Re: victimless crimes

[Luis Johnstone <luisjohnstone@onetel.net>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


Greetings,

David-

In cases where someone is starving I do not see how a person could be 
anything but justified. Acting (of ones own volition or otherwise) would 
be justified if it aimed at and achieved a good end which could not be 
achieved any other way. In the case of the starving they are acting to 
achieve an end that cannot be achieved any other way- they are 
satisfying a NEED.
Cases of stealing unused oranges and the such-like isn't a case of 
aiming at a good end and achieving it in the only way possible. If you 
want to feed people then there are many ways to go about it. However, if 
you're poor and starving then one MIGHT argue that the only reasonable 
way of surviving (the ends) would be stealing (the means). But, let's be 
clear that I haven't said that starving people ARE justified, merely 
that their circumstances might warrant such a judgement.
And this really goes back to what I was saying about needs versus wants:
Let us say that I have a starving friend. He cannot afford food but I 
can. Therefore I can buy him food. Already we have two ways of 
alleviating his pain. As a man of moderate means I can put end end to 
his hunger (at least temporarily) without resorting to theft. Since I 
have (and reasonably know) that I have these choices I am capable of 
making a moral decision. I can weigh up what means I'm going to use to 
achieve a given ends- and therein lies morality. The issue is not one of 
whether an end is good (bad) and therefore, the means is good (bad)- for 
that is to put things backwards. Why someone CHOSE one means over 
another is a matter of motivation and that is something they can be 
rightly held morally responsible for. If I choose to steal to help my 
friend when I could help him simply by working longer hours then I must 
ask myself what motivates me to take the 'easy road'.
Does any of this apply to cases where an individual is starving to 
death? What 'easy road' are they choosing? That's like a forked road- 
one leads to life the other off a cliff to oblivion. That's no choice at 
all. And it's not capable of being a moral choice because I am not 
choosing a means among many of achieving some end- I am merely choosing 
the ONLY means of achieving that end. Whether I choose to steal or not 
is irrelevant since I'm not required to ask that basic question: If I 
want to achieve something good, which is the best (i.e. good) way to go 
about it? Maybe starving people DO have a choice to steal or not- a 
choice 'to steal' or 'to die' but, it certainly isn't a moral choice, in 
my view.
I think I've answered the objection but just in case: If a starving man 
really does have a choice to not steal then would you say the same for 
cases of self-defence? Surely we instinctively (i.e. involuntarily) 
defend ourselves when attacked? Do we not also have a right to defend 
our existence if we have done nothing wrong? Isn't the instinct for food 
and thus, self-preservation even more primary than self-defence? Indeed, 
is it not a kind of self-defence? When a tree topples towards you, do 
you not jump out of the way or did you make a choice? Of course, you 
just did it because you had to. Hunger, a knife, a falling tree (which 
would make a sound, though you'd probably not hear it) they are all 
threats to ones continued existence- and within a given context they 
usually have only one solution. A choice with only one option is no 
choice at all. It's all very well saying that 'you could have not moved 
from the path of the falling tree' but, in reality you couldn't- just 
try it (but don't blame me if you're too slow).
-

"Consequently the fact that I have a choice to make a film, or not steal 
and not make a film, is irrelevant, as is the fact that it is not a 
strict biological need. The point is that the 'good' of making the film, 
in my opinion, outweighs the 'bad' of stealing from someone who is very 
rich, principally the loss they would suffer. Naturally people may 
disagree with this position and, for instance, say that the businessman 
worked hard for that money and deserves it etc. whilst I dossed around, 
and that film making isn't important compared with the businessman's 
'right' to spend his money.
Of course I would disagree with such people, but my point is that 
whether or not theft is justified here is an open question where we have 
to discuss the relative values and deserts involved. As such, whilst 
people may disagree with my examples, it remains the case that stealing 
can be justified in cases other than where people are starving."

Well, I think that all the hypothetical-objections are reasonable but, 
they're not the only reasons why I think it's wrong. I think that the 
good you are doing by making the film is nullified simply by stealing 
the money. If I were a consequential I might agree with you but I'm not 
since, I'm not concerned with consequences. If I were a deontologist I 
also might agree with you but I'm not. since, I'm not concerned with 
duty or universalisability.
The sole matter with which I am concerned is motivation.
What motivates a person to act?
In the case of situations involving self-preservation we are often 
dealing with instinctual drives. What motivates me is a 
bio-psychological impulse which is very difficult to break free from. 
But break free from it we can since we have free will. Free will allows 
me to choose whether to allow my instincts to determine my actions or not.
Let's take the following example:
I want to live. My want to live is underpinned by an instinct. I need 
food to live. Therefore, I have an instinct that wants food. 
Hypothetically I'll suppose that the only way i can get food is by 
stealing. Thus, I have an instinct that needs food. My motivation 
entails my action.
But let's also take your film-maker example:
I want to make a film. My want is underpinned by a desire. I need money 
to make a film. Therefore, I have a desire that 'wants' money. And 
that's as far as the reasoning will take us since there are many ways of 
getting the money to make a film. My motivation does not entail my action.

So, we need to get away from all this looking at consequences because 
they do not answer the fundamental question: what is it to choose good ? 
(as opposed to the meta-ethical question 'what is good?').
Sometimes we aim at good ends via bad means and sometimes we aim at bad 
ends via good means etc. However, we would not suppose that a means is 
good simply by virtue of the ends it aims at nor that an end is good 
simply by virtue of the means it aims at- that would be silly. Nor would 
I want to say that a particular means' moral status (i.e. good/ bad) 
changes depending upon variations of the consequential ends (the plans 
of mice and men, and all that jazz).
Instead we ought to be reasonable about what human beings can be held 
morally accountable for: namely, their choices. No choices = no morality.

Respectfully,

Luis Johnstone.


David Mitchell wrote:

> To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
>
>
> Hi,
> I don't think you convincingly answer my general question, which is: why is stealing only justfied when you [or someone you know] is starving. I made the point previously that if you say all stealing is wrong no matter what, as some deontologists might want to, then this is fair enough, however this is not what you say. You accept that certain circumstances might make stealing acceptable e.g if by stealing you can avoid starvation, BUT my point is why draw the line there?
> Surely if stealing is justified to avoid starvation it can also be justfied, potentially, in a whole number of situations where you might say stealing is 'the lesser of two evils'. e.g like stealing to get money for an eye operation.
>
> You seem to suggest that what makes the starvation case 'special' is that the people concerned have no choice but to steal, therefore presumably we can't blame them. I think howvever this is mistaken, we say the starving man is justified in stealing not because he has no choice, but because the good of his life outweighs the 'bad' of stealing, e.g the distress caused to the person who had lost money. Indeed it is not even true that the starving man has no choice, he does have the choice not to steal, and it is only because he wants to live and also end the pain in his stomach, that he steals. Whilst this is certainly not an enviable 'choice' to have make it exists nonetheless, in the strict sense he does not have to live, and the fact that many people have voluntarilly starved to death testifies to this, e.g Irish prisoners in the maze prison under Thatcher.
>
> Consequently the fact that I have a choice to make a film, or not steal and not make a film, is irrelevant, as is the fact that it is not a strict biological need. The point is that the 'good' of making the film, in my opinion, outweighs the 'bad' of stealing from someone who is very rich, principally the loss they would suffer. Naturally people may disagree with this position and, for instance, say that the businessman worked hard for that money and deserves it etc. whilst I dossed around, and that film making isn't important compared with the businessman's 'right' to spend his money. 
> Of course I would disagree with such people, but my point is that whether or not theft is justified here is an open question where we have to discuss the relative values and deserts involved. As such, whilst people may disagree with my examples, it remains the case that stealing can be justified in cases other than where people are starving.
>
> As to your analogy with body snatching on the issue of a 'victimless crime', I think this is deliberately disengeuous. What I mean by this is that the offence derives from peoples natural 'sqeamishness' about dead bodies/babies, not the actual act of theft. Further these are not victimless crimes in the sense that someone might have a wish for their relatives graves to be respected, so your example I think is deliberately misleading. Instead if you looked at a pure victimless theft e.g In 'Grapes of Wrath' the theft of oranges that no one is going to eat, then I don't think you can maintain that a genuinely victimless crime is immoral.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm
>
>
>  



Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm