I see your point and I’m not confused by it, although we’re both saying the same thing the usage of the word survival makes things sometimes complicated.
Remember I grew up in the inner city, so my perspective of survival is different than yours. So although you may not consider me robbing a bank is not essential to my survival, consider the circumstances of the poor and the hopeless.
Skid row is very famous in Los Angeles for having rows of homeless families on a sidewalk. Consider their circumstances and what they’re willing to risk to rid themselves of being impoverished. Some homeless people are willing to lie to rid themselves of their circumstance even if it’s for three days.
I remember at work I get irritated every time our frequent flyers would come in and lie about being suicidal and after I would evaluate them, would ask for an inordinate amount of food. Well, it took me a good four years to come to terms with the fact that people use the system to rid themselves of their circumstance even if it’s for a few days.
We place them on 5150 holds and they have room and board for three days. Some “play crazy” to avoid jail time, but I used to get angry (sometimes I still do) why people like these use the system. To me, in my mind this is excessive, for them it is survival. For these people who some use drugs which in turn does create real psychosis develops the problem of sustaining oneself on the streets.
People do what they can to survive from moment to moment so in going back to my example, a person like me who is in a desperate position and who has lives the inner city life and understands the lack of opportunities for many individuals with criminal records from their perspective, robbing a bank is excessive. It only appears that way because robbing a secured banking system is not the norm (although sadly poverty is) so to us “normal people” it’s excessive but what about the desperate?
I think that is the element people miss here in the hypothetical. Even an authority figure like God has not stopped people from committing the most heinous crimes in human history.
True. Ive grown up in mess and was homeless.
Another way to put this is murder is wrong because someone elses life dies at another person hands (the act of killing is wrong)
but people do it to survive-self defense, food, etc.
I just dont excuse the imorality of murder in and of itself based on whether it is used to kill or save a baby. A life was taken regardless.
That does not mean we need to treat them all the same. I would never tell someone who murdered to save her child is the same as someone who murdered for self-inflicted non necessary reasons.
The difference is, that doesnt change the nature of murder itself (or thief etc) just how we as a society judge whether what action is right or wrong.
I almost lost my home, didnt have clothes, nor food until the Church helped me out. If I were desprite, of course, food and shelter would be top than philosophizing moralityo f the issue.
My point is, regardless my actions and situation, that doesnt change the nature of the action-which I feel
the action is wrong no the intent of going through with it.
I dont see stealing as right based on the situation. I see how it is justified thats moral or immoral; and, I agree with the justication
not the action.
Think about it. If stealing wasnt immoral, we would do it without laws inposed on our actions. Since it is immoral by law, we judge the punishment by its intent and justification not the immoral act itself.