A good man, living on the streets, was near death by starvation. After a long day of begging for food and money, and receiving neither, he comes across a lone fruit stand. The man who runs the stand is also struggling to provide for his wife and kids, and can't afford to let any apple or pear go unpaid for. But the homeless person needs food, or else he might not survive the night. Should he steal?
2007-10-23 11:52:40 · 11 answers · asked by SHARON 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Stealing is always wrong, it just so happens that sometimes the alternative (starving to death) is worse. However although I realize this is just hypothetical, a man so close to death by starvation would likely not even have the strength to stand, let alone steal.
But ignoring that, in this case, I don't see why the two could not work out a deal that would benefit them both. The fruit stand operator needs more business, the homeless man needs food. The fruit stand man could hire the homeless man to drum up business for the stand, just by wearing a placard or doing verbal advertising ("Need a healthy snack? Get yer fresh fruit here!"). He could, in turn, pay the homeless man either in money which can then be used to buy food, or directly in fruit. It's a win-win situation, with no stealing.
Alternatively, the homeless man could steal the fruit, get caught (how fast could he possibly run?), get arrested, and then get a meal and possibly medical attention in jail. Not as good a solution as the one above, but he'd still get fed and presumably the fruit stand man would get the stolen fruit returned to him so as not to incur a loss either.
2007-10-23 12:23:16 · answer #1 · answered by R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The starving-to-death man ought hie himself to the nearest emergency room and receive care, which must by law be given to anyone presenting.
Homeless shelters are also an option, and many good churches give food on a regular basis. This knowledge is obtainable in a public library, at a local government agency (including over the phone), and so the good man ought advantage himself of these obvious resources well before a crisis. People live for weeks without food before dying, so after a single day without food, that ought give a good man sufficient motivation to turn to Church and State.
There are a goodly number of job-training programs available through homeless shelters and government offices. Your case is an example of circular reasoning, in which conditions are constructed and restricted so as to force an unreal choice: "Choose life, by stealing?"
best regards,
j.
p.s. "Man, Master of His Destiny," O. M. Aivanhov, speaks to your question.
2007-10-23 19:19:15 · answer #2 · answered by j153e 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The fruit stand man will no doubt change his mind and help a fellow human being. The homeless man should explain his situation and ask for a piece of fruit. If the stand owner refuses, he should move on and look for another's help.
2007-10-23 19:28:37 · answer #3 · answered by Dustelightful 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
HE should. But, your question isn't worded very well. If we were talking about which action has more justice, than the homeless man dying. Because, if he dies, than he only dies. However, the fruit stand man has a whole family who really on the money.
2007-10-23 20:19:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure. There is no morality other than the one we decide. Any man, it's obvious, would say he has a right to steal, or at least that he should steal.
We're all human-> all have a heart. The heart is what determines our thinking and our morals.
No matter how tough the man.....if a rich man goes to jail, he'll think with his heart. It's all that is left. It's what we're made of.
2007-10-23 19:10:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am sure God will make the fruit seller change his mind and feel pity for the dying man. God doesn't make the homeless person steal. If he has to survive, he will. Everything is according to God's will.
2007-10-23 19:01:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
well, yes he should. it isnt a perfect world and we will all do what we have to, to survive. who is anyone to judge him? nobody who had ever been to the brink of death by starvation would question his actions or judge his "goodness" by them. only those who had never worn those shoes would judge. without empathy, a man is an evil empty shell of what he was meant to be.
2007-10-23 19:22:00 · answer #7 · answered by sweetie3.14 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes he can steal. But eh fruit vendor has equal right to prevent him too. Both are right
2007-10-24 08:48:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If there is NO OTHER CHOICE, no shelters, no soup kitchens, no helpful people, then yes, he must take it, but he has the obligation to give something in return, such as labor.
2007-10-23 23:34:00 · answer #9 · answered by Rebecca W 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but only as much as he needs to stay alive.
2007-10-23 19:24:09 · answer #10 · answered by Diana 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋