Quandry

Say you are dying and need food. You have no money, and the only option is to steal food. Is it ok to steal, or is it still going to be bad karma? On one hand it can be seen as a selfish act due to a selfish desire to live, on the other hand, life is sacred, and what life is more sacred than your own? On the same note, what about killing/fighting in self-defence? Violence and murder are wrong and create bad karma, but does the situation have any influence? Is there indeed a time for war (and violence)?

 

karma, as it was taught by the Buddha, is often thought of as "what goes around comes around," but the Buddha actually meant it to mean "consequence," as for your actions, be they good or bad. The consequence doesn't for any particular reason have to relate to the actions.

Either way, survival of the fittest is Nature's way, in which case stealing, like sharing or killing, only has consequences and morality is just a worthless illusion because it is not as fundamental. As Jean Paul Sartre explains in many of his books, existance precedes essence; you have to exist before you can be anything, whether it is good, or bad, or a doctor, or feeling ill. None of that matters if you're dead. So yes, it is okay to steal and be immoral if your life depends on it. I mean, it's only instinct to survive. Whenever you don't have to on instinct, you should be acting on morality. But when you have to, you should act on instinct.

Outright murdering, however, isn't necessary to your survival. Yes, survival of the fittest takes precedence, but that doesn't mean you have the right to take life. You have the right to DENY life by taking resources, if there is not enough to go around for everyone. But you do not have the right to TAKE life, especially if it's unnecessary. And if the resources DO exist, then you don't have the moral right to deny life at all.

So, if you don't have to steal to survive, you shouldn't steal. If you do have to steal to survive, then it's not immoral, because morality presupposes life. But regardless, you don't have the right to murder. But if someone tries to kill you, it's fine to defend yourself. And by defend yourself, I mean, thwart your opponent's offenses, without trying to kill them. If it's impossible to stop them without killing them, or your life is at stake and they are fighting to the death, then it's not immoral (again, because morality presupposes life).

Those are my beliefs, at the very least. =)

 

Interesting, thanks. I tend to agree with you on most issues. I doubt though, that one really has time to think about whether or not to kill someone who is attacking them. Defense is all that matters, effective defense. Having never been in such a situation I can't comment, but it would seem that the adrenaline would sort of take over.

Also, you say it's alright to deny resourses even if it means denying life, but not to murder; but what about if you're in a desert, your companion has water and you don't. The only way to get the water is to kill him or at least attack him and subdue him. Basically, if you are on the losing end of being denied resourses, is it right to fight for them? I would say yes, even if it means killing.

 

The laws against stealing aren't actually part of nature, but a functional necessity of human civilization. A hungry person who steals to eat as a last resort to continue to live isn't really doing anything wrong, IMHO.It isn't against nature, but a necessity of nature. It would be a harsh and judgemental God who would condem someone for doing that!
Neither is defending oneself or one's dependents or even community from attack wrong. I feel strongly that the British, US and Russian soldiers who died fighting the NAZI's for example were doing good. That was a threat that had at all costs to be wiped out. Sometimes in the face of aggression, violence, even war and killing may sadly be necessary - but only as a last resort.
The same is true in life in lesser situations too.

 

Well think about it like this. That person is trying to kill you. That means, they are trying to take your life. That's pretty much a moral concession of their own life; they're giving up their right to life by infringing on that very same right you have. So, at that point, they could be holding a knife or gun to you, or anything. And if you kill them, it's not your own fallacy, your life was threatened and you eliminated the threat, and it's not immoral to eliminate that threat because that thread has already secceded his or her life.

But if you're feeling nice, or if it's blatantly obvious that it's possible to keep the assailant alive, you can decide to spare that person's life, which is fine. But you're not obligated to.

You have the right to take his water. If he resists, you have the right to subdue him. If he tries to kill you, you have the right to kill him. Pretty much. If you are being denied resources, you have two choices: (1) take them, or (2) die. Obviously, option 1 comes before option 2. If you can't fulfil option 1, option 2 is the default.

It is your moral obligation, as a sentient being, to protect all sentience, unless it means your own (in which case, you can even sacrifice yourself if you want to be remembered as a hero; that's your own choice). That means, if someone's life is in danger, it's your duty to try and help them, even if that means killing the attacker (as they have already secceeded their life away). Sometimes, that's not possible, but if you try and help and fail, it's not your fault; you didn't kill them, you only tried to help.

That being said, if two people who are both murderers are trying to kill eachother ... which should you save? Neither. (Unless you are trying to be moral above and beyond what you should be) I mean, both of them, by being murderers, have already seceeded their lives. That means, neither of their lives are worth saving. That doesn't give you the right to kill them unless they are trying to kill you or someone else who isn't a murderer and hasn't seceeded their lives. But you aren't obligated to try and save either of them in any way.

So we agree.

 

Yes - I think we do. Let dog eat dog, and only if they growl at me will I lift a finger against them.

I'm not sure about this though. What if I knew that the person I was about to kill for their water was a better person than I? Or had more reason to 'need' to survive than I?
It could happen. I'm in my late 40's - I've had a good run for many years, raised a child etc. My comrade could be a young man of 21, with a great potential life ahead of him- I might well have to conclude that I should let him have all the water because it's more important(?) - don't think thats the right word - more appropriate for him to live than me. And perhaps that would also be in accord with the natural order.
Even though my longer experience of life (longer to adapt) might well mean that I'd think about killing him long before it occured to him to kill me!

 

If you're going to die, those aren't your problems, those are his, and Nature gave you an ego for a reason: to consider the survival of the self before anyone else. And Nature also gave you morals for a reason: It's a good evolutionary strategy that protects you from the harm of others, and protects others from the harm of still others.

Again, you can feel completely free to go and let him live and accept your fate ... but it's not immoral if you don't want to do that.

Morality helps the species survive, not the self. If you want the species to survive and prosper more then yourself, then by all means, go ahead and let him have his water. But it's not immoral for you to take the water for yourself, because that is still survival of the species; it's just not as great of a survival, but at least it means there will still be life.

 

Once again, accord!

Can't add much more at present. :sunglasse

 

In the words of my MORALITY teacher "its ok to steal food if you are starving" (even though God's commandment simply states "Thou shal not steal") But hes also the one who supports capital punishment, when God's commandment states "thou shal not kill".
Hes gay but its okay even though the bible supposedly condemns it.
Hes basically just a selfish, bible manipulating Christian.

 

Has he? consider this possibility: the person is trying to kill you because you have the water, and he wants it. He clearly hasn't ceded his life, he's eagerly trying to save it. Because on the flipside, you say it's ok to kill my companion for his water. In that situation, would it be accurate to say i've ceded my life? I'd say I ceded HIS life, not mine. This is why I labeled this thread "quandry." It gets confusing. I'm not saying I'm against self defense (as I already said, I mainly agree with you and BBB). But it is hard when you look at it this way.

By the way, in my mind, this "it's ok to kill for resourses" is only a life or death thing. Killing for greed is obviously wrong: if you have bread and won't share with a starving man, you're basically killing him out of greed. Of course it'd be hard to draw the line between "actual need" and "more than one needs". How much bread do you need? How much do you have? Who decides how much the breadholder needs himself?

 

If you have enough energy to murder, then you have enough energy to find water yourself instead.

Hikaru, you said: "That being said, if two people who are both murderers are trying to kill eachother ... which should you save? Neither. (Unless you are trying to be moral above and beyond what you should be) I mean, both of them, by being murderers, have already seceeded their lives. That means, neither of their lives are worth saving. That doesn't give you the right to kill them unless they are trying to kill you or someone else who isn't a murderer and hasn't seceeded their lives. But you aren't obligated to try and save either of them in any way."

So, you think that our actions determine the value of our lives?

 

I think it depends on the situation and if it's survival or pride controling the situation. It's hard 2 think of a 100% case where war or violence was they only way instead of the easy one.

 

Some times you don't have time to think about what's right or wrong so you just do what's necessary.

 

Dude, you're in a desert, there is no water, except in your companion's canteen. That's the point. Either you die, or he does. Maybe you'll die anyways, but I don't think it'd be immoral to try to take the water, even violently. Not morally wrong, anyways, even though it sure sucks for the other guy.

I'd like to ask Hikaru something. You've said someone who attacks another has ceded his life. I don't understand why that is. Like I said previously, if I'm attacking my companion for his water, I've not ceded my life...I'm working all out to save it. I also am not sure a murderer has ceded his life either. That's not for me to decide, and I don't really think it's important anyways. If you're attacked, you can fight back, it doesn't matter whether your assailant has ceded his life or not, it's just a matter of survival on your part.

And if one known murderer attacks another, shouldn't you try to save the one who was attacked? It's our job, says BBB, to protect sentience at all times, and at least in this case, the murderer being attacked is not at fault.

 

What if expending the energy to murder ensures that a group of people will serve you out of fear that you will murder again if they don't? Then you don't have to get up and get the water yourself.

What's that old saying "Give a man a glass of water, and he'll be thirsty in an hour; Teach a man to reign terror over many peoples lives and they will bring him a glass of water before he asks."

"That being said, if two people who are both murderers are trying to kill eachother ... which should you save? Neither."
I dunno. What if one person is a hot chick who will have your babies if you help her? Or one of them offers you money. Or one of them is really entertaining to be around when they are not killing people (like a good drinkin' buddy). There are lots of situations where you should help a murderer kill another murderer.

 

There IS water in the desert, it's just not a very abundant resource.

And even if there wasn't in this imaginary desert... what idiot would journey into the desert depths without enough water to sustain him throughout the whole trip? If it was me: about the time I started running out of water would be about the time I was to my destination. You can pull lots of "what-if" questions out of nowhere, but the point is that if you have energy you should spend it trying to get out of the desert, because if you sit there drinking your companion's water after slaying him you are that much closer to another empty canteen, and no further away from being stuck in the middle of the desert.

 

What is it they say about the best laid plans...?

Seriously man, shit happens, maybe your caravan got attacked by robbers.

And of course, you steal his canteen and keep moving. You're not gonna just sit there drinking unless you're an idiot.

 

"If you have enough energy to murder, then you have enough energy to find water yourself instead."

Exactly. However, what about if there is no more water to be found? What if you're in a desert? See what I'm saying?

And, in a sense, yes. I think our actions do determine the value of our lives, but I wouldn't put it quite that way.

I think our actions are always a manifestation of our true selves. If our true selves are selfish or greedy, we will be as a dragon, hording money for ourselves. Et cetera.

Because of this, I think that you CAN judge a person by their actions. Not by what they wear or how they look, but by what they say and do. That saying goes, you can't judge a book by its cover, but I think that it IS right to judge a book by its contents, and the best porthole into the contents of a person's true self is through the manifestation of their self (e.g. actions).

So you're in a desert, right? And there's no water for miles and miles, and you and this other dude are starving and thirsty. Except, he has a camel, and an ample water supply, but he won't share it with you, because he says, if anyone is going to survive out here, it's him.

So, you get sufficiently thirsty, and finally decide, YOU are the one who is going to survive, if he won't let both of you survive. This is what I'd do in a situation. Tell him, that you are TAKING a share of the water. Not all of it, but just what you need of it to survive. If he won't let you, you would have to fight him for it, but it's imperative to survive.

If you win the fight, then you take *your share* of the water, and still leave him with his share. If there isn't enough to go around, you might have to take it all to survive. And if he dies, you can't be worried about it, because it's survival of the fittest.

*EXACTLY!*

I apologize, I should have been more articulate with my words.

If you attack someone without a survival cause behind the attack (like, you need food/water/etc.), THEN you have seceded your right to life, because you are infringing upon another sentient being's rights. However, if you need to survive, and you are the fittest for survival, then by the idea of natural selection, the other person doesn't really have a "right" to survive (unless he still can) if only one of you can live and the other must die.

A murderer, on the other hand, would have seceded his life. However, *he would not be a murderer* if he killed to survive. That, in my opinion, is not included in the definition of murder. Murder is something that goes above and beyond the call for survival; it's unnecessary killing.

That's what I meant when I said "(unless you are trying to be moral above and beyond what you should be)." If both are murderers, neither has a right to life, so why should you be concerned if one of them dies? If you ARE still concerned if one of them dies, then I agree, you should work to save the person who is defending.

It doesn't work quite like that. This here is an *unnecessary* murder, that doesn't actually achieve water, but achieves obedience through fear, which is also unnecessary.

If you need the water, kill to take it if you must. But, if you kill to take water, that might still put down other attempts to murder you, because they'd know you mean business. They can still try (of course, who wouldn't?), but if you murder specifically for getting obedience, then you are just a mere tyrant not worthy of life.

But hey, if you murder for water, and then obtain obedience in addition to that water, more power to you. But then you also shouldn't act like a tyrant and should treat those people as equals, even if they are obedient to you.

That's not the saying. -_-* Lol, but close enough.

Even so, that quote doesn't actually have anything to do with surviving.

It doesn't matter if you help save or don't save, because they have no right to life.

So if one of them offers you money to kill the other one, or if one of them is a lady-murderer and will knock boots with you afterwards (and if you TRUST that), then hey, it's up to you. They have no right to life, so it's not like you'd be infringing upon their right to live by killing them. That's how I see it.

Say your plane crashes over the Sahara. *shrug* And you parachute down with some supplies, idk. This is all just a theoretical situation. =P Hopefully nobody would have to kill anyone to survive.

 

Hikaru, don't know if you've read it yet, but here is a link to "The Prince" by Nicolo Machiavelli: http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext98/tprnc11.txt

Project Gutenberg, the site I linked from, has about 16,000 books online (all books that the copyright has expired on, or ones they have gotten permission from the copyright holder to publish). The have Tao Teh King, and a lot of other ancient manuscripts on there. Awesome site.

 

I disagree with that. Are you forever condemned because of one decision, or is their room to grow, rehabilitate, do better next time? That's what I'm getting at here. Even a cold blooded killer has a right to live. Sometimes those people get out of jail and actually do worthwhile things. Or if they aren't caught, they might improve on their own. It might have just been a bad decision. That's why I'm against the death penalty. It's not for us to decide (Gandalf put it nicely when he said that since we can't give life to those who deserve it, we shouldn't be so swift to deal out death).

I've kicked my dog once or twice when I was younger, but I'm not an animal abuser. I've picked, and fought, fights when I was younger, but I'm not a bully. I've "repented in my ways" so to speak (not that I ever fought much anyways) and now can't imagine doing either of the above things. Why should we forever judge a murderer as having forfeit their life? Once a killer always a killer, is that it?

If one killer is being attacked by another, the victim in this case is innocent and deserves defense if it is in our power to do something.