The Morality of 'Need' and 'Want'

  • Thread starter Thread starter havemercy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

havemercy

Guest
Today I was conversing with family friends as well as my own parents when the topic of good and evil were brought up. We discussed morality, and the nature of good and evil; and a relative spoke of his own philosophy.

He posited that if an action, which we happen consider immoral and punishable by law (illegal), is done so that a need is fulfilled, then it is not, in fact, or is no longer, an immoral thing.

The example given was such that if a homeless mother needed to give her hungry and cold child food for survival broke into a bakery and took bread in order to keep her child and self alive, this act known as theft would cease to be immoral (though it might be illegal) since it was in response to a need.

He seems to assert that theft, in such circumstances, is no longer theft. I may be wrong. Regardless, he is certainly saying that theft, in such circumstances (though it be illegal) isn’t immoral, but quite moral (or at least justified).

I’d appreciate your interpretation and critisizm of this understanding of moral and immoral; good and evil; need and want.

Merry Christmas 🙂
 
In my opinion it would only cease to be immoral/sinful if the mother was understood to have abandoned human reasoning and acted purely on animal instinct. And i don’t totally discount that, disturbing though it is to me.

Anyway, although sin remains sin, there may be mitigating circumstances that God would take into consideration that we don’t know about.
The example given was such that if a homeless mother needed to give her hungry and cold child food for survival broke into a bakery and took bread in order to keep her child and self alive, this act known as theft would cease to be immoral (though it might be illegal) since it was in response to a need.
Click to expand...
What if the homeless mother was surprised in the act of stealing and killed the bakery owner? Would it still be regarded as a response to a need and hence not immoral?

Did the mother eliminated all other legitimate possibilities before committing her act of desperation, such as go to a Church or Charity for assistance?

Sory, there are too many variables to be considered. Thank goodness I am not the one responsible for judging such things!
 
If stealing to keep her child and herself alive was absolutly the last option left, if everything possible had been tried and failed, and she took only what she needed with the intent to pay the baker back some day, it’s probably not a sin. But, as said above, there would be so many factors to consider, only God would be able to pass a final judgement on a situation like that.
 
See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #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.

The person who says there is no theft is correct. What remains to be argued is what constitutes obvious and urgent necessity.

Betsy
 
I have the same conversation with my father a while back.

My kid sister is dying from starvation.
I must pick up a brick and smash the bakery’s window to steal a loaf of bread to save her. (a scene from Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables)

Is it acceptable? Is it “the end justifies the means”?

If I say I will steal then I am a hypocrite and accept “the end justifies the mean”.

This was my response to him:
The value of life is higher than the value of the stolen loaf of bread. The baker’s loss can be repay/replace. My kid sister’s life cannot be replace.
If I see some one is dying and donot act to save him, then I commit murder.

Comments please.

Tak

ps Thanks Betsy for the CCC quotation. It eases my mind.
 
havemercy said:
Today I was conversing with family friends as well as my own parents when the topic of good and evil were brought up. We discussed morality, and the nature of good and evil; and a relative spoke of his own philosophy.

He posited that if an action, which we happen consider immoral and punishable by law (illegal), is done so that a need is fulfilled, then it is not, in fact, or is no longer, an immoral thing.

The example given was such that if a homeless mother needed to give her hungry and cold child food for survival broke into a bakery and took bread in order to keep her child and self alive, this act known as theft would cease to be immoral (though it might be illegal) since it was in response to a need.

He seems to assert that theft, in such circumstances, is no longer theft. I may be wrong. Regardless, he is certainly saying that theft, in such circumstances (though it be illegal) isn’t immoral, but quite moral (or at least justified).

I’d appreciate your interpretation and critisizm of this understanding of moral and immoral; good and evil; need and want.

Merry Christmas 🙂
Click to expand...
Your own heading tells us the answer “Have mercy”. Jesus tells us if we have two shirts to give one away, etc. There are too manyvariables hidden in this senario to relay comment, for example is she a christian, or not, what are her beliefs, are there no others who could help, is she on drugs, drink?

In New Zealand we have wellfare who give money to those who have no jobs, and every day in the city I live in at least one church will put on a meal per day for the homeless and dependent.

I have seen this situation and worked for years with these people you relate to. I wonder what the situation really is, Jeus tells us to give food the those who need it before preaching to them, but not to give pearls to swine. A very deep situation.
God bless and may Goid’s blessings be with you let us all help one another and those who have become lost in the dark.
littleone
 
You should ask the baker first if they will give you the food to feed your starving child. Begging is a humble act. I think a baker might give you bread more easily than if you just asked for money, too. But most places have food pantries and welfare resources. Stealing should be a last resort, especially if you were slacking at work and lost your job or are placing “needs” like cigarettes above the actual needs of your child. I agree there are too many variables, but an act that saves a life is usually less sinful than inaction that ends a life.
 
When people are in true need of food, shelter, or clothing there is no sin in taking what is needed. Although people have a right to their property they do not have an absolute right in the face of true need. Sure this can be abused, but I think most of us in this world do not like to admit that our property rights are often used to deprive others of what they need just to survive. Most of us are more comfortable with, " I earned it, I have a right to it, and no bum is going to take it away from me; even when I have a surplus." Most of us never have enough and are always striving for more.
 
The example given was such that if a homeless mother needed to give her hungry and cold child food for survival broke into a bakery and took bread in order to keep her child and self alive, this act known as theft would cease to be immoral (though it might be illegal) since it was in response to a need.
Click to expand...
The end never justifies the means, but your relative is ultimately right about taking a loaf of bread. Walking into a bakery and taking bread to feed a starving child is not theft, but not because of the intention of the act or because of its good end. One or two other responses on this thread mention the universal destination of goods, a real Christian principle. Essentially, the starving family owns and has a right to the bread at least as much as the baker; they are taking what is already theirs.

God bless.
 
Feeding a starving child by taking food from a bakery is not a sin if that’s what NEEDS to be done. Even if the taking of the food would have been considered illegal by the state.

The question would be why not go to a soup kitchen? Or go door to door asking for food?

Absent the ability to get food any other way, the taking of ones property for this reason would not be a sin.
 
The need here is to stop, act rationally, and to act accordingly. NOT to lose control and act against the rights of the owner of the bakery, which is that firstly the baker should be asked, given the choice ,he may give readily and think of the joy in the mind of both the mother child and the baker in giving and the other receiving.

Have you ever heard of biasing? For instance in this situation the person with a need analyses that she/he needs to feed her/his child therefore the person with a need sees their need as annulling the act of theft. How ever it does not.
This parents act driven by her deep desire to see her child fed is called an “external attribution bias”, her desire to see her child fed gets in the way of relating truthfully to the situation which is, that her need at the time is to gain assistance from the baker who would hopefully feed the child.
In taking the law into her own hands she will cause all kinds of strife. However should she seek the help of the baker the weight then is moved onto the generosity of the baker.

If the baker should feed the child he might also feed the woman in this instance. Either way the situation is moved onto the shoulders of the baker, in that should the woman after being turned away by the baker, believe her actions need to turn to one of internalizing her bias, she would probably see that she has no choice in the matter but to take the law into her own hands.

Breaking into the bakery as a theif, would be the last thought on her mind and if taken to court I believer that the Judge would throw the matter out since what would the loss of a few cakes or sandwiches be to a baker who gives left over food to the pigs etc, ( I used to be a baker, and now counsel families at risk). There are some variables not seen here for example is she a God fearing person, we don’t know.

Look at the parable of the old woman and the King who as Jesus described went repeatedly to the king asking for help. In the end the King gave in thinking that should he not adhere to the old woman’s needs she would hound him to death. The old woman acted by internalizing her situation. She saw her need, saw the person who could help and acted accordingly. Hence her wish was seen and adhered to.

This person you describe externalizes, acts irrationally will get her due payment and might lose her child since she has shown her lack of being able to look after her child correctly.
God bless
littleone
 
Pira114

Feeding a starving child by taking food from a bakery ***is not a sin ***if that’s what NEEDS to be done. Even if the taking of the food would have been considered illegal by the state.

Brother/sister, it seems that you are so misguided here in your thoughts.
Have you not heard of the “TEN COMMANDMENTS”
Here are some of them
You shall not steal
You shall not covert your neighbors goods
Love the Lord your God have NO other God before me.
Putting it more openly, if you break one of the commandments you break the ALL. Because they all relate to God’s Love.
And You cant break one commandment without breaking them all.
The great commandment Jesus told us is that we are called to Love God above all things and therefore to love our neighbor as our self. If we steal we do NOT love God, we do NOT love our self and we do definitely NOT love our neighbor.

The correct way as the Bible tells us is to ask, then by God’s justice and mercy the situation is on the shoulders of the baker. The justice he receives from God will be the judged by the mercy he has given out.
 
I’m “winging it” here. I worked last night and haven’t slept yet, so I hope I make sense. The spelling might be crazy though!

In analysing this scenario you need to replace the theft of bread (!) with something more serious. Then see if it “fits”.

First thing to remember is that SIN is SIN and God hates it so much that Jesus had to suffer and die because of it. That is how much HE loves us and how much HE hates sin.

So, here we go…

I am a mother. If I do not commit an act that I know to be immoral, and against the Laws of God my beloved chid will die.
BTW… remember that God’s Beloved Son died!

#1 - I am distraught! If my child does not have a kidney transplant, he will surely die. I have money, so I pay someone to kidnap a child from the slums (of somewhere in the world) and take a kidney. After all, the child still has another kidney. If those I pay to harvest that kidney then go on to sell the remaining kidney, thereby killing the child, that is not my fault.

#2 - My beloved child has a hereditary disease and needs a donor to survive. I undergo IVF treatment and conceive multiple embryos which are tested for a donor-match. Those who don’t match are destroyed. I bear the saviour-child whose bone-marrow/kidney/whatever is needed to save my darling child.

Okay, a loaf of bread is relatively minor. But, where do you draw the line?

As a mother I have spent much time, over the years, meditating on 2Machabees Chapter 7. It took a long time for me to reconcile myself to the fact that God HAS to come before my beloved children

As I told my S-I-L the other day, God comes first, then my husband, then my children, and then me. This applies even if I have a greater affection and love for my children more than my husband.

Having said that, in the OP’s scenario, I would first apply to the Church for assistance, then Civil Authorities (Welfare), then the baker before I contravened the Commandments of God.

Finally, I personally don’t believe that I would ever have to go to the extreme of stealing because many years ago I took God literally at His Word.

For many years now I have trusted God’s Providence. Maybe one day I will write an article on what happens when you totally trust in God. Miracles happen!!!

IMO, that is the answer to the original dilemma posed by the OP. If you have perfect trust in God, theft is not necessary. The baker will come out and offer the bread remaining for the day.
 
Eileen_T said:
What if the homeless mother was surprised in the act of stealing and killed the bakery owner?
Click to expand...
The answer to this question depends on the situation of the stealing process… if the mother came in with mechete and a pistol (or even with her own bare hands) and is making a move on the baker or his family, then out of self defense he must do what he can to protect himself, taking the life of the mother would be a last resort.
Now if the mother threw a rock at the window and started grabbing pastries and the baker grabs his shotgun and… well… over reacts, then the baker has sin of murder stained on his soul. (Check out Exodus 22:2 -ish)

Now as for the child-who-needs-a-kidney situation. You can’t purposely take another child’s (including an embryo’s) life to save another. Remember, the end doesn’t justify the means. In any situation… need or want… you must do your best to preserve life (all lives!) to the best of your ability.

Much more can be explained on this subject, but this sums it up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top