Is it okay to steal food?

[Captain Fabio]

1st, I dont know what 'ethical' means.

eth·ics/ˈeTHiks/Noun
1. Moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.

There was a discussion about this on the radio yesterday about is it right and ok for people to take food out of the bins.
Sounds grotty, but if a supermarket just throws away a ton of perfect steaks because their fridge just broke, is it ok for people to take them?

It is a grey area for me, I am not sure. Because if the supermarkets don't want people to have them or have access to them, they should bin them in safer locations, but then it could be classes as trespassing if someone enteres onto the supermarkets land to take the food...​

​

 

[Oryx]

1st, I dont know what 'ethical' means.

I was really tempted to just stop reading right there, because seriously? We're having a discussion about right and wrong. Look it up.

And I didnt ignore you about 'everyone thought the way I do' At some point, everyone has an urge to steal. But it's their choice to do it. I dont steal everytime I go somewhere. And when I do steal, its only small stuff.

Say there's a small town, oh, about 6200 people (that being the average town size in a census from a while back) and two stores. That means about 3100 people to a store. Say each person stole two $2 items once a month, because they're just small things and no one cares. That's over $10,000 dollars in loss a month. I don't know about you, but to me $10,000 isn't something "nobody cares about"

I'll tell you a true story. Last week,there was a guy that tried to jack 3 laptops from Best Buy. I saw him walk in, and go to the laptops. When I turned back around, I saw the guy putting laptops in his suitcase. I was laughing at the guy for doing this (he was stopped in the parking lot if your wondering) He gave them back to the Manager and they let him leave. My point is, some people will let stealing go. The manager didnt care.(I was eavsdropping)

How did he let it go? He gave them back to the manager, so the manager didn't feel the need to press any kind of charges against him. If he had "let it go", the man would have walked away with 3 laptops. That story had absolutely no relevance to the conversation whatsoever.

I know this thread is about food, so, Here's another one. On a TV show (real. It was Smoking Gun or something) one of the videos showed a guy trying to steal food from a gas station. After some fighting, the worker tackles the guy, then GIVES him what he was trying to steal. Worker said in his country, its wrong to let a man starve. I Dont know what country he's from but, that country and me have the same thoughts.

I'm sure you're starving when you steal 8 sodas from your vending machine, right? That's what I'm talking about here. I'm glad you at least have enough morals to agree that it's wrong for someone to starve, but what we've been discussing is the "no big deal" attitude towards stealing that people with no reason to steal have. If someone is starving, what they're doing by stealing is wrong, but justifiable. If they're not starving, not even close, then what they're doing is just wrong.

Just out of curiosity, what would you have done if you were the Best Buy manager and Gas Station worker?

It would depend on factors that you didn't mention, such as the attitude of the man stealing, his sincerity as to why he was doing it, and his willingness to give up once he was caught. If I was a Best Buy manager, saw someone stealing, stopped him, and he ran and caused a scuffle that hurt the merchandise with an entitled attitude, then yeah, I would press charges. But basically, all they want is their merchandise back. If the laptops aren't hurt, then no harm no foul as long as you get them back. It's the equivalent of the librarian putting the cost of a book on your record, then taking it off once you return the book. It was only there to replace the book, if the book is there no need to charge you. I would only press charges or ask for money if the laptops were damaged and needed repair, otherwise I would just want them back. The gas station is irrelevant because I already spoke about my opinions on stealing for starvation purposes. Although I would like to add that 99% of the time it's not justifiable to steal in America. I would know, I've been in the system that's in place when people are poor, and they take good care of you.

 

[Dragonite's Wrath]

I was really tempted to just stop reading right there, because seriously? We're having a discussion about right and wrong. Look it up.



Say there's a small town, oh, about 6200 people (that being the average town size in a census from a while back) and two stores. That means about 3100 people to a store. Say each person stole two $2 items once a month, because they're just small things and no one cares. That's over $10,000 dollars in loss a month. I don't know about you, but to me $10,000 isn't something "nobody cares about"



How did he let it go? He gave them back to the manager, so the manager didn't feel the need to press any kind of charges against him. If he had "let it go", the man would have walked away with 3 laptops. That story had absolutely no relevance to the conversation whatsoever.



I'm sure you're starving when you steal 8 sodas from your vending machine, right? That's what I'm talking about here. I'm glad you at least have enough morals to agree that it's wrong for someone to starve, but what we've been discussing is the "no big deal" attitude towards stealing that people with no reason to steal have. If someone is starving, what they're doing by stealing is wrong, but justifiable. If they're not starving, not even close, then what they're doing is just wrong.



It would depend on factors that you didn't mention, such as the attitude of the man stealing, his sincerity as to why he was doing it, and his willingness to give up once he was caught. If I was a Best Buy manager, saw someone stealing, stopped him, and he ran and caused a scuffle that hurt the merchandise with an entitled attitude, then yeah, I would press charges. But basically, all they want is their merchandise back. If the laptops aren't hurt, then no harm no foul as long as you get them back. It's the equivalent of the librarian putting the cost of a book on your record, then taking it off once you return the book. It was only there to replace the book, if the book is there no need to charge you. I would only press charges or ask for money if the laptops were damaged and needed repair, otherwise I would just want them back. The gas station is irrelevant because I already spoke about my opinions on stealing for starvation purposes. Although I would like to add that 99% of the time it's not justifiable to steal in America. I would know, I've been in the system that's in place when people are poor, and they take good care of you.

I failed Algebra 1A twice, so that tells you I'm not that smart. I'm not good at writing stuff, which is why I left that stuff out. The laptop guy was at the door, manager asks him what was in his bag, laptop guy says 'nothing', manager says something about surveillence video, laptop guy takes them out, gives them back, then leaves. Manager puts them back on the shelf.
I'm straight up broke, so $1 is a lot to me. I know what your trying to say about the '2 store' thing, and I'll admit, I cant think of a sarcastic comment. But if everyone stole 2 things a month, some of them would start stealing out of homes, and eventually no body will be stealing from the stores, so, the stores would stop losing money, the few hundred people who still buy stuff would keep the stores alive and they would slowly recover.
And though I do have enough morals to say people shouldnt starve, I also have enough independence to say 'its not my problem, someone else can help him' I'll give you a solid, reason for that, too. You've seen those commercials about the African kids, and you have sympathy. But does everyone who cares donate? No. I really dont care because I have a perfect reason to not help another human being who needs help. The people travel across the Atlantic, bring camera and editing equipment, and set up. Then they make the commercial. The commercial and editing equipment is useless. They could use the thousands of dollars they're sucking up, and use it on the african kids. But instead, they make a commercial, ask for a dollar a day for the kids and get money from good people. But not all of that money is given to Africa. The camera crew take almost all of the donated money and put it in their wallets, and the sraps belong to Africa. They could also give them the supplies they have with them. They have water and food, give it to African kids, and get out of their country. The commercial people are stealing from people literally only have a mud box to live in. The camera crew and the crying woman holding the hungry kid dont need to make the commercial. They can give them the money that is used for the commercial.
That's why I dont care enough to do anything. I know there are things other people can do, so I dont do anything. But the camera crew has no right keeping all the donated money. They are are stealing food, water and their actual Life from those kids.

And the America thing, that is a lie. They dont take care of us people who need help. They suck money out of them. I'm an example. Since I was in Kindergarden, I got free lunch because my family(and my stepdad, who is useless) only got $1000 a month. Freshman year, They made me buy lunch cuz I was getting $1000 a month. I'm in America, and it's not as great as people say it is. Our government shut-down. It really did. And since then, prices went up, and I get less food every month. And because of Government shut-down, I might not be able to get a part time job. And to anyone who thinks I'm blaming Obama for any of this, you can stop right there, because Obama had nothing to do with it. He's doing a lot better than Bush.
All of this may sound off topic, but if you read it carefully, it is completly on topic

 

[Oryx]

I failed Algebra 1A twice, so that tells you I'm not that smart. I'm not good at writing stuff, which is why I left that stuff out. The laptop guy was at the door, manager asks him what was in his bag, laptop guy says 'nothing', manager says something about surveillence video, laptop guy takes them out, gives them back, then leaves. Manager puts them back on the shelf.
I'm straight up broke, so $1 is a lot to me. I know what your trying to say about the '2 store' thing, and I'll admit, I cant think of a sarcastic comment. But if everyone stole 2 things a month, some of them would start stealing out of homes, and eventually no body will be stealing from the stores, so, the stores would stop losing money, the few hundred people who still buy stuff would keep the stores alive and they would slowly recover.

Except that this is under the assumption that they are morally upright people, they just believe as you do that there's nothing wrong with stealing from businesses. So they wouldn't escalate, because that would be moving from something right to something wrong in your point of view.

And though I do have enough morals to say people shouldnt starve, I also have enough independence to say 'its not my problem, someone else can help him' I'll give you a solid, reason for that, too. You've seen those commercials about the African kids, and you have sympathy. But does everyone who cares donate? No. I really dont care because I have a perfect reason to not help another human being who needs help. The people travel across the Atlantic, bring camera and editing equipment, and set up. Then they make the commercial. The commercial and editing equipment is useless. They could use the thousands of dollars they're sucking up, and use it on the african kids. But instead, they make a commercial, ask for a dollar a day for the kids and get money from good people. But not all of that money is given to Africa. The camera crew take almost all of the donated money and put it in their wallets, and the sraps belong to Africa. They could also give them the supplies they have with them. They have water and food, give it to African kids, and get out of their country. The commercial people are stealing from people literally only have a mud box to live in. The camera crew and the crying woman holding the hungry kid dont need to make the commercial. They can give them the money that is used for the commercial.

Sure, I agree that those "donate to Africa" commercials are a scam. But there's a difference between passively not giving to someone else, and actively taking from someone else. While of course it's better for you to donate money (through Red Cross or another non-profit organization that won't take it), it's something that's not expected. It's nice if you do, but in the end, it's your money. The things that you take when stealing from businesses, it's not yours. There's the difference.

That's why I dont care enough to do anything. I know there are things other people can do, so I dont do anything. But the camera crew has no right keeping all the donated money. They are are stealing food, water and their actual Life from those kids.

And the America thing, that is a lie. They dont take care of us people who need help. They suck money out of them. I'm an example. Since I was in Kindergarden, I got free lunch because my family(and my stepdad, who is useless) only got $1000 a month. Freshman year, They made me buy lunch cuz I was getting $1000 a month. I'm in America, and it's not as great as people say it is. Our government shut-down. It really did. And since then, prices went up, and I get less food every month. And because of Government shut-down, I might not be able to get a part time job. And to anyone who thinks I'm blaming Obama for any of this, you can stop right there, because Obama had nothing to do with it. He's doing a lot better than Bush.
All of this may sound off topic, but if you read it carefully, it is completly on topic

There have been multiple times where I had no home, and my mother had to beg a friend to take us and my sister in so we weren't on the street. My mom was unemployed for years, and now she works part-time on a minimum wage job because that's all she can get, although she's been applying to multiple jobs a day for weeks. We're well below the poverty line. My mom found food banks, multiple churches and charities that give us more than enough to live off of, and even occasionally give us non-food related items. Recently we found another charity that's going to help us with our bills. America takes care of its poor, you just need to know where to look. The people that are really screwed are the lower-middle class - they have enough to live so they don't get much help if any, but when it comes to large expenses (college, medical expenses), they don't have enough to cover it and get little help.

That is why I think stealing food is wrong in America specifically - within half an hour of my house, there are over a dozen food banks that give you free food if you bother to sign up and prove that you don't make enough. I've been in and out of poverty my entire life, and I've seen what the government does and doesn't do for people, as well as charities, so I have this opinion based on my own experiences.

 

[Åzurε]

I failed Algebra 1A twice, so that tells you I'm not that smart. I'm not good at writing stuff, which is why I left that stuff out.

I don't care. You're here posting, and that's good enough to try and get heard. No need to try and make excuses, just take it and continue on. We're all anons here, to a degree.

I'm straight up broke, so $1 is a lot to me. I know what your trying to say about the '2 store' thing, and I'll admit, I cant think of a sarcastic comment. But if everyone stole 2 things a month, some of them would start stealing out of homes, and eventually no body will be stealing from the stores, so, the stores would stop losing money, the few hundred people who still buy stuff would keep the stores alive and they would slowly recover.

And if nobody steals from the stores anymore, and everybody keeps on stealing, that makes it the perfect place to steal from. Plenty of supplies there, untouched. There's no escaping this sort of behavior. And even if they switched to stealing from other people's homes, that's not a better situation.

And though I do have enough morals to say people shouldnt starve, I also have enough independence to say 'its not my problem, someone else can help him' I'll give you a solid, reason for that, too. You've seen those commercials about the African kids, and you have sympathy. But does everyone who cares donate? No. I really dont care because I have a perfect reason to not help another human being who needs help.

That's not independence, that's just uncaring. Which can, I suppose, be justified in some circumstances. But, you can still care about them without being able to physically help them. As a devout Christian, I'd suggest praying for them, but anyways...

The people travel across the Atlantic, bring camera and editing equipment, and set up. Then they make the commercial. The commercial and editing equipment is useless. They could use the thousands of dollars they're sucking up, and use it on the african kids. But instead, they make a commercial, ask for a dollar a day for the kids and get money from good people. But not all of that money is given to Africa. The camera crew take almost all of the donated money and put it in their wallets, and the sraps belong to Africa. They could also give them the supplies they have with them. They have water and food, give it to African kids, and get out of their country. The commercial people are stealing from people literally only have a mud box to live in. The camera crew and the crying woman holding the hungry kid dont need to make the commercial. They can give them the money that is used for the commercial.

This is very true. There are scams out there, and the advertising money could have seen better uses. But there are honest charities out there as well. Not everyone is like that, and regardless of what the selfish people out there do, anyone can make the choice to be better than them.

That's why I dont care enough to do anything. I know there are things other people can do, so I dont do anything.

Once again, if everyone had thought that way, nothing would get done.

And the America thing, that is a lie. They dont take care of us people who need help. They suck money out of them. I'm an example. Since I was in Kindergarden, I got free lunch because my family(and my stepdad, who is useless) only got $1000 a month. Freshman year, They made me buy lunch cuz I was getting $1000 a month. I'm in America, and it's not as great as people say it is. Our government shut-down. It really did. And since then, prices went up, and I get less food every month. And because of Government shut-down, I might not be able to get a part time job. And to anyone who thinks I'm blaming Obama for any of this, you can stop right there, because Obama had nothing to do with it. He's doing a lot better than Bush.
All of this may sound off topic, but if you read it carefully, it is completly on topic

It's not great, I agree. I blame... multiple groups of people for this, including those who want to force religion out of everyone's lives. Christian and Jewish people in particular were the source of so much good, including charity and even science, and now lots of people are deciding it's all irrelevant. But that's another discussion.

Back on topic, the fact of the matter is that if people don't earn what they have, they won't have much. Whether it's because they just don't want to, or because something's keeping them from having a job, it's just what happens. It would still be a rare thing in more successful countries to not have any way to find support, especially if you know what to look for.

 

[twocows]

Depends on where they steal it from. If they stole from a large warehouse and distributed it among others in their situation, they'd be a modern day Robin Hood.

In an ideal world where the wealthy got to where they are through actual hard work instead of inheritance, I'd say stealing is wrong. Some of these families have been multi-millionaires for generations, though. And they somehow have a superiority complex about it, too! They can burn, for all I care. They deserve nothing.

Can the person not starving work to obtain their food like any other hard working person does? I don't see it justified, in most places their are churches and shelters willing to help people in need, and even food banks. So why would a person need to steal. A person should work for what they obtain not take what somebody else worked for.

I agree with Kenshin. There is really no need to steal food when you can just ask. Everyone works for their food, so to steal food that someone has worked for is just wrong. Stealing is never o.k and there is no excuse for it.

You two are naive. This attitude that pervades the American upper class that people can just work their way out of poverty is pure ignorance. That's just not the way it works. Who's going to hire someone who's illiterate? Someone who can't count? You might get a job being a janitor or construction worker, but the pay isn't very good and if you have dependents, you won't be able to take care of them because you'll be working all day to afford living expenses. The system is designed to keep money out of the hands of the poor and in the hands of the rich, and it's getting worse with each passing generation. Few these days are the stories of someone working their way from poverty to riches and those cases are as much luck as hard work. And once you get past a certain point, there's no going back; you don't have time to receive education when you're working all day to survive.

As for welfare, it's a viable option in some cases, but soup kitchens aren't everywhere, you know. Not everyone takes food stamps.

 

[Dragonite's Wrath]

I...dont have a religion. Not athiest, but no religion. But, even some of the honest charities have some kind of scam in there. And I just saw a commercial about a kids pillow(happy napper or something, wasnt paying attention) but at the end when it was going over the shpping and handling stuff, it said that the majority of their profits will go to Africa. And from across the room, I saw, in those super small white letters, "1% of all sales go to charity" And I'm not mistaken, because I can see a small black spider move across my dark brown carpet from a farther distance than the TV. My eyes are extremely sensitive to movement.
I think I've lost this debate.

 

[Åzurε]

Depends on where they steal it from. If they stole from a large warehouse and distributed it among others in their situation, they'd be a modern day Robin Hood.

And in many situations, also incarcerated. It's a noble thought, but mere concepts don't change laws.

In an ideal world where the wealthy got to where they are through actual hard work instead of inheritance, I'd say stealing is wrong. Some of these families have been multi-millionaires for generations, though. And they somehow have a superiority complex about it, too! They can burn, for all I care. They deserve nothing.

A vast amount of people get what they don't deserve. In the case of keeping wealth in the family, that sort of falls under the decisions of the previous owners. I'm not one for hoarding for the sake of hoarding, but it's not good to think that somebody should lose everything their family has given them because they have more than other people. The attitude that can come with such wealth is detestable, but guess what? Proper raising of the beneficiary can fix that too.

You two are naive. This attitude that pervades the American upper class that people can just work their way out of poverty is pure ignorance. That's just not the way it works. Who's going to hire someone who's illiterate? Someone who can't count? You might get a job being a janitor or construction worker, but the pay isn't very good and if you have dependents, you won't be able to take care of them because you'll be working all day to afford living expenses.

For the record: me? Not upper class. Fortunate, comfortable most days thanks to the effort of my father (who almost single-handedly takes care of me, my siblings plural and my mother, and who does in fact do construction work), but hardly wealthy.

The system is designed to keep money out of the hands of the poor and in the hands of the rich, and it's getting worse with each passing generation. Few these days are the stories of someone working their way from poverty to riches and those cases are as much luck as hard work. And once you get past a certain point, there's no going back; you don't have time to receive education when you're working all day to survive.

And which system is this? Capitalism? Thats what it sounds like you're saying to me. I have my own responses to that, but I'd rather not misunderstand you.

As for welfare, it's a viable option in some cases, but soup kitchens aren't everywhere, you know. Not everyone takes food stamps.

I refer you back to Toujours' situation. It's not easy, and understandably so, but you can find enough support to continue living in a great majority of situations.

 

[twocows]

And in many situations, also incarcerated. It's a noble thought, but mere concepts don't change laws.

The question was is it morally tolerable, not was it legally tolerable. Obviously it's illegal.

A vast amount of people get what they don't deserve. In the case of keeping wealth in the family, that sort of falls under the decisions of the previous owners. I'm not one for hoarding for the sake of hoarding, but it's not good to think that somebody should lose everything their family has given them because they have more than other people. The attitude that can come with such wealth is detestable, but guess what? Proper raising of the beneficiary can fix that too.

I think inheritance as a concept should be eliminated. I'm all for a meritocracy, which is what we're claimed to be. I would love for hard work to lead to higher status, but that's not the system we have in reality. We have a system where rich parents = higher status and more power. That's an aristocracy. How can anyone expect people to go anywhere in society if we don't start on the same footing? As for the best way to implement such a system, I have no idea, I'm not a political scientist, I'm a computer scientist.

For the record: me? Not upper class. Fortunate, comfortable most days thanks to the effort of my father (who almost single-handedly takes care of me, my siblings plural and my mother, and who does in fact do construction work), but hardly wealthy.

Pardon, I mistyped what I meant. I meant "This attitude, which pervades the upper class, " etc. I didn't mean to imply you were upper class.

And which system is this? Capitalism? Thats what it sounds like you're saying to me. I have my own responses to that, but I'd rather not misunderstand you.

If that's what you want to call the system we have, go ahead. I thought the ideal of capitalism was hard work bringing about higher status, but it's possible I have an incorrect definition of the word. I'm not an economist, either. Anyway, I meant the situation in the US, since that's where I live.

I refer you back to Toujours' situation. It's not easy, and understandably so, but you can find enough support to continue living in a great majority of situations.

"Continue living" isn't the metric we should be looking at. "Continue living for any significant period of time" is a much better one. You might be able to scrape by enough money to purchase McDonald's every day, but you're not going to survive long eating that everyday. I'm curious what the average life expectancy is among the US lower class. With the poor general health, low availability of medical assistance, and complete lack of opportunity for anyone past the age of 20, and the high crime rate that arises as a result of this, I'd imagine it can't be higher than 30 or 40.

Oh, here's another problem people don't understand. The way welfare works, the more money you make, the less assistance you receive. It's almost a 1:1 inverse correlation. As soon as you start making more money, you lose your government assistance. You work harder and longer, and for what? No net gain. Our system is pathetic.

 

[インフェルノの津波]

Is stealing wrong? Yep, no doubt about it.

Is stealing for food wrong? ...Come here.

I don't like the idea of stealing...but I person should not be allowed to starve.

So, I don't think stealing should be allowed, but people starving...I've experienced myself a few times...but I don't think it should be allowed. True, someone paying for the food does not need as much as the person stealing it, but they're entitled to it.

I would say foodbanks would be another option...but some countries do not them, so idk.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Depends on where they steal it from. If they stole from a large warehouse and distributed it among others in their situation, they'd be a modern day Robin Hood.

In an ideal world where the wealthy got to where they are through actual hard work instead of inheritance, I'd say stealing is wrong. Some of these families have been multi-millionaires for generations, though. And they somehow have a superiority complex about it, too! They can burn, for all I care. They deserve nothing.




You two are naive. This attitude that pervades the American upper class that people can just work their way out of poverty is pure ignorance. That's just not the way it works. Who's going to hire someone who's illiterate? Someone who can't count? You might get a job being a janitor or construction worker, but the pay isn't very good and if you have dependents, you won't be able to take care of them because you'll be working all day to afford living expenses. The system is designed to keep money out of the hands of the poor and in the hands of the rich, and it's getting worse with each passing generation. Few these days are the stories of someone working their way from poverty to riches and those cases are as much luck as hard work. And once you get past a certain point, there's no going back; you don't have time to receive education when you're working all day to survive.

As for welfare, it's a viable option in some cases, but soup kitchens aren't everywhere, you know. Not everyone takes food stamps.

The flaw with your inheritance argument is that somebody earned that money through some means. People who earn their money should and do have the right to pass it on to whomever they please when they die. You inherit what your family worked hard for. Even if you didn't work for it yourself, somebody did and chose to give it to you out of their own domain over their personal property.

While I would also commend them if they gave all of a significant portion of their estate to charity, the Constitution guarantees life, liberty, and property (for those that don't know "the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, not in the Constitution.), so if I work hard and become a wealthy attorney, that's my money to do what I wish with. If I decide to donate it to charity upon my death, that's my choice to make. I choose that just as freely as I can choose to pass it down to my children.

You can call it selfish if you'd like; but that's the way the cookie crumbles in this country.

 

[Åzurε]

The question was is it morally tolerable, not was it legally tolerable. Obviously it's illegal.

That was the question, but I think that realistic results should factor into the situation as well. The two aren't very distant in any case.

I think inheritance as a concept should be eliminated. I'm all for a meritocracy, which is what we're claimed to be. I would love for hard work to lead to higher status, but that's not the system we have in reality. We have a system where rich parents = higher status and more power. That's an aristocracy. How can anyone expect people to go anywhere in society if we don't start on the same footing? As for the best way to implement such a system, I have no idea, I'm not a political scientist, I'm a computer scientist.

How can we expect people to do anything new, especially technologically, if we do start on the same level? Many innovators have substantial investments that come from private companies. If the head of these businesses were to die, what would become of the money? Who would it belong to? If we did away with inheritance, who could the owner give his money to? A close friend? Why couldn't it be somebody related to them?
Such as system as far as I've thought through it is in fact inundated with inequality and missed opportunities.

Pardon, I mistyped what I meant. I meant "This attitude, which pervades the upper class, " etc. I didn't mean to imply you were upper class.

I understand. I suppose it says something about me to take it that way.
However, I think my comment still has bearing on what you said, about reality not working that way. I and my family seem to be living in a way that contradicts how you believe the world works.

If that's what you want to call the system we have, go ahead. I thought the ideal of capitalism was hard work bringing about higher status, but it's possible I have an incorrect definition of the word. I'm not an economist, either. Anyway, I meant the situation in the US, since that's where I live.

It's sort of a variable term, I suppose. The ideal, as I was taught, was that everybody has a chance to work at what they want and to own what they earn. I can't deny that something is wrong with they way we do what we do in practice, but I'm more inclined to believe that it's a moral issue. This country wasn't exactly tailored to the now-common selfish relativists.

"Continue living" isn't the metric we should be looking at. "Continue living for any significant period of time" is a much better one. You might be able to scrape by enough money to purchase McDonald's every day, but you're not going to survive long eating that everyday. I'm curious what the average life expectancy is among the US lower class. With the poor general health, low availability of medical assistance, and complete lack of opportunity for anyone past the age of 20, and the high crime rate that arises as a result of this, I'd imagine it can't be higher than 30 or 40.

...A person, a family can do better than that, living off the price of McDonald's every day. It merely depends on what you buy with what you have. Having, for example, peanut butter and jelly or cold cuts every day is better for you, and significantly cheaper. You also seem to automatically attribute all this to it not being provided, when such things may not be utilized to their fullest. I am not saying that it is universally provided, it only seems that you're trying to place too much importance on the government and private organizations.

Oh, here's another problem people don't understand. The way welfare works, the more money you make, the less assistance you receive. It's almost a 1:1 inverse correlation. As soon as you start making more money, you lose your government assistance. You work harder and longer, and for what? No net gain. Our system is pathetic.

The system isn't all there is in the world. No doubt it could use alteration
, but there are other sources of assistance, and I find that too much emphasis has been placed on public systems in the past few decades (not that I have it on authority that we were better off before then), and personal charity and effort has dwindled greatly.

 

[Steven]

to Twocows:
I can tell you who would hire an illiterate person. You've probly been there 57 times. Its called McDonalds. They hire anyone who can talk and see over the counter. And they have calculators on the register, so math is covered. And the large warehouse thing, do you really think a company would leave a huge warehouse filled with food, unlocked? There's gonna be some security. And that gay, tights wearing Robin Hood (NOT insulting gay people, just Robin Hood) stole gold and gave it to poor people, not fruit or frozen steaks, or whatever is put in a warehouse.
The system is really that bad? I'm not complaining. I dont think Toujour was complaining. I have been back-handed by the 'system' so many times, that not even Larry the Cable Guy could make it funny. And 'it's getting worse with each generation' from the age shown on your post, you've been alive for 1 generation. And stories from people dont count as knowing what it was like, cuz everyone exaggerates at some point. And I can annihilate your of 'Out of hands of poor and in hands of the rich' John Fitzgerald Kennedy donated ALL of his Presidential salary to charity. He came from a rich, Catholic family, and he saved a life when his PT-109 boat was hit by a torpedo. JFK carried the guy on his back, a long distance to shore. JFK struck again from beyond the grave! haha! And Lee Harvey Oswald didnt kill him.

To Azure:
I'm on your side

Anyone who personally insults someone because of their opinions in a debate is not worth anyone's time.

That was the question, but I think that realistic results should factor into the situation as well. The two aren't very distant in any case.

Wearing a mask is immoral?
Fishing for whales in Ohio on a Sunday is immoral?

Neat.

 

[Livewire]

"The first time I stole so that I wouldn't starve, I lost many assumptions about the simple nature of right and wrong."

 

[Dragonite's Wrath]

Anyone who personally insults someone because of their opinions in a debate is not worth anyone's time.

Wearing a mask is immoral?
Fishing for whales in Ohio on a Sunday is immoral?

Neat.

....Did I really insult someone? If I did, I didnt mean to.

 

[Åzurε]

Anyone who personally insults someone because of their opinions in a debate is not worth anyone's time.

While not exactly the argument I would make, what Dragonite said does not appear to contain any personal attacks, unless you're overreacting to him calling Robin Hood "gay". :/

Wearing a mask is immoral?
Fishing for whales in Ohio on a Sunday is immoral?

Neat.

Oh, an appeal to ridicule. I'm glad you understand the spirit and intent of my statement.

What I mean is that laws tend to reflect the morals of the people who make the laws. People produce laws based at least partially upon their own ethical sense and way of thinking, even if it's not fully realized in the law they actually make.

 

[Livewire]

May I remind you all to behave yourselves. No more personal shots at each other.

 

[FrostPheonix]

Wow, you don't look at this thread one night and watch it fly. I am lost as it is.

Anyways, I think that stealing food is immoral. It is immoral, was immoral, will always be immoral. But, there are times when people are starving and need food; they need to steal to support their families. That is where I come to shaky ground; I think that in these cases you may steal, and even then only as much that you ABSOLUTELY need. And you shouldn't steal from those who have only a little, try stealing from people who have too much. Not little street vendors or something, but some wealthy idiot who has too much, and doesn't care about his fellow people.

And in any case, I still think that stealing is immoral. There has to be some way to survive without stealing, and at almost any time there is. Don't steal when you feel hungry, go home and eat something instead of buying and eating

 

[Guillermo]

It's actually sad to think that people are forced to steal food, rather than have it provided. If someone that was starving to death came up to me and asked for food or money, I wouldn't even think twice about it. People are pathetic these days.

But yeah, I think it's okay. If you're stingy enough to let someone die instead of do whatever it takes to survive, you need to get checked out.

 

[Dragonite's Wrath]

It's actually sad to think that people are forced to steal food, rather than have it provided. If someone that was starving to death came up to me and asked for food or money, I wouldn't even think twice about it. People are pathetic these days.

But yeah, I think it's okay. If you're stingy enough to let someone die instead of do whatever it takes to survive, you need to get checked out.

Even if you thought you were helping them by giving them money, it's better to give food. Reason is, when they get money, most of them buy illegal drugs, and besides, some beggars have food, but beg for drug money. So it's better to give food.
... The second part, in the end, its unfortunatly every man for himself. I dont like the thought of the african kids I mentioned earlier, dieing (blame commercial producers and the crying woman), but thats all we can do. If we move in and build things for them, some country will get the wrong idea and attack us. Sometimes, being stingy is the better thing to do.