessity excuse ever has worked on that basis alone.

Hey, give yourself some time! You haven’t had Crim Law yet and you haven’t gotten to Defenses in Torts yet.

In both civil and criminal law the the Justification Defense of Necessity has been recognized as a legitimate defense in conversion or theft cases. You’ll find necessity as a legitmate defense in other cases sush as trespass, trespass to chattels, etc.

You could look up Necessity in the CJS or AMJUR, or the Model Penal Code.

In any event, I believe common law recognizes the defense of necessity, and for basically similar reasons as put forth by Aquinas. Restitution may required, however.

VC

 

[freesoulhope]

What do you all think?

The wealth of man belongs to God and is given by God. If a man is starving, and he steals to feed himself; the graveness of stealing will be reduced( to the extent that it does not merit spiritual death), in some cases totally dismissed; it will not be a sin agains’t God.

If I have a vineyard of apples, and a man is starving to death, it is Gods law that I should feed my brother and treat him as a brother; because this is the Law of Love. If a man has two of something, then he should share it with his brother; Jesus himself said something to that effect.
So in reality, the fact that a starving man would have to steal an apple under threat of imprisonment or worse, is an even greater sin for the vineyard owner who is foolish enough to think he has such a monopoly on life’s resources that he can see his brother starve to death and not feel guilty ( the sin is on the vinyard owner since he has all the resources and refuses to share). I don’t blame anybody for not being able to see the wisdom of Aquinas, especially due to the fact that we are constantly fed brainwashing images of a false Law that is not Gods; including the fact that we live in a greedy capitalist society, where only the rich individual matters, and man is forced to “compete” for natural resources (survival of the fittest; its sickining to think that we compete, just stay alive!), which are “freely” given by God. These false images ( what i like to call “Human Law”) are often mixed up with Gods law.

This is what i think

 

[rwoehmke]

Here’s what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: Note that it says “there is no theft,” not “theft is not wrong in this case.”
Betsy

That is correct, I learned in a course on the Virtues taken in 1955 that there is no absolute right to property. Justice demands that absent reasonable recourse a person is allowed to use what he needs to live even if it is owned by another. It is not stealing. In truth our Western society unjustly uses more than its legitimate share of the world’s resources. Carefully read Isaiah and the readings for the Mass for this weekend and you will come away with a sense of how God must look at us. We live high on the hog while people around us go hungry.

By the way there was another similar thread on this topic within the past year.

 

[wjp984]

Hey, give yourself some time! You haven’t had Crim Law yet and you haven’t gotten to Defenses in Torts yet.

In both civil and criminal law the the Justification Defense of Necessity has been recognized as a legitimate defense in conversion or theft cases. You’ll find necessity as a legitmate defense in other cases sush as trespass, trespass to chattels, etc.

You could look up Necessity in the CJS or AMJUR, or the Model Penal Code.

In any event, I believe common law recognizes the defense of necessity, and for basically similar reasons as put forth by Aquinas. Restitution may required, however.

VC

ya, criminal law will be added next semester. As if there isn’t already enough to handle now. We are just finishing up intentional torts but privlege is coming up soon so I assume that will be a defense.

 

[Contarini]

I understand his argument but I still disagree since I think that no one has a right to take what is not theirs no matter what. What if they stole from someone else who also is in severe poverty and can die without that little food that was just stolen from them? Also, aren’t we as Catholics taught the ends never justify the means?

Absolutely. Actions that are intrinsically wrong cannot be justified by any circumstances. If, for instance, one had to kill an innocent person in order to survive (or in order to ensure the survival of the whole human race, for that matter), it would be better to perish.

However, taking something that legally belongs to someone else does not fall under this category, because private property is not an absolute right. It is a proper and convenient way of organizing things, but it is not an intrinsic human right in the way that life is. It has a certain provisional character, so that when life is at stake one is justified in taking what is legally someone else’s. In Aquinas’s terms, the thing you need to sustain life *is *rightfully yours under God’s law, and thus taking it is not stealing. (In the same way, Aquinas argues more generally that an unjust law is no law at all, so breaking it is not a sin.)

Obviously if the food (or money) you take is necessary to sustain someone else’s life, then it is wrong to take it. But I don’t think this would be very hard to guard against–people who are in danger of starving to death are generally quite easy to identify.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Thanks for the reference to the catechism and I would agree that for purposes of sin one would not be culpable in this situation. However, just because something is not sinful does not mean it is legal and of course the other way around. I mainly was wondering if Aquinas was arguing that stealing should be legal in this situation as well as not being sinful. I got the impression that he was and that is what I disagree with.

I would imagine that a just legal system would recognize starvation as a legitimate defense, yes. Why on earth not?

Are you familiar with the story of Les Miserables (either the novel or the musical or any of the movies)?

Edwin

 

[wjp984]

Well Aquinas does say that stealing to avoid humiliation would not be allowed so the person has to first beg and ask every possible person and source of help before it would be legitimate to steal. With all the times that people steal for their own self gain I have a hard time looking past the crime but I suppose that if one begged and explained how he was starving and still not one person or place would offer anything, then they would have to steal.

 

[Brendan]

The first thing to remember is that material goods do not truely belong to any mortal. They all belong to God.

The person who is starving has an obligation to preserve their life, to do less would be suicide, a mortal sin.

If the obligation cannot be fulfilled with other means, the starving person may rely on God, using the food which God Himself is the true owner of.

But note that all other means must be tried first, the first and Ordinary means of help would employment. Barring that, the Extraordinary means would be family, or the Church, all of whom have an obligation to feed the starving person.

Finally, the one must rely on the largess of one neighbors ( the State, or ‘begging’)

Only when these means are exhausted, can one rely on God’s Unversal ownership. And since God does not deny what is good and is the true owner, there is, by defintion, no theft.