Parish priest argues rationally for shoplifting
yorkpress.co.uk
yorkpress.co.uk
For an interesting contrast, see this article about those who shoplift out of compulsion or thrillseeking: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/28/nyregion/shoplifting-life-...
I think Jean Valjean was right to steal the bread, if that was the only way his family could survive for that day. But rarely do we meet a criminal who can honestly say, as Jean Valjean could, that he honestly did everything in his power to live honestly and morally. I also think JV's punishment was much too harsh, given his particular circumstances.
But, when people break the law, justice to those they have harmed still must be done. That is the purpose of the law, and the law is not mocked.
Britain is already a welfare state. How much more welfare-y does he want it to be?
Also, doesn't "caring for the truly needy" fall into the Church's mission statement? If a starving person comes to a priest, shouldn't the priest share his own food rather than telling him to go steal from someone else?
And should it? Should we for example sell our local building to pay the heating bills of the local poor? How then will we meet the spiritual needs of the people. Where can we congregate. How will we organise the meeting of the physical and spiritual needs in future years without somewhere to meet together, work together, pray together?
I'm going to tell poor people that if they have to steal in order to survive, they should steal from churches.
Stealing from poor people is simply stupid, morality aside.
If I give everything away today then tomorrow the guys who I've helped are still going to be needy but my family and myself will also be in need. How is that helping.
We do what we can whilst maintaining our own existence. Granted I bought trousers yesterday giving me 2 pairs that don't have holes in (4 pairs I can wear in public) but it does make it difficult to work without having clean clothes to change into.
I don't think it is hypocritical to hold that others with more resources should help more than me. Christianity does teach altruism and self-sacrifice but these are not the prime message - relationship with God is utmost and we are not taught to be stupid but instead to be generous with the things (and time) we are blessed with.
(Incidentally not paying heating bills is also theft as gas is paid in arrears.)
He suggests that in a dire situation, stealing from the shelves of a major chain store is a less evil alternative than violent crime or prostitution.
The obvious flaw in his argument would pointing out that this is a false dilemma, that there are many other alternatives. But for the example of the recently released prisoner he cites, I'm not sure which obvious ones he's failing to consider. I'm not pro-shoplifting, but given his scenario it seems better than robbery.
Soup kitchen?
Begging and dying would seem to both be more morally acceptable than stealing.
Begging, agreed. Though when I look at it hard and consider that begging demands the poor to give up their dignity then it reinforces in me that we should endeavour not to leave people in a position where it is ever necessary.
I think just the fact that so many are now considering the position of the poor facing moral choices of theft or starvation makes this an excellent sermon.
When was the last time anybody actually managed to starve to death in Great Britain? Great Britain is already a welfare state. It's easy to get paid for not working. If you fall through the cracks of that system there are dozens of charities devoted to helping those in genuine need. In addition, there's a beggar on every street corner. Oh, and there's always the Church, which really should be working on feeding the hungry itself (perhaps by reducing its own gold-plated candelabra budget) instead of sending 'em to knock over Tesco's.
Finally, if you somehow manage to be completely unable to find food anywhere, and you haven't eaten for days and you're actually in danger of dying of starvation, all you need to do is go to hospital, where they'll say "hey, this guy is dying of starvation" and give you free food and medical treatment.
In conclusion, dying for lack of food in modern Britain is very, very difficult.
If you can walk into hospital then you're not going to be treated for hunger, if you can't then you'll possibly die where you sleep. I'll agree, in winter in the UK you'll die from exposure before you die technically from starvation.
Yes, in my city the best (in fact only) street work is paid for by the local Church - they do a rolling program of food/shelter moving between a few of the city centre church buildings.
"Finally, if you somehow manage to be completely unable to find food anywhere"
Isn't the point kinda that you can walk into this huge building, nearby and full of food, 20% of which will probably just be binned, and help yourself??
[I'm really not a strong advocate of theft!]
Indeed, the cost to society of someone dying from starvation/exposure (in terms of autopsy, administration and other expenses) would seem to be quite a bit higher than the economic loss of some food. So I would suggest that stealing sufficient food for survival (rather than for profit) is more morally acceptable than passively dying.
(1) No argumnet based on religion (that is, faith) can also be based on reason. Most of his sermon is about religion. It revolves around religion. Thus, it cannot be considered (as a whole) to be rational.
(2) I think it would be rational to say stealing from a major chain store is less evil than violent crime, and possibly prostitution. But it's not rational to encourage people to steal. As you point out, most of the time, there are more choices than those presented--it's a false dilemma. There may be some cases in which steadling is the best option. However, the theif would certainly have a moral obligation to repay the store when he could, and that is not mentioned here.
(Really, we need a basis for both 'rationality' and 'morality' to have this discussion, which can be had, but not in the space of a comment.)
Something like faith that the universes speed limit is the speed of light - this makes GR completely devoid of reason?
Or that our arithmetic can't be shown to be complete and consistent with and of itself - this makes all of maths (based in this common arithmetic, cf Godel's I.T.) devoid of reason?
The Bible says, James 1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%201&ve... : "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
Put more simply: absolute proof of anything being impossible, some degree of faith is a universal requirement of human beings wanting to live a productive life. Thus to conclude that faith precludes reason is to conclude that every human on earth is incapable of reason. Which is quite a pretentious claim, I think.
The entire modus operandi of philosophical discourse since Descartes has been the seeking of a basis for human thought that didn't depend on assumptions. Heretofore, it has failed utterly in this task, and modern philosophy has increasingly accepted the notion that nothing can be proved absolutely. In retrospect, this makes perfect sense: Why should the human mind be capable of absolute knowledge?
Slowly we are realizing again what the ancients took for granted, that to reason, one must first assume that one is capable of it.
So, seeing as your statement controverts over 3000 years of experience, you'll need to proved an example of a belief that doesn't rely on assumptions.
To do so, we need a philosophical foundation for knowledge. See "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand", by Leonard Peikoff, chapters 1-5. You can get it in most bookstores and libraries.
P.S. Decartes was wrong. This book explains why in a straightforward and undeniable manner.
"Certainty" is a relative term; it describes a state of mind rather than an objective truth. I can be 'certain' of something without it being true. I am certain of my own consciousness and existence, not because I can prove them, but because I must be so in order in order to live and function. It is a simple 'faith' everyone must simply accept, but it is no more than that.
That is distinct from faith (in the proper sense), which is belief in something without any evidence--that is, belief disconnected from reality. True faith is always immoral.
As you can see, there are far more fundamental axioms than the one that the Objectivists posit and even these can be reduced further. The choice of which first principles to choose are by no means an objective one, but instead a pragmatic one. Miss Rand chose one which happened to be convenient for supporting her preconceived notions, as did Marx, Aristotle, and Descartes.
That is distinct from faith (in the proper sense), which is belief in something without any evidence--that is, belief disconnected from reality. True faith is always immoral.
You're establishing a useless distinction: If you told my about a Faerie you saw one day and I believed you, then my belief would not be without evidence; your testimony counts as evidence. Doubtless, you consider that to be insufficient evidence, but it is evidence non-the-less. You are positing a 'faith' that no one, religious or not, holds.
Not to put to fine a point on it, but what you seem to mean is that faith, as you define it, is a belief based in something other than Objectivism, which is also a useless (and subtly religious) definition.
I'm going to have to stop this discussion here because this tells me that your entire argument rests on an univocation. I really don't have the time to discuss this topic to the length that it deserves so I'm just going to have to drop this. If you want further reading, you can try the Categories by Aristotle.
The mere fact that something is necessary for knowledge does not mean that it is true because it has not been established that we are able to know. Nor is it established that we are able to experience.
It has been established. All the evidence supports that we are able to know and that we experience. I don't know what you mean when you say that this has not been established. No, we are not omniscient... but, for example, we could not build computers (for example) if we were not able to "know".
As you can see, there are far more fundamental axioms than the one that the Objectivists posit and even these can be reduced further.
No, I honestly can't see that. What is a more fundamental axiom than those of Objectivism?
The choice of which first principles to choose are by no means an objective one, but instead a pragmatic one.
No, they are objective. They are the only primary concepts that are implicit in and fundamental to all knowledge. Can you name some other concept for which this is the case? They are also self-evident, though they are not the only concepts for which this is the case. (By the way, self-evident does not mean "obvious".)
You're establishing a useless distinction: If you told my about a Faerie you saw one day and I believed you, then my belief would not be without evidence; your testimony counts as evidence. Doubtless, you consider that to be insufficient evidence, but it is evidence non-the-less. You are positing a 'faith' that no one, religious or not, holds.
My report of seeing a fairy could count as evidence if you consider me a credible source and if the properties I ascribe to it are not contradictory to other evidence. Religious faith does not have evidence to support it, because the Bible and religious leaders are not credible enough to outweigh the evidence that suggests that miracles and so forth are impossible. In fact, if you ask a religious person to justify their belief in their religion, ultimately, they will cite faith as the source of their belief. I am positing a "faith" that all religious people hold.
Not to put to fine a point on it, but what you seem to mean is that faith, as you define it, is a belief based in something other than Objectivism, which is also a useless (and subtly religious) definition.
Objectivism is not "subtly religious" because it is based on reason. If you can show Objectivism to be in error, please publish a paper showing the error. It is clear from this discussion that you do not understand Objectivism.
But since people keep downvoting me without any reason (you're only supposed to downvote if someone is rude or something, NOT because you disagree with them), I ought to just stop making comments. This is pitiful.
Having exhausted every legal avenue, what is the most moral (socially-acceptable/least-harm) illegal option you need to do in order to keep alive?
His answer: steal the bare minimum required from places where you will do the least damage to individuals, i.e. large supermarkets where the cost is spread thinly over many people.
It sounds like the sort of thing you could model with game theory if you wanted to "prove" it.
This is a fair summary of a very twisted argument.
He's talking about very poor Brits, and his audience are supposedly the not-so-poor British.
Now, UK has an extensive welfare system. How many people come even close to starving to death there?
And assuming his audience is composed of mainly middle-class people, why doesn't he simply ask them to donate to the poor? He claims that "the hard reality is that a vicar's salary is not designed to meet the needs of everyone", but somehow it doesn't occur to him that he's not the only one who could donate.
How come shoplifting is better than begging? The passages below
One might tell them to get a job, but it is at the very best of times extremely difficult for an ex prisoner to find work
the likelihood is that, found begging, they will quickly be in trouble with the police, and therefore in breach of their parole.
made me suspect this was an elaborate satire.
I also wonder if the shoplifting suggestion also applies to poor people without a conviction history.
(1) No argumnet based on religion (that is, faith) can also be based on reason. Most of his sermon is about religion. It revolves around religion. Thus, it cannot be considered (as a whole) to be rational.
(2) I think it would be rational to say stealing from a major chain store is less evil than violent crime, and possibly prostitution. But it's not rational to encourage people to steal. As you point out, most of the time, there are more choices than those presented--it's a false dilemma. There may be some cases in which steadling is the best option. However, the theif would certainly have a moral obligation to repay the store when he could, and that is not mentioned here.
(Really, we need a basis for both 'rationality' and 'morality' to have this discussion, which can be had, but not in the space of a comment.)
* Entertainingly ironic, given the poster's username
In the novel Les Miserables, the protagonist, Jean Valjean, steals bread in order to survive and is arrested. Later he skips his parol. Javert, a police officers chases him to the ends of the earth to bring him to justice. ("The ends of the earth" being figurative)
While in prison, convicts typically work but the costs of their incarceration are set against their earnings, such that the amount they make is trivial, basically equivalent to pocket money for a child. Now while I don't think anyone should expect to go to prison for financial gain, society has an interest in motivating a convicted criminal to act within the law after their release. For petty and less serious crimes, providing some sort of economic incentive and organizational assistance following release from prison is probably more likely to reduce recidivism.
I mean, in prison you have a roof over your head and a few meals every day - your physical basic survival is assured. In the case described in the sermon, a newly-released prisoner is then put into a position of trying to reintegrate into society with the equivalent of about 2 days' pay at minimum wage, which is not at all adequate to ensure basic physical survival, especially in winter. No matter how sincere a prisoner's remorse and intention of reform, putting them into a drastically worse economic situation immediately after release massively increases the temptation to crime - either for its immediate gain, or as a deliberate strategy to get sent back to prison and the surety of a bed/ roof/ meal.