Parish priest argues rationally for shoplifting(yorkpress.co.uk)
yorkpress.co.uk
Parish priest argues rationally for shoplifting
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/4813866.Full_transcript_of_the_sermon_given_by_Father_Tim_Jones
52 comments
Let my words not be misrepresented as a simplistic call for people to shoplift. The observation that shoplifting is the best option that some people are left with is a grim indictment of who we are. Rather, this is a call for our society no longer to treat its most vulnerable people with indifference and contempt.
The observation that shoplifting is the best option that some people are left with is a grim indictment of who we are.
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?
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?
Agreed. Certainly the Church has not exhausted its resources feeding the poor, and it should do so before it resorts to encouraging them to steal.
the Church has not exhausted its resources feeding the poor
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?
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?
Given that your moral code preaches altruism and self-sacrifice, yes. If someone is in the situation that they will die if they do not get material resources from somewhere, you should give them what they need to survive before you pay your own heating bills. Otherwise, you're hypocrites.
I'm going to tell poor people that if they have to steal in order to survive, they should steal from churches.
I'm going to tell poor people that if they have to steal in order to survive, they should steal from churches.
I'm poor (according to our government we live well below the poverty line but things are not that bad, gov metrics are just screwy; I digress) how would I gain from stealing from other poor people. Surely to increase the wealth amongst the poor, money needs to be taken from the wealthy - Tesco make how many million UKP every day?
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.)
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.)
I didn't say YOU should give poor people money, I said the Church should. And I'm not going to tell poor people to steal from you; I'm going to tell them to steal from the Church.
Yes.
In "Les Miserables" a poor and needy Jean Valjean steals a loaf of bread to feed his family and that one act haunts him for a long time, even after he becomes a very wealthy man.
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-...
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-...
Props for the literature reference, that's a great book.
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.
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.
This shouldn't shock anyone. It has long been the position of the RC Church that property rights are secondary compared to the right to live.
Indeed. Christianity, as a religion, is designed to appeal to folks at the low end of society, so it's not too surprising. Nietzsche goes on about this kind of thing a lot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_morality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_morality
Is there a religion that doesn't?
The RC Church may claim that, but its hardly apparent. Through most of its history, it's been entirely willing to take the lives of those that disagreed with it, or whose possessions it wanted. As for property rights, it's one of the wealthiest organizations on Earth, with vast property holdings. Enough to pay out several billions to take care of pedophile scandals, without straining the coffers.
I'm confused as to what you are trying to accomplish. I was pointing out that this particular priest's position shouldn't surprise anyone as it's already largely offcsial teaching by his church. I was not making an argument for, or against the position. Even if I were, your comment is an ad-hominem attack which is hardly convincing one way or the other.
It's not exactly suggesting that the Irish eat their children, but it's an interesting take nonetheless.
That's how I read it - a Swiftian proposal to make more fortunate people think what it would be like to be in a situation (e.g. 100 pounds to live on for six weeks) where shoplifting is the best option. At least, it made me think about that.
[deleted]
His argument was certainly not rational.
It was, I think.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
(This comment is a copy of a comment I made in response to a similar reply to my comment...)
(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.)
(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.)
How so? I take a pretty dim view of most organized religion, and found this to be one of the more rational sermons I have read or heard.
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.
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.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
(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.)
(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.)
No argumnet based on religion (that is, faith) can also be based on reason.
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."
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."
Assumptions are prerequisite for reason. Faith is a prerequisite for assumptions,. Therefore, faith is a prerequisite for reason.
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.
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.
Your first two premises are wrong. You do NOT need faith to establish reason.
Sigh.
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.
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.
The human mind is not capable of "absolute" knowledge. The human mind is not omniscient. But it doesn't have to be omniscient. We can still know many things, and we can have certainty that we're right about those things.
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.
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.
Javert, even the Objectivists ackknowledge that their first principles ("axioms" in Objectivist parlance) are not so much proven truths as they are necessary assumptions for the pursuit of cogent knowledge.
"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.
"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.
You are sort of right, but not exactly. Objectivists hold that axiomatic concepts are self-evident. That is their "proof". Any other attempt to "prove" them would be nonsensical, since they are irreducible primaries and the basis of all knowledge.
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.
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.
No, I am exactly right. There is no such thing as an undeniably self-evident truth. 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. The so-called 'existence of existence' (a meaningless tautology) because it is not established that it is necessary for something to exist in order to for it 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. 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.
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.
There is a simple reason for our disagreement. You do not believe that reason is (possible/efficacious/valid). I do, though this belief is not based on faith. The argument for why reason is valid is given by Ayn Rand. You are not familiar enough with her argument to defeat or disprove it. Anyway, my response to your specific claims follows. I respect your wish to end the conversation, so I don't mind if you don't respond.
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.
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.
The examples you're giving are NOT examples of faith.
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.
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.
But for the example of the recently released prisoner he cites, I'm not sure which obvious ones he's failing to consider.
Begging and dying would seem to both be more morally acceptable than stealing.
Begging and dying would seem to both be more morally acceptable than stealing.
As someone else pointed out the Church holds that the right to live is greater than the right to [individual?] ownership of property. This has some interesting consequences which I'll enjoy meating out with friends in the Church in the next few weeks - very apposite.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When I said "not to leave people in a position ..." I wasn't really thinking of people in the UK.
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!]
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!]
Begging in public is a crime in many jurisdictions, though one that tends to result in simply being chased off by the police rather than arrest. I don't think anyone is morally required to lie down and die if they've exhausted all legal avenues for basic survival.
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.
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.
Allowing those around you to die for lack of a minimum amount of food or shelter does not seem to me to be more morally acceptable than stealing.
moral acceptability != rationality.
"I'm not sure which obvious ones he's failing to consider."
Soup kitchen?
Soup kitchen?
I've camped out in sub-zero temperatures and been unfortunate enough to only afford one meal a day (but a good sized one). Surely being homeless and living on a bowl of soup most days, in winter, is going to leave one close to starving.
"Soup Kitchen" is just a name given to a place that feeds the poor. They usually serve more than soup.
The only ones I've visited served bread and a bowl of something like curry or stew. Shorthand "soup". The point is it's a simple meal unlikely to provide a complete days _nutrition_ and enough energy for warmth in Winter; but probably enough for medium term survival.
It's a lot more rational than rational than paroling an experienced criminal back into society without the most basic means of economic support.
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.
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.
We don't just kick them out without basic economic support. Especially for some classes of criminals, like sex offenders, we put a large sign on their back saying "I'M DANGEROUS". We ostracize them from society and make them feel like they don't belong. So it's only natural for them to want to go back to prison, where their troubles are the same as the troubles of the guy next to them and where they feel like they do belong.
Eponysterical *
* Entertainingly ironic, given the poster's username
* Entertainingly ironic, given the poster's username
I noticed that too, but wasn't sure if I should bring it up.
Could you explain? My name or javert's?
Javert's.
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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javert
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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javert
Neither was yours.