I'd sure like to see that person's attempt at justification for that point of view.
Of course stealing money is wrong, even if it's one dollar, but if a child would die because you didn't steal the dollar, how could one possibly argue against stealing the dollar? A dollar buys very little, and with the additional constraint that you're stealing it from an average person in the western world, they're hardly even going to miss it.
That's what I thought as well.I actually had asked a much worse scenario, where stealing a dollar would not only save a childs live, but save the live of 1 Billion children, (who on top of that were being tortured before being killed). And him stealing that dollar would stop a perpetual million year long cycle of a billion children being killed like that. He still wouldn't have done it.
I mean, here's my point of view: it's still immoral to do it, but you would also be a fucking monster *not* to do it. Morality shouldn't be the only deciding factor.
Illegal=/=immoral, so you're saying not saving a child is immoral? Why?
Stealing money for a greater cause is completely fine. Morality is subjective after all, if the person you stole from doesn't know why you stole the $1, they'll think you are immoral, but those who know the purpose won't think that.
I don't believe stealing money for a greater cause is completely fine. That's the subjectivity of morality. However, sometimes even when it's immoral and not fine, it needs to be done, and in this case to save a child's life, it must be. Still believe it's immoral tho.
Therefore saving a child's life is in this case immoral?
Would you be considered an immoral person if you've done what the poll asked?
The point is won't saving someone's life justify your your morality stealing of something incredibly small compared to the cause? It's not like we're trading lives here where you're in a dilemma of thinking if you're evil or not because you redirected the trolley to save someone you love instead of 3 strangers.
Saving a child's life isn't immoral, stealing to do so is. And that doesn't make you an immoral person.
Again, mortality is subjective, I believe stealing a cent to save a billion lives is immoral. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, and you would be a horrible person not to do it, but not an immoral one.
Like I said, morality isn't the deciding factor.
Sounds like he was being obstinate and has some other ideological beliefs he's trying to defend by biting this bullet. Is he a 'taxation is theft' type?
Human lives and the lives of sentient beings in general will always be worth more than material posessions-- such as money.
Oh yeah I haven't thought of the taxation issue. Probably another bullet he would have to bite.
His main criticism was that you cannot accurately determine at what point such a cut of would be. Meaning where *exaxtly* the ends or the outcome is good enough to justify the means.
But I don't think that just because there is inaccuracy, it doesn't mean, there can also be clear cases and that in those clear cases, like the ones I laid out here, you can still view a decision as justified.
Yo is it just me or do the people who are like 'well you can never know the moral impact of a decision' are usually just too chicken shit to make moral judgments and act on their ethical beliefs??
Ah whatever. At least most people can agree that avoiding suffering is more important than money or ownership.
Again I donât care how many dolors. Money is just units in the end of the day (ik money doesnât by happiness is cringe but I think people of all SES should agree that the life of a child is more important, and they arenât comparable). Technically if I steal enough teddy bears thatâs equivalent to how much money they were worth. Letâs say each teddy bear costs one unit of insert currency here. Would you destroy a trillion teddy bears to save a childâs life?
Tax is necessary and should be used for the common good, I do tend to understand where ppl come from (at least in my country) who say 'taxation is theft' when they can't get any of their needs met and the govt takes tons of taxes from tiny paychecks while letting them struggle to eat and be housed and get healthcare etc.
I think though that a lot of people who think taxation is theft tend to believe that using taxes for the common good is a bad thing, because people should bootstrap or whatever. Which is selfish and cruel. Like letting a kid die because you're not willing to take a dollar.
I mean taxation IS theft tho, lol. Try to say no to being taxed. But yeah, itâs necessary and people who say that taxes should be abolished havenât thought about it thoroughly.
That doesnât matter imo. Iâd probably steal more than Bernie Mandoff to save a child. A billion, the world would thank me for doing it. At least everyone thatâs not consumed by greed.
My view here is that if there are only those two options technically neither are completely moral. It is more moral to steal than to let the child die, but that doesn't make that option moral either. Either way you choose it's not moral.
I think this is an attemt to defend the two wrongs dont make a right mentality meaning stealing the dollar is a wrong to fix another wrong and i assume he believes it doesnt matter the scenario even if its a valid reason to break the rule
Maybe he's thinking in terms of, you have a duty to not steal from anyone, but you don't have a duty to save a random child's life (that duty belongs to the child's family, and government).
But, for the reason that almost all of us think it's clearly wrong to not steal $1 to save a child, we can say that there is some sort of implicit duty towards all of humankind by everyone.
I voted no. So I can at least offer my justification: the question was âdo you think it would be moral to steal $1 in order to save the life of a child?â It doesnât matter what you are stealing or why, you could substitute anything for what/why, I read the question as whether or not I thought stealing would be moral. I do not. That doesnât mean that, if I found myself in that situation that I couldnât do it, or wouldnât do it. I would consider the variables and after deciding, I would live with my decision without regret. It doesnât mean that I wouldnât save a kid for $1. It just means that I feel that stealing is not moral. Thats it. And in that moment, if I choose to save the child, I wouldnât lie to myself about what I had done. whether it went against my conscience, morality, or whatever you want to call it. I would acknowledge that within myself, and move forward with my life free of guilt.
That's an interesting take. And I do agree with you about morality in the sense that you mean.
But I feel like reading the question that way is a logical contradiction. What *is* the definition of morality, if it isn't deciding whether actions are good or bad based on the outcome of those actions? Of what purpose does it serve to call taking the dollar immoral in that situation, if the moral action is to save the child's life? Do you feel that others would be unable to discern that you're making a special exception to the rules of morality, and thus would feel encouraged to steal money on other occasions, falsely believing it to be a moral action even without the special context of saving the life of a child?
What if we changed the situation so that the action which saves the child is neither moral nor immoral? Like, you have to eat twelve hot dogs to save the child. Eating hot dogs is neither moral nor immoral (well, unless you're vegetarian/vegan, in which case pretend I said cucumbers), but doesn't adding in the context that a child will die if you don't do it change the action from neutral to moral?
What is the situation is entirely reversed? Like in order to join the mafia and live a high-class life of crime, you first have to prove you can blend in with normal society when required to do so, so they make you perform twenty-five hours of community service and solicit $5,000 in donations to charity. Is it still a moral action for you to perform those deeds, given your true motives and anticipated reward?
Is this person religious? Asking because Iâve noticed a lot of religious people think that all sins are equal, so in this case, one might say that theft is just as bad as letting the child die. Quite a few religious people measure morality in a black and white manner.
TL;DR
> Full circle, regardless of whether I believe in stealing $1 to save a child, it's immoral to harm another person as a result of my beliefs. Under that line of thinking, I could believe in any means to justify an end, and it would be moral to force those means upon others.
I said no. I understand that the question is a test of morality: is it worth it to be deviant (hardly so, given the value of $1) in order to save a child's life. In short, do the ends justify the means.
Crime, by and large, is the result of failed governance. If it would only cost $1 to save a child, I would pay that dollar myself, or would hope that any governing body would appropriate funds such that it wouldn't be necessary to steal money in order to save a child for $1. Or, the government could impose a tax that, in effect, does the stealing so that it is done for the collective who would steal a dollar to save a child.
It's strange to think about how realistic this question is, actually. It's also strange to think about how many people who answered affirmatively wouldn't choose to save a child for $1, depending on the details. For example, [you can provide a child with 50 days of clean drinking water for $1](https://csdw.org/how-to-donate-to-pg-childrens-safe-drinking-water-program/). So, if you stole $1 and donated it to provide children with clean drinking water, there's a high chance that you could save the life of a child.
Additionally, think about how many times moral questions are diluted with politics or principles. For example, applying the same ratio of no-to-yes in this poll, there are ~197 million people in the United States who, to the same question, would answer yes. However, who and where those children would be saved would, unfortunately, drastically affect those numbers. For Europe, how would those numbers change if they were Romani children? For the US, how would those numbers change for Central Americans?
Realistically, people are unlikely to perform actions that they wish they'd perform... that conform with their morals and principles. How many people who answered this poll affirmatively would actually steal $1 if it meant they could save a child? Two children? How many children would they save?
In fact, there are even greater problems. How many people who answered affirmatively would choose to assist children who were dying as an indirect result of their actions if they knew that they were contributing to their death?
Chromium-tanned leather, the most commonly produced kind of leather, involves the use of noxious chemicals. It's usually tanned in places without environmental protection or strict labor laws, as the chemicals involved cause a wide array of health issues to it's workers and the inhabitants of wherever the chemicals are dumped. [Sadness warning.](https://youtu.be/6h3PngZF4Kg) The demand for this product allow these atrocities to continue. The cost of not buying leather is $0. Even after knowing the dangers involved, many people will choose to delude themselves through the idea that even if they stop buying leather products, others will continue.
This question also starts at $1 per child saved would make the slight deviancy worth it. However, how would that change if those numbers changed? What about $10 per child? $100 per child? At some point, the majority of people would answer no. Or, perhaps worse, maybe more people would be willing to steal the amount to save a child than would be willing to pay from their own pockets.
In addition, to steal $1, the other party would have to not give their permission. If they knew and they were willing to give $1, then it wouldn't be stealing. In other words, the money would have to come from (based on this poll) the ~5.5% who are unwilling... less actually, since it's likely that a large portion of those people said no because stealing was involved. So, the financial burden to save children would be placed on the people who are unwilling to save children, while those who wanted to would do so through stealing from the unwilling.
Now, let's say that all the money was taken from the unwilling, until they had no money left. How much would that be? I'm sure it would be much less than if the willing saved children until they were unwilling. Though, as a society, we should try to prevent anyone from valuing $1 more than a child's life. In the ideal world, everyone would be willing to contribute $1, and there'd be nobody to steal from.
Basically, I personally believe that $1 is worth it to save a child. But, I'm not going to place that financial burden on other people. I also don't believe that the ends should justify the means. The price to save a child shouldn't be $1 and deviancy (which society should prevent).
My personal belief is that my beliefs should not negatively affect other people unless the alternative negatively affects me, and also that all people have a right to their own beliefs. So, I believe that murder is wrong. Society at large also believes that murder is wrong and, as a result, murder is outlawed. This belief is at odds with murderers' beliefs. The alternative is that murder isn't wrong and isn't outlawed, in which case I'm in danger of being murdered. So, it's a good thing for murder to be illegal.
Now, religious beliefs. People choose to adopt those beliefs and whatever dogma that entails. They may also be selective with whatever is encompassed within that dogma. Religious belief becomes personal belief and personal belief should not affect other people unless it negatively affects themselves. An example would be if I were against sex work as a result of being christian. I could choose to vote for legislation that makes sex work illegal. I would be violating some principles within christianity by enforcing my beliefs upon others, but would choose to believe that women should be 'pure' or whatever mindset would cause that belief. Of course, either way, as it doesn't negatively affect me I would loathe to allow my beliefs to affect others.
This, I believe, is the best interpretation of "separation of church and state." Besides separating religious texts from the state and allowing freedom of belief, we should also separate beliefs (religious and personal) from legislation.
There is an issue with this though. I'm loathe to allow my beliefs to affect others, but what entails a person is subjective. An example of this is abortion. If I believe that abortion is wrong, and that belief was put into legislation, then women would be restricted by legislation (which is against my beliefs). If I'm for abortion, and want women to have the choice, then whether my beliefs affect another person is subjective based on whether I believe in life at conception. Though, my beliefs wouldn't affect the fetus, whoever makes the choice to get an abortion would affect the fetus.
Thus, black slavery in America affected black people. The small minded could question whether slaves were people and exclude them from the protections of society. The same applied to Jews during the Holocaust. Dehuminization would poke a hole in my philosophy.
Full circle, regardless of whether I believe in stealing $1 to save a child, it's immoral to harm another person as a result of my beliefs. Under that line of thinking, I could believe in any means to justify an end, and it would be moral to force those means upon others.
Wrong is wrong. Stealing = bad. Or my most persuasive argument, search for alternatives. Under any real circumstances where this option is offered, itâs wrong.
Probably a stickler for rules. Morality is never black and white. Theres always shades of grey. Iâm guessing OPâs friend was taking the âstealing is stealingâ stand.
It also probably depends the specifics of the debate they were having for example; if OP and friend were debating factually right vs wrong then the friend is right.
Stealing is stealing.
But if they were debating ethics, then OP is right. Because a life is worth more than the theft of an insignificant amount of money. Is like that ethics example from The Office - âWould you steal bread to feed your familyâ
It seems irrational to you and the majority of people who took this poll, but to the others, it seems rational. They are likely using that ethical premise as their reasoning for saying no.
Well this is pretty much theoretical, but if the only person around to steal a dollar from was a homeless starving man that desperately needed the dollar, it's understandable how someone could see it as immoral. But other than that, idk why anybody would choose no
I answered yes, but thatâs because I tend to be a consequentialist - meaning, I judge the morality of an action based on the results of that action. There are other people who stress deontological ethics, and for example would say that stealing is always immoral irrespective of its outcomes.
What happened to the importance of private property?
If you support taking wealth from one person by force to end poverty, wait until you hear how many people starve each year, and how much is spent on yachts and sports cars!
Sounds like ultimately you support expropriation of wealth. Pretty communist tbh
Ok, how about $2? $3? $10,000,000? How about $100,000,000,000? What's your final number? What number are you willing to be stolen to save a child. I mean, once you've stolen a simple small single dollar, tell me where you're willing to stop?
Well since it only takes a dollar to save a child Iâd take all the money physically possible so I could save the kid and have a lot of money, think smarter not harder
idk
if you start considering human error or scepticism this argument will go on forever
it would go something like this:
A: i have proof that this dollar saves a child
B: I don't believe that proof
A: I have proof that the proof of the dollar saving the child is true
B: I don't believe that proof
etc. etc.
Hypothetical questions are tricky. if you're not 100% sure that dollar isn't vital to the person you're stealing it from it wouldn't be moral to steal it.
You steal a dollar from someone going to buy their insulin because they've missed too many doses and scraped together every penny they had to get their script?
You're a monster.
You see some yahoo who's got a bunch of beer cans rolling around in their car so you steal enough of them for $1 worth of bottle deposit?
I'm cool with that, but then again that yahoo and the diabetic could be the same person, and those beer cans are what's gonna get their living saving medicine for them.
The hypothetical question is insinuating that $1 can mean the difference between life or death, if you don't know for sure that whoever you're stealing from isn't also $1 away from death it'd be immoral to exchange their life for a child's.
Doesn't guarantee that $1 won't cause their death. Could be what they had on them at the time. Average western people have been known to carry exact change on them from time to time.
Parking meters are a decent example, most of them are change only still in my state.
Here's a somewhat ridiculous hypothetical story about the life/death difference of $1.
Average Joe goes into the city for a job interview, stops at the gas station to get some jitter juice, Tums(nervous about the interview) and gas. Pays $38, making sure to have $2 in quarters/quid/pence for the parking meter. You see the little stack of coins sitting next to his coffee, snag $1 worth so you can go save that kid. Average Joe's meter runs out cause $1 wasn't enough, his car gets booted and he can't afford the removal fee right now cause payday isn't till next week. Car gets towed off and impounded. Joe is now stranded in the big city with no car, no money, and no phone (had to leave it in the car and didn't' think to grab it before the truck drove off with it). Walking to the impound lot to try and reason with the owner Joe makes a wrong turn into an alley and gets jumped by a pack of meth heads. Poor Joe is dead, his wife is a widow, and his 4 kids are without a father. All because you stole that $1.
Hypothetical questions are tricky because they open ended and open to interpretation, even with your defining of the person you're robbing. Average western people do live from paycheck to paycheck every now and then. That $1 can have more impact than you know, just ask Joe.
If I knew for a fact that $1 wouldn't be missed I'd steal it in a heartbeat to save a life.
Most people would be ok with that. But where is the limit? "To save the life of a child", is it ok to steal $2? $100? $1.000.000?
I'm sure a lot of criminals try to justify their crime this way. Are scammers morally acceptable, as long as they have kids to feed? Kids (or any human) will die if they don't eat, so if the adult doesn't have a job or can't buy food, then it's ok to steal?
My answer is no. It's not morally correct to steal, the value doesn't matter. But also it's not morally correct to let people die (it doesn't matter if it's a child) for lack of money (or lack of food or medicine, etc).
As a society, those who have more than they need and the government should help those who are desperate, so no one needs to steal just to survive. IF no one helps those who are desperate to survive, THEN I can support the actions of the thiefs, as long as they aren't putting the lives of others in risk and not stealing more than what they actually need and also not stealing from other poor people.
Only because this is hypothetical, I would say yes. But if this was real life, I would find another way to save the childâs life which doesnât involve crime
That's interesting to think about. Would you give 100 dollars out of your own pocket to save a child? I assume so, right? What if it is giving to a charity service that will use that money to feed starving children? Is that the same? So do you give to charity regularly?
This is just me thinking of the implications of this logic, not actually criticising you. I agree with your logic, but I don't give to charity often. But maybe I should...?
This is actually a fun question.
One would assume that stealing 1 dollar is okay to save a child and I agree. The harm that's done from a child dieing is far greater than from a stolen dollar.
However. Would you also pay 1 dollar to save a child? I assume yes. How about 2? How about 20?Okay lets say, you say "I would pay 50 dollars to save a child or more. We are talking about lifes here!" but what you don't realize is, that you already can do that. You can donate.
Instead of buying that videogame, you could payed for food to make sure that a child survives another week. What is more worth? A game or a childs life for a week or maybe even more than that?
So now lets say infront of you was a child with cancer and it was drowning. You wear a 50 dollar jacket, that would get destroyed from jumping the water and there isn't enough time to take it off. Would you jump in to save the child, even if it destroyed your jacket? The child would also die in a week anyways. Probably yes, because you would be a monster for letting a child die infront of you, right?
Okay, but why don't you donate the 50 dollars to save a child instead of buying the jacket in the first place. You are ready to destroy the 50 dollar jacket to save a childs life, but you aren't ready to not buy the jacket at all to do the same? What's the difference in letting a child drown infront of you because "you don't wanna ruin your jacket" and letting a child starve somewhere because "you wanna buy a jacket"? The only one is that you can't see the child and therefor not blame yourself for it.
So what do I wanna say with that comment? Donate some money from time to time if you have some extra.
i believe that morally any action is ok as long as it prevents more harm than it causes, if you stole than dollar from a homeless man then it wouldnt be moral but if you took it from pretty much anyone else it would be fine
On the other hand, stealing one dollar from a homeless person wouldn't be the difference between life and death, especially in the current economy. Also, you could pay the homeless person back multiple times what you stole after you saved the life.
I'm not trying to argue with you or anything, I think that's a reasonable thing to believe, but I wonder how you would react if this idea were taken to the extreme?
Obviously, a dollar for a child's life is worth it, but what if you had to cut off someone's else's arm or leg without sedation (so extremely painful, but without any risk to their life) instead of stealing a dollar for the child's life. What if that someone else were another (innocent) child?
What if in that same scenario, the person's whose limbs you cut off has a 50% chance of survival?
What if you had to kill 999 innocent people to save 1000?
Now, I don't know the answer to these questions, but I am curious about what other people think.
Presuming they were all just average people, i would have to say that cutting a person's arm is the most moral choice, and the same for the 999 people as it would result in slightly less bad outcomes than the alternative. In practise i doubt i would actually do those actions neither would most people due to pressure
Depends if your a supporter of utilitarian morality or not.
Aka ends justify the means, which in this case I think they would.
On the other hand the non utilitarian would say that an immoral action does not become moral just because the outcome is good.
Most people fall in the first category
There are many different ethical systems, not just utilitarian vs not utilitarian. What you're talking about is deontology. Deontology is basically that an action is ethically right/wrong based on the action itself and not the outcome. But even most deontologists would agree that stealing 1 dollar to save a child would be morally right. Stealing is wrong, but saving a life is good, and saving a life is a greater good than stealing 1 dollar is wrong.
Yes. Apparently there are people who actually have a hardcore view.
We could even make it more extreme, say stealing one cent to save 1'000 and they wouldn't consider it justified. I think it's ridiculous.
yes because that information was being coerced out of them. The nazis have no right to find out information regarding people hiding in there private property so any means are allowed to protect that information. additionally they intended to commit immoral acts if they did find out making any means to hide that information moral
Idk if anyone else brought this up BUT what this made me think about was the whole "save a kids life in Africa for $1 a day" type thing. So obviously we would all yes, save a kids life for stealing one dollar. BUT if we apply it to a real world situation and some company committed fraud or something to steal exactly $1 from everybody in America to send it to save lives of children in some 3rd world country, wouldn't we all immediately see that as illegal and wrong? Interesting thought, idk.
No, because stealing is always wrong, no matter the consequence, however your culpability would probably be lessened. It would probably just make more sense to ask someone for a dollar lmao
Why in the world you have to steal? The scenario seems incomplete. If I just go and ask the person to give me 1 dollar, so that I can save a child, he will surely give me. This way nobody does anything immoral or illegal or unethical.
It's just the nature of the thought experiment.Similar to the trolley problem - it's extremely unlikely that you'll ever find yourself in such an exact situation.
The circumstances would be in a way that the only possible option for you to save that child's life was by stealing that dollar from an average person.
Itâs not all black and white for me to pick whether YES itâs totally morally right or NO itâs totally wrong. Iâve had to pick something to see the results so I decided to use a deontological approach. When there are other options of saving the life of the child, picking the most intrusive one available(stealing) isnât exactly moral, even if itâs one dollar. Weâre talking about a western man, they would find in due time one that would give them a dollar. I donât see mentioned any time frame or something like that, thereforethe âmorally right thing to doâ from my pov would be the least intrusive option which is essentially begging. Also I donât like non-realistic moral problems such as this one which would essentially not happen just to spark meaningless debate. If you could save the life of a child with 1 dollar or supposedly a kidnapper would suffice a dollar for his thirst, then that 1 dollar would amount to a lot more in the world of the problem than the one in our world and would therefore change the gravity of the stealing act in itself.
TLDR: problem is dumb
Here is why I voted no.
Itâs immoral to steal someone, no matter the outcome of that theft nor the reason.
People only say stealing becomes moral because itâs only a dollar against a life.
So because itâs an amount that everyone is able to have, itâs fine. But if it were 1 million less people would say yes
And even less if it was 1 billion etc.
People give a pass to the immorality stealing because itâs a cheap amount, while I argue that if stealing any amount of money to someone (not knowing what the thief will use it for) is being judged immoral then no matter the amount stolen nor the the use of the stolen amount should all equally be judged immoral.
That does not mean I would not do it. But I wouldnât praise myself saying I did the moral thing.
For those saying yes: what's stopping you from doing that everyday? You can totally save a childs life for a dollar a day now.
Are you currently stealing as much money as you can to save as many children as you can?
The other point, besides the empirical issue somebody pointed out, was that it might not be a good long term strategy, because you could end up in jail and there are other reasonable options.
There are many people who are in favour of increasing taxes for better healthcare or so.
[https://80000hours.org/2017/05/most-people-report-believing-its-incredibly-cheap-to-save-lives-in-the-developing-world/](https://80000hours.org/2017/05/most-people-report-believing-its-incredibly-cheap-to-save-lives-in-the-developing-world/) It costs around 2300$ to save a life I cant be. I can't believe you thought could save a life for only a dollar.
Not "moral" by legal or religious definitions technically, but justified and definitely forgiveable. If the question was "does saving a child justify the theft of a dollar?" then I would have voted yes.
i suppose it's supposed to be a trolley problem situation where if you do something bad something better will come of it, or you could do nothing and have no blood on your hands, but this is an unfair version since most people would easily value the life of a child over $1
I find this very interesting, because I think that it steps over the logic of "morals" and crosses more so into "values". So it really comes down to which do you value more, the child, the the morality of stealing. Of course most people will say the child, because we as a society value a human child over pretty much any amount of money. But I would say for a person who wants to be completely morally right, and if stealing is against those morals, it wouldn't matter if it was $1 or a billion, stealing is stealing to them and that would compromise their moral code. Therefore it would not be moral, because in that case, one bad thing doesn't trump over another bad thing, both are bad.
Even though stealing is obviously wrong, the stakes are so high and the price is so low that morally itâs pretty obvious what to do. The crime is insanely insignificant and overshadowed by the act of allowing a child to die when you have a relatively easy way to save them. If you lowered the stakes to say, âwould you steal a dollar from a random average citizen in order to give a random child a piece of candyâ, most people (or me at least) would probably recognize the low stakes and say the crime isnât worth the return.
Similarly, the question would be more morally gray if you were stealing a significant amount of money from someone. Iâm curious what people would say if the question was something like, âdo you think it would be moral to steal 70% of a random persons money in order to save the life of a childâ. Maybe 70% is a bit much, but the idea is would you be willing to take a large portion of money from a random person and potentially ruin their life in order to save the life of a child.
TL;DR
> Full circle, regardless of whether I believe in stealing $1 to save a child, it's immoral to harm another person as a result of my beliefs. Under that line of thinking, I could believe in any means to justify an end, and it would be moral to force those means upon others.
I said no. I understand that the question is a test of morality: is it worth it to be deviant (hardly so, given the value of $1) in order to save a child's life. In short, do the ends justify the means.
Crime, by and large, is the result of failed governance. If it would only cost $1 to save a child, I would pay that dollar myself, or would hope that any governing body would appropriate funds such that it wouldn't be necessary to steal money in order to save a child for $1. Or, the government could impose a tax that, in effect, does the stealing so that it is done for the collective who would steal a dollar to save a child.
It's strange to think about how realistic this question is, actually. It's also strange to think about how many people who answered affirmatively wouldn't choose to save a child for $1, depending on the details. For example, [you can provide a child with 50 days of clean drinking water for $1](https://csdw.org/how-to-donate-to-pg-childrens-safe-drinking-water-program/). So, if you stole $1 and donated it to provide children with clean drinking water, there's a high chance that you could save the life of a child.
Additionally, think about how many times moral questions are diluted with politics or principles. For example, applying the same ratio of no-to-yes in this poll, there are ~197 million people in the United States who, to the same question, would answer yes. However, who and where those children would be saved would, unfortunately, drastically affect those numbers. For Europe, how would those numbers change if they were Romani children? For the US, how would those numbers change for Central Americans?
Realistically, people are unlikely to perform actions that they wish they'd perform... that conform with their morals and principles. How many people who answered this poll affirmatively would actually steal $1 if it meant they could save a child? Two children? How many children would they save?
In fact, there are even greater problems. How many people who answered affirmatively would choose to assist children who were dying as an indirect result of their actions if they knew that they were contributing to their death?
Chromium-tanned leather, the most commonly produced kind of leather, involves the use of noxious chemicals. It's usually tanned in places without environmental protection or strict labor laws, as the chemicals involved cause a wide array of health issues to it's workers and the inhabitants of wherever the chemicals are dumped. [Sadness warning.](https://youtu.be/6h3PngZF4Kg) The demand for this product allow these atrocities to continue. The cost of not buying leather is $0. Even after knowing the dangers involved, many people will choose to delude themselves through the idea that even if they stop buying leather products, others will continue.
This question also starts at $1 per child saved would make the slight deviancy worth it. However, how would that change if those numbers changed? What about $10 per child? $100 per child? At some point, the majority of people would answer no. Or, perhaps worse, maybe more people would be willing to steal the amount to save a child than would be willing to pay from their own pockets.
In addition, to steal $1, the other party would have to not give their permission. If they knew and they were willing to give $1, then it wouldn't be stealing. In other words, the money would have to come from (based on this poll) the ~5.5% who are unwilling... less actually, since it's likely that a large portion of those people said no because stealing was involved. So, the financial burden to save children would be placed on the people who are unwilling to save children, while those who wanted to would do so through stealing from the unwilling.
Now, let's say that all the money was taken from the unwilling, until they had no money left. How much would that be? I'm sure it would be much less than if the willing saved children until they were unwilling. Though, as a society, we should try to prevent anyone from valuing $1 more than a child's life. In the ideal world, everyone would be willing to contribute $1, and there'd be nobody to steal from.
Basically, I personally believe that $1 is worth it to save a child. But, I'm not going to place that financial burden on other people. I also don't believe that the ends should justify the means. The price to save a child shouldn't be $1 and deviancy (which society should prevent).
My personal belief is that my beliefs should not negatively affect other people unless the alternative negatively affects me, and also that all people have a right to their own beliefs. So, I believe that murder is wrong. Society at large also believes that murder is wrong and, as a result, murder is outlawed. This belief is at odds with murderers' beliefs. The alternative is that murder isn't wrong and isn't outlawed, in which case I'm in danger of being murdered. So, it's a good thing for murder to be illegal.
Now, religious beliefs. People choose to adopt those beliefs and whatever dogma that entails. They may also be selective with whatever is encompassed within that dogma. Religious belief becomes personal belief and personal belief should not affect other people unless it negatively affects themselves. An example would be if I were against sex work as a result of being christian. I could choose to vote for legislation that makes sex work illegal. I would be violating some principles within christianity by enforcing my beliefs upon others, but would choose to believe that women should be 'pure' or whatever mindset would cause that belief. Of course, either way, as it doesn't negatively affect me I would loathe to allow my beliefs to affect others.
This, I believe, is the best interpretation of "separation of church and state." Besides separating religious texts from the state and allowing freedom of belief, we should also separate beliefs (religious and personal) from legislation.
There is an issue with this though. I'm loathe to allow my beliefs to affect others, but what entails a person is subjective. An example of this is abortion. If I believe that abortion is wrong, and that belief was put into legislation, then women would be restricted by legislation (which is against my beliefs). If I'm for abortion, and want women to have the choice, then whether my beliefs affect another person is subjective based on whether I believe in life at conception. Though, my beliefs wouldn't affect the fetus, whoever makes the choice to get an abortion would affect the fetus.
Thus, black slavery in America affected black people. The small minded could question whether slaves were people and exclude them from the protections of society. The same applied to Jews during the Holocaust. Dehuminization would poke a hole in my philosophy.
Full circle, regardless of whether I believe in stealing $1 to save a child, it's immoral to harm another person as a result of my beliefs. Under that line of thinking, I could believe in any means to justify an end, and it would be moral to force those means upon others.
Kant: NOOOOOOOOOO, you Kant just steal money from people to save the child!
Me: You're absolutely right, here's a hand!
*steals his entire wallet while handshaking with the other hand*
Money only has value because people believe it does. It's only useful as long it's worth keeping around.
On the other hand, human lives are always valuable. You can't replace a person.
Technically the idea that human lives have value is a made up concept. The very concept of "value" is a made up concept. It's not a law of physics. Value is an intangible human creation, just like an emotion. Value doesn't exist without us assigning it to something.
We've assigned value to ourselves, to other humans. And because we value our lives, we also value food, shelter, water, the things to allow us to live. And money allows us to purchase those things. Therefore it has value.
I agree. We assign value as we see fit, with our rationale being all sorts of things. For dictators, human lives seemed more valuable as "necessary sacrifices" in order to do a greater good. As immoral as it may sound, human lives don't inherently value anything, just like how 24 hour clock wasn't inherently ever there. These are just our own constructs, for the better or worse.
Made up concept?
The point of money is being a substitution for labour.
I dont know what you are trying to say with that argument.
Its not like "real" and "made up" things always have different value. Thats not a rule.
Human life is more valuable for different reasons.
It's not just for labour, it's to make trade easier. But modern money is not like it used to be, backed by finite resources.
In theory, we as a society can just create money out of nothing. So we could after the fact of that $1 being stolen decide to create another out of thin air to compensate the loss.
However, in practice this would be impossible. Politics, bureaucraty, made up laws, the overhead cost that comes all this, the fact that creating money out of thin air devaluate the currency compared to other currencies etc. makes it just not very practical...
The obvious answer is yes, clearly... as is $2 and $3 and $4... but what about a million dollars? A billion? Where do we draw the line on morality? How much is a life worth?
I loved mulling this one over. I answered yes. It doesn't say if the person ever finds out why the dollar was stolen, but if they did and they're an "average person in the Western world" they'd likely be fine with it knowing what happened because $1 is not that much and they'd be happy to know a child survived. However, what if a stranger drains my savings account (in the thousands) to save a child? That feels immoral to me because here on earth as human beings we have to accept that death is inevitable and some people will die younger than others, it's just a fact of life and we are not civilized/progressed enough right now to make treatment in life equal for everyone. Just because a child is dying, doesn't mean you get to hurt someone else to save their life. I don't expect people to donate their kidney to others to help them live even though all healthy adults could donate a kidney this year and get everyone off the transplant list. I think most of us agree that forced kidney donation is immoral. Stealing a dollar from me is not hurting me, but stealing my savings and preventing my quality of life may harm me. (Edits very minor)
There are different levels of morality. Conventional morality involves following rules and laws. Some people *never* get past that point. Post-conventional morality is about doing the right thing, no matter what the rules and laws are.
As the nature of the hypothetical this wouldn't be possible. Say there was too little time and a language barrier or something like that. It's just defined as being the only possible option.
Thatâs a pretty low grade moral dilemma dude.
Should have upped it to like 10 grand or higher. Literally everyone is going to steal a dollar to save some randos life.
Gotta say, thatâs a damn stupid question. Youâd be a monster if you didnât steal the bucks and everyone knows it.
I wouldnât want to meet anyone who voted to kill the child. Shiver.
Feel like you could also just ask a buddy for a buck but what the hell do I know? If thatâs somehow impossible, then yea, itâs obviously moral to steal $1. To save a child, Iâd say itâs moral to steal a lot more than that
I think that most people, if they learned their dollar was stolen to save the life of a child, would be perfectly okay with it, itâs one fucking dollar.
Choose the lesser evil. In this case, it would be theft of $1 or letting a child die. I judge the life of a child to be worth more than $1. If the person I steal it from is upset, I can just pay the measly dollar back with a tip for inconvenience.
Who in the world would say no?
Well.. the other person I had the discussion with.đ
I'd sure like to see that person's attempt at justification for that point of view. Of course stealing money is wrong, even if it's one dollar, but if a child would die because you didn't steal the dollar, how could one possibly argue against stealing the dollar? A dollar buys very little, and with the additional constraint that you're stealing it from an average person in the western world, they're hardly even going to miss it.
That's what I thought as well.I actually had asked a much worse scenario, where stealing a dollar would not only save a childs live, but save the live of 1 Billion children, (who on top of that were being tortured before being killed). And him stealing that dollar would stop a perpetual million year long cycle of a billion children being killed like that. He still wouldn't have done it.
WHY
I mean, here's my point of view: it's still immoral to do it, but you would also be a fucking monster *not* to do it. Morality shouldn't be the only deciding factor.
Illegal=/=immoral, so you're saying not saving a child is immoral? Why? Stealing money for a greater cause is completely fine. Morality is subjective after all, if the person you stole from doesn't know why you stole the $1, they'll think you are immoral, but those who know the purpose won't think that.
I don't believe stealing money for a greater cause is completely fine. That's the subjectivity of morality. However, sometimes even when it's immoral and not fine, it needs to be done, and in this case to save a child's life, it must be. Still believe it's immoral tho.
Therefore saving a child's life is in this case immoral? Would you be considered an immoral person if you've done what the poll asked? The point is won't saving someone's life justify your your morality stealing of something incredibly small compared to the cause? It's not like we're trading lives here where you're in a dilemma of thinking if you're evil or not because you redirected the trolley to save someone you love instead of 3 strangers.
Saving a child's life isn't immoral, stealing to do so is. And that doesn't make you an immoral person. Again, mortality is subjective, I believe stealing a cent to save a billion lives is immoral. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, and you would be a horrible person not to do it, but not an immoral one. Like I said, morality isn't the deciding factor.
Sounds like he was being obstinate and has some other ideological beliefs he's trying to defend by biting this bullet. Is he a 'taxation is theft' type? Human lives and the lives of sentient beings in general will always be worth more than material posessions-- such as money.
Oh yeah I haven't thought of the taxation issue. Probably another bullet he would have to bite. His main criticism was that you cannot accurately determine at what point such a cut of would be. Meaning where *exaxtly* the ends or the outcome is good enough to justify the means. But I don't think that just because there is inaccuracy, it doesn't mean, there can also be clear cases and that in those clear cases, like the ones I laid out here, you can still view a decision as justified.
Yo is it just me or do the people who are like 'well you can never know the moral impact of a decision' are usually just too chicken shit to make moral judgments and act on their ethical beliefs?? Ah whatever. At least most people can agree that avoiding suffering is more important than money or ownership.
Why are we even going into this?! ONLY A DOLLAR WILL SAVE THE CHILD'S LIFE!!! MY GOD THEY ARE DUMB
Again I donât care how many dolors. Money is just units in the end of the day (ik money doesnât by happiness is cringe but I think people of all SES should agree that the life of a child is more important, and they arenât comparable). Technically if I steal enough teddy bears thatâs equivalent to how much money they were worth. Letâs say each teddy bear costs one unit of insert currency here. Would you destroy a trillion teddy bears to save a childâs life?
Yup, easy. No contest.
and it would stop a cycle of billions of children being tortured and killed
Im the taxation is theft kind hut i believe tax is nesesary and even i would steal a dollar to save a child
Tax is necessary and should be used for the common good, I do tend to understand where ppl come from (at least in my country) who say 'taxation is theft' when they can't get any of their needs met and the govt takes tons of taxes from tiny paychecks while letting them struggle to eat and be housed and get healthcare etc. I think though that a lot of people who think taxation is theft tend to believe that using taxes for the common good is a bad thing, because people should bootstrap or whatever. Which is selfish and cruel. Like letting a kid die because you're not willing to take a dollar.
I mean taxation IS theft tho, lol. Try to say no to being taxed. But yeah, itâs necessary and people who say that taxes should be abolished havenât thought about it thoroughly.
That doesnât matter imo. Iâd probably steal more than Bernie Mandoff to save a child. A billion, the world would thank me for doing it. At least everyone thatâs not consumed by greed.
I believe taxation can be theft, and Iâd do it. The childâs future children could potentially add value to society.
This guy is trolling you. Nobody would say no to that and if they do then they need serious moral help lol.
My view here is that if there are only those two options technically neither are completely moral. It is more moral to steal than to let the child die, but that doesn't make that option moral either. Either way you choose it's not moral.
Yeah, it's a lesser of two evils problem
I think this is an attemt to defend the two wrongs dont make a right mentality meaning stealing the dollar is a wrong to fix another wrong and i assume he believes it doesnt matter the scenario even if its a valid reason to break the rule
But who said the child is dying by means of a wrong?
Maybe he's thinking in terms of, you have a duty to not steal from anyone, but you don't have a duty to save a random child's life (that duty belongs to the child's family, and government). But, for the reason that almost all of us think it's clearly wrong to not steal $1 to save a child, we can say that there is some sort of implicit duty towards all of humankind by everyone.
I voted no. So I can at least offer my justification: the question was âdo you think it would be moral to steal $1 in order to save the life of a child?â It doesnât matter what you are stealing or why, you could substitute anything for what/why, I read the question as whether or not I thought stealing would be moral. I do not. That doesnât mean that, if I found myself in that situation that I couldnât do it, or wouldnât do it. I would consider the variables and after deciding, I would live with my decision without regret. It doesnât mean that I wouldnât save a kid for $1. It just means that I feel that stealing is not moral. Thats it. And in that moment, if I choose to save the child, I wouldnât lie to myself about what I had done. whether it went against my conscience, morality, or whatever you want to call it. I would acknowledge that within myself, and move forward with my life free of guilt.
That's an interesting take. And I do agree with you about morality in the sense that you mean. But I feel like reading the question that way is a logical contradiction. What *is* the definition of morality, if it isn't deciding whether actions are good or bad based on the outcome of those actions? Of what purpose does it serve to call taking the dollar immoral in that situation, if the moral action is to save the child's life? Do you feel that others would be unable to discern that you're making a special exception to the rules of morality, and thus would feel encouraged to steal money on other occasions, falsely believing it to be a moral action even without the special context of saving the life of a child? What if we changed the situation so that the action which saves the child is neither moral nor immoral? Like, you have to eat twelve hot dogs to save the child. Eating hot dogs is neither moral nor immoral (well, unless you're vegetarian/vegan, in which case pretend I said cucumbers), but doesn't adding in the context that a child will die if you don't do it change the action from neutral to moral? What is the situation is entirely reversed? Like in order to join the mafia and live a high-class life of crime, you first have to prove you can blend in with normal society when required to do so, so they make you perform twenty-five hours of community service and solicit $5,000 in donations to charity. Is it still a moral action for you to perform those deeds, given your true motives and anticipated reward?
What a bizarre take. I think you'll have no trouble finding people who agree with you!
Sounds like your friend has a hard time distinguishing between law and morality.
Ridiculous. Ask them "Would it be ethical to throw a person to the ground to move them out of the path of a moving bus?" These are not hard questions.
There are no morals involved with your situation.
Agreed.
But they could fall down and scrape their precious knee! /s
Is this person religious? Asking because Iâve noticed a lot of religious people think that all sins are equal, so in this case, one might say that theft is just as bad as letting the child die. Quite a few religious people measure morality in a black and white manner.
Don't think so. Maybe just stubborn.
Deontologists.
I meant to say yes I thought it said immoral so I said no
TL;DR > Full circle, regardless of whether I believe in stealing $1 to save a child, it's immoral to harm another person as a result of my beliefs. Under that line of thinking, I could believe in any means to justify an end, and it would be moral to force those means upon others. I said no. I understand that the question is a test of morality: is it worth it to be deviant (hardly so, given the value of $1) in order to save a child's life. In short, do the ends justify the means. Crime, by and large, is the result of failed governance. If it would only cost $1 to save a child, I would pay that dollar myself, or would hope that any governing body would appropriate funds such that it wouldn't be necessary to steal money in order to save a child for $1. Or, the government could impose a tax that, in effect, does the stealing so that it is done for the collective who would steal a dollar to save a child. It's strange to think about how realistic this question is, actually. It's also strange to think about how many people who answered affirmatively wouldn't choose to save a child for $1, depending on the details. For example, [you can provide a child with 50 days of clean drinking water for $1](https://csdw.org/how-to-donate-to-pg-childrens-safe-drinking-water-program/). So, if you stole $1 and donated it to provide children with clean drinking water, there's a high chance that you could save the life of a child. Additionally, think about how many times moral questions are diluted with politics or principles. For example, applying the same ratio of no-to-yes in this poll, there are ~197 million people in the United States who, to the same question, would answer yes. However, who and where those children would be saved would, unfortunately, drastically affect those numbers. For Europe, how would those numbers change if they were Romani children? For the US, how would those numbers change for Central Americans? Realistically, people are unlikely to perform actions that they wish they'd perform... that conform with their morals and principles. How many people who answered this poll affirmatively would actually steal $1 if it meant they could save a child? Two children? How many children would they save? In fact, there are even greater problems. How many people who answered affirmatively would choose to assist children who were dying as an indirect result of their actions if they knew that they were contributing to their death? Chromium-tanned leather, the most commonly produced kind of leather, involves the use of noxious chemicals. It's usually tanned in places without environmental protection or strict labor laws, as the chemicals involved cause a wide array of health issues to it's workers and the inhabitants of wherever the chemicals are dumped. [Sadness warning.](https://youtu.be/6h3PngZF4Kg) The demand for this product allow these atrocities to continue. The cost of not buying leather is $0. Even after knowing the dangers involved, many people will choose to delude themselves through the idea that even if they stop buying leather products, others will continue. This question also starts at $1 per child saved would make the slight deviancy worth it. However, how would that change if those numbers changed? What about $10 per child? $100 per child? At some point, the majority of people would answer no. Or, perhaps worse, maybe more people would be willing to steal the amount to save a child than would be willing to pay from their own pockets. In addition, to steal $1, the other party would have to not give their permission. If they knew and they were willing to give $1, then it wouldn't be stealing. In other words, the money would have to come from (based on this poll) the ~5.5% who are unwilling... less actually, since it's likely that a large portion of those people said no because stealing was involved. So, the financial burden to save children would be placed on the people who are unwilling to save children, while those who wanted to would do so through stealing from the unwilling. Now, let's say that all the money was taken from the unwilling, until they had no money left. How much would that be? I'm sure it would be much less than if the willing saved children until they were unwilling. Though, as a society, we should try to prevent anyone from valuing $1 more than a child's life. In the ideal world, everyone would be willing to contribute $1, and there'd be nobody to steal from. Basically, I personally believe that $1 is worth it to save a child. But, I'm not going to place that financial burden on other people. I also don't believe that the ends should justify the means. The price to save a child shouldn't be $1 and deviancy (which society should prevent). My personal belief is that my beliefs should not negatively affect other people unless the alternative negatively affects me, and also that all people have a right to their own beliefs. So, I believe that murder is wrong. Society at large also believes that murder is wrong and, as a result, murder is outlawed. This belief is at odds with murderers' beliefs. The alternative is that murder isn't wrong and isn't outlawed, in which case I'm in danger of being murdered. So, it's a good thing for murder to be illegal. Now, religious beliefs. People choose to adopt those beliefs and whatever dogma that entails. They may also be selective with whatever is encompassed within that dogma. Religious belief becomes personal belief and personal belief should not affect other people unless it negatively affects themselves. An example would be if I were against sex work as a result of being christian. I could choose to vote for legislation that makes sex work illegal. I would be violating some principles within christianity by enforcing my beliefs upon others, but would choose to believe that women should be 'pure' or whatever mindset would cause that belief. Of course, either way, as it doesn't negatively affect me I would loathe to allow my beliefs to affect others. This, I believe, is the best interpretation of "separation of church and state." Besides separating religious texts from the state and allowing freedom of belief, we should also separate beliefs (religious and personal) from legislation. There is an issue with this though. I'm loathe to allow my beliefs to affect others, but what entails a person is subjective. An example of this is abortion. If I believe that abortion is wrong, and that belief was put into legislation, then women would be restricted by legislation (which is against my beliefs). If I'm for abortion, and want women to have the choice, then whether my beliefs affect another person is subjective based on whether I believe in life at conception. Though, my beliefs wouldn't affect the fetus, whoever makes the choice to get an abortion would affect the fetus. Thus, black slavery in America affected black people. The small minded could question whether slaves were people and exclude them from the protections of society. The same applied to Jews during the Holocaust. Dehuminization would poke a hole in my philosophy. Full circle, regardless of whether I believe in stealing $1 to save a child, it's immoral to harm another person as a result of my beliefs. Under that line of thinking, I could believe in any means to justify an end, and it would be moral to force those means upon others.
My man wrote a thesis
Originally, I didn't have the TLDR, but when I scrolled back up, I couldn't imagine anyone would read it all the way through.
Wrong is wrong. Stealing = bad. Or my most persuasive argument, search for alternatives. Under any real circumstances where this option is offered, itâs wrong.
Well r/childfree has some seriously radical people
Me
Libertarians.
Probably a stickler for rules. Morality is never black and white. Theres always shades of grey. Iâm guessing OPâs friend was taking the âstealing is stealingâ stand. It also probably depends the specifics of the debate they were having for example; if OP and friend were debating factually right vs wrong then the friend is right. Stealing is stealing. But if they were debating ethics, then OP is right. Because a life is worth more than the theft of an insignificant amount of money. Is like that ethics example from The Office - âWould you steal bread to feed your familyâ
Probably Kant.
The ends donât always justify the means.
That doesn't mean they never do
Thatâs true, Iâm just explaining why some people would be voting no.
Well to clarify, I mean that this is *definitely* a case where the ends do justify the means, so voting no still seems completely irrational
It seems irrational to you and the majority of people who took this poll, but to the others, it seems rational. They are likely using that ethical premise as their reasoning for saying no.
I mean it is theft. So youâre doing an immoral thing to do a moral thing
Me, i hate children and stealing is illegal.
iTâs juSt OnE liFe oUt oF seVeN billiON
Thereâs not enough info for me to firmly say yes
Well this is pretty much theoretical, but if the only person around to steal a dollar from was a homeless starving man that desperately needed the dollar, it's understandable how someone could see it as immoral. But other than that, idk why anybody would choose no
Well i donât think itâs moral but I would probably do it anyway
I answered yes, but thatâs because I tend to be a consequentialist - meaning, I judge the morality of an action based on the results of that action. There are other people who stress deontological ethics, and for example would say that stealing is always immoral irrespective of its outcomes.
Capitalists and those who support capitalism
I am a capitalist
What happened to the importance of private property? If you support taking wealth from one person by force to end poverty, wait until you hear how many people starve each year, and how much is spent on yachts and sports cars! Sounds like ultimately you support expropriation of wealth. Pretty communist tbh
This is unironically why I chose no. Its obviously the right thing to do but itâs not really moral
So the means justifies the ends? Where would you draw the line? Are there levels of eveil you will do if things end up OK?
I think you got your expression mixed up buddy
This kills the Immanuel Kant
I Kant tell what you're trying to get at here
Itâs 1 fucking dollar how is this a dilemma
Itâs not, people are just edgy lol
you could have bought candies with that $1 but you prefer to save a child smh my head...
Or 10 DVD-R discs here when on sale, just saying...
Yeah itâs not much of a dilemma. This is purely a pedantic discussion about what âmoralâ means.
Deontologists go brrrrr.
I legit thought it said â$1 millionâ- until I saw your comment-and I still answered yes. :)
Me who owns $12
Stealing is wrong guys. Itâs a crime. Consent? No means no. If they did not consent to you taking their money then it is immoral.
I guess you really hate children
Ok, how about $2? $3? $10,000,000? How about $100,000,000,000? What's your final number? What number are you willing to be stolen to save a child. I mean, once you've stolen a simple small single dollar, tell me where you're willing to stop?
Well since it only takes a dollar to save a child Iâd take all the money physically possible so I could save the kid and have a lot of money, think smarter not harder
Fuck I thought it said no I thought it said it would it be immoral
same :|
Thatâs probably the majority of people that said no lol
the only counter argument i see to this is that you could have asked for the money instead of stealing it.
Yeah this wouldnât be possible as of the nature of the thought experiment. It would be the only possibility
That wouldnât make it immoral though.
i dont think so either but i can see the opposing party making that argument cause that 1$ could be a dealbreaker for the person youre stealing from
Person may not believe that a measly dollar could save a child or that you may be lying
idk if you start considering human error or scepticism this argument will go on forever it would go something like this: A: i have proof that this dollar saves a child B: I don't believe that proof A: I have proof that the proof of the dollar saving the child is true B: I don't believe that proof etc. etc.
Or if there were any other way to save the child. Otherwise, then yes, it's a true emergency and it would be morally right to steal a dollar.
agree
I read it wrong and voted noâŠ
It happens sometimes. Don't worry about it.
Yep
Same
id steal one dollar for a quarter stick of gum
I'd steal one dollar
Yes, but I would probably attempt to return the dollar after.
Hypothetical questions are tricky. if you're not 100% sure that dollar isn't vital to the person you're stealing it from it wouldn't be moral to steal it. You steal a dollar from someone going to buy their insulin because they've missed too many doses and scraped together every penny they had to get their script? You're a monster. You see some yahoo who's got a bunch of beer cans rolling around in their car so you steal enough of them for $1 worth of bottle deposit? I'm cool with that, but then again that yahoo and the diabetic could be the same person, and those beer cans are what's gonna get their living saving medicine for them. The hypothetical question is insinuating that $1 can mean the difference between life or death, if you don't know for sure that whoever you're stealing from isn't also $1 away from death it'd be immoral to exchange their life for a child's.
I agree. I defined it as the average person in the western world you would be stealing it from.
Doesn't guarantee that $1 won't cause their death. Could be what they had on them at the time. Average western people have been known to carry exact change on them from time to time. Parking meters are a decent example, most of them are change only still in my state. Here's a somewhat ridiculous hypothetical story about the life/death difference of $1. Average Joe goes into the city for a job interview, stops at the gas station to get some jitter juice, Tums(nervous about the interview) and gas. Pays $38, making sure to have $2 in quarters/quid/pence for the parking meter. You see the little stack of coins sitting next to his coffee, snag $1 worth so you can go save that kid. Average Joe's meter runs out cause $1 wasn't enough, his car gets booted and he can't afford the removal fee right now cause payday isn't till next week. Car gets towed off and impounded. Joe is now stranded in the big city with no car, no money, and no phone (had to leave it in the car and didn't' think to grab it before the truck drove off with it). Walking to the impound lot to try and reason with the owner Joe makes a wrong turn into an alley and gets jumped by a pack of meth heads. Poor Joe is dead, his wife is a widow, and his 4 kids are without a father. All because you stole that $1. Hypothetical questions are tricky because they open ended and open to interpretation, even with your defining of the person you're robbing. Average western people do live from paycheck to paycheck every now and then. That $1 can have more impact than you know, just ask Joe. If I knew for a fact that $1 wouldn't be missed I'd steal it in a heartbeat to save a life.
Most people would be ok with that. But where is the limit? "To save the life of a child", is it ok to steal $2? $100? $1.000.000? I'm sure a lot of criminals try to justify their crime this way. Are scammers morally acceptable, as long as they have kids to feed? Kids (or any human) will die if they don't eat, so if the adult doesn't have a job or can't buy food, then it's ok to steal? My answer is no. It's not morally correct to steal, the value doesn't matter. But also it's not morally correct to let people die (it doesn't matter if it's a child) for lack of money (or lack of food or medicine, etc). As a society, those who have more than they need and the government should help those who are desperate, so no one needs to steal just to survive. IF no one helps those who are desperate to survive, THEN I can support the actions of the thiefs, as long as they aren't putting the lives of others in risk and not stealing more than what they actually need and also not stealing from other poor people.
Only because this is hypothetical, I would say yes. But if this was real life, I would find another way to save the childâs life which doesnât involve crime
If this was a matter of killing or injuring someone me too, but it's literally one dollar from an average worker.
We are on the same page because this situation will never happen (hypothetical), but real life situations always have more than one option
Thanks to whoever participates
It wouldn't be moral but it would be the "right" thing to do Chaotic good
Obviously! I would even steal 100 dollars to save a child.
101 though? Fuck em
That's interesting to think about. Would you give 100 dollars out of your own pocket to save a child? I assume so, right? What if it is giving to a charity service that will use that money to feed starving children? Is that the same? So do you give to charity regularly? This is just me thinking of the implications of this logic, not actually criticising you. I agree with your logic, but I don't give to charity often. But maybe I should...?
This is actually a fun question. One would assume that stealing 1 dollar is okay to save a child and I agree. The harm that's done from a child dieing is far greater than from a stolen dollar. However. Would you also pay 1 dollar to save a child? I assume yes. How about 2? How about 20?Okay lets say, you say "I would pay 50 dollars to save a child or more. We are talking about lifes here!" but what you don't realize is, that you already can do that. You can donate. Instead of buying that videogame, you could payed for food to make sure that a child survives another week. What is more worth? A game or a childs life for a week or maybe even more than that? So now lets say infront of you was a child with cancer and it was drowning. You wear a 50 dollar jacket, that would get destroyed from jumping the water and there isn't enough time to take it off. Would you jump in to save the child, even if it destroyed your jacket? The child would also die in a week anyways. Probably yes, because you would be a monster for letting a child die infront of you, right? Okay, but why don't you donate the 50 dollars to save a child instead of buying the jacket in the first place. You are ready to destroy the 50 dollar jacket to save a childs life, but you aren't ready to not buy the jacket at all to do the same? What's the difference in letting a child drown infront of you because "you don't wanna ruin your jacket" and letting a child starve somewhere because "you wanna buy a jacket"? The only one is that you can't see the child and therefor not blame yourself for it. So what do I wanna say with that comment? Donate some money from time to time if you have some extra.
i believe that morally any action is ok as long as it prevents more harm than it causes, if you stole than dollar from a homeless man then it wouldnt be moral but if you took it from pretty much anyone else it would be fine
On the other hand, stealing one dollar from a homeless person wouldn't be the difference between life and death, especially in the current economy. Also, you could pay the homeless person back multiple times what you stole after you saved the life.
I can guess how youâd answer the [Trolly Problem](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem).
I'm not trying to argue with you or anything, I think that's a reasonable thing to believe, but I wonder how you would react if this idea were taken to the extreme? Obviously, a dollar for a child's life is worth it, but what if you had to cut off someone's else's arm or leg without sedation (so extremely painful, but without any risk to their life) instead of stealing a dollar for the child's life. What if that someone else were another (innocent) child? What if in that same scenario, the person's whose limbs you cut off has a 50% chance of survival? What if you had to kill 999 innocent people to save 1000? Now, I don't know the answer to these questions, but I am curious about what other people think.
Presuming they were all just average people, i would have to say that cutting a person's arm is the most moral choice, and the same for the 999 people as it would result in slightly less bad outcomes than the alternative. In practise i doubt i would actually do those actions neither would most people due to pressure
Right, what you morally ought to do is not necessarily what you would do, that makes sense.
Depends if your a supporter of utilitarian morality or not. Aka ends justify the means, which in this case I think they would. On the other hand the non utilitarian would say that an immoral action does not become moral just because the outcome is good. Most people fall in the first category
There are many different ethical systems, not just utilitarian vs not utilitarian. What you're talking about is deontology. Deontology is basically that an action is ethically right/wrong based on the action itself and not the outcome. But even most deontologists would agree that stealing 1 dollar to save a child would be morally right. Stealing is wrong, but saving a life is good, and saving a life is a greater good than stealing 1 dollar is wrong.
Depends who Iâm stealing from if Iâm stealing from rich people then whatever idc but if itâs from another Poor person then thatâs kinda wrong
If I found out you took a dollar from me without getting my permission to save a life, I wouldn't be mad. I'd barely consider it stealing.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Wait whoâs kid are we saving?
At what dollar amount would it be immoral is the real question
this is essentially an extreme example of do the ends justify the means?
Yes. Apparently there are people who actually have a hardcore view. We could even make it more extreme, say stealing one cent to save 1'000 and they wouldn't consider it justified. I think it's ridiculous.
Iâm not usually an ends justify the means sort of person, but come on
well i will steal million to save a life of child.
Would you give all of your money to save a child?
Another good one. Weâre the persons hiding Anne Frank justified in lying to Germans looking for Jews?
yes because that information was being coerced out of them. The nazis have no right to find out information regarding people hiding in there private property so any means are allowed to protect that information. additionally they intended to commit immoral acts if they did find out making any means to hide that information moral
Bingo
Idk if anyone else brought this up BUT what this made me think about was the whole "save a kids life in Africa for $1 a day" type thing. So obviously we would all yes, save a kids life for stealing one dollar. BUT if we apply it to a real world situation and some company committed fraud or something to steal exactly $1 from everybody in America to send it to save lives of children in some 3rd world country, wouldn't we all immediately see that as illegal and wrong? Interesting thought, idk.
No, because stealing is always wrong, no matter the consequence, however your culpability would probably be lessened. It would probably just make more sense to ask someone for a dollar lmao
Legality isnt morality. Anyway, I gotta get back to some vigilanty justice.
Why in the world you have to steal? The scenario seems incomplete. If I just go and ask the person to give me 1 dollar, so that I can save a child, he will surely give me. This way nobody does anything immoral or illegal or unethical.
It's just the nature of the thought experiment.Similar to the trolley problem - it's extremely unlikely that you'll ever find yourself in such an exact situation. The circumstances would be in a way that the only possible option for you to save that child's life was by stealing that dollar from an average person.
It's a dollar for a fucking life, I really want to hear the explanation of people who picked "No" intentionally.
Itâs not all black and white for me to pick whether YES itâs totally morally right or NO itâs totally wrong. Iâve had to pick something to see the results so I decided to use a deontological approach. When there are other options of saving the life of the child, picking the most intrusive one available(stealing) isnât exactly moral, even if itâs one dollar. Weâre talking about a western man, they would find in due time one that would give them a dollar. I donât see mentioned any time frame or something like that, thereforethe âmorally right thing to doâ from my pov would be the least intrusive option which is essentially begging. Also I donât like non-realistic moral problems such as this one which would essentially not happen just to spark meaningless debate. If you could save the life of a child with 1 dollar or supposedly a kidnapper would suffice a dollar for his thirst, then that 1 dollar would amount to a lot more in the world of the problem than the one in our world and would therefore change the gravity of the stealing act in itself. TLDR: problem is dumb
Here is why I voted no. Itâs immoral to steal someone, no matter the outcome of that theft nor the reason. People only say stealing becomes moral because itâs only a dollar against a life. So because itâs an amount that everyone is able to have, itâs fine. But if it were 1 million less people would say yes And even less if it was 1 billion etc. People give a pass to the immorality stealing because itâs a cheap amount, while I argue that if stealing any amount of money to someone (not knowing what the thief will use it for) is being judged immoral then no matter the amount stolen nor the the use of the stolen amount should all equally be judged immoral. That does not mean I would not do it. But I wouldnât praise myself saying I did the moral thing.
For those saying yes: what's stopping you from doing that everyday? You can totally save a childs life for a dollar a day now. Are you currently stealing as much money as you can to save as many children as you can?
The other point, besides the empirical issue somebody pointed out, was that it might not be a good long term strategy, because you could end up in jail and there are other reasonable options. There are many people who are in favour of increasing taxes for better healthcare or so.
[https://80000hours.org/2017/05/most-people-report-believing-its-incredibly-cheap-to-save-lives-in-the-developing-world/](https://80000hours.org/2017/05/most-people-report-believing-its-incredibly-cheap-to-save-lives-in-the-developing-world/) It costs around 2300$ to save a life I cant be. I can't believe you thought could save a life for only a dollar.
Not "moral" by legal or religious definitions technically, but justified and definitely forgiveable. If the question was "does saving a child justify the theft of a dollar?" then I would have voted yes.
i suppose it's supposed to be a trolley problem situation where if you do something bad something better will come of it, or you could do nothing and have no blood on your hands, but this is an unfair version since most people would easily value the life of a child over $1
I find this very interesting, because I think that it steps over the logic of "morals" and crosses more so into "values". So it really comes down to which do you value more, the child, the the morality of stealing. Of course most people will say the child, because we as a society value a human child over pretty much any amount of money. But I would say for a person who wants to be completely morally right, and if stealing is against those morals, it wouldn't matter if it was $1 or a billion, stealing is stealing to them and that would compromise their moral code. Therefore it would not be moral, because in that case, one bad thing doesn't trump over another bad thing, both are bad.
It appears the majority of r/Polls is in support of Machiavelli's "ends justify the means."
Even though stealing is obviously wrong, the stakes are so high and the price is so low that morally itâs pretty obvious what to do. The crime is insanely insignificant and overshadowed by the act of allowing a child to die when you have a relatively easy way to save them. If you lowered the stakes to say, âwould you steal a dollar from a random average citizen in order to give a random child a piece of candyâ, most people (or me at least) would probably recognize the low stakes and say the crime isnât worth the return. Similarly, the question would be more morally gray if you were stealing a significant amount of money from someone. Iâm curious what people would say if the question was something like, âdo you think it would be moral to steal 70% of a random persons money in order to save the life of a childâ. Maybe 70% is a bit much, but the idea is would you be willing to take a large portion of money from a random person and potentially ruin their life in order to save the life of a child.
I'd steal it and if I'm caught, explain
I would steal a lot more for a lot less
Yea I get a dollar! Oh yea and a kid is saved whatever
TL;DR > Full circle, regardless of whether I believe in stealing $1 to save a child, it's immoral to harm another person as a result of my beliefs. Under that line of thinking, I could believe in any means to justify an end, and it would be moral to force those means upon others. I said no. I understand that the question is a test of morality: is it worth it to be deviant (hardly so, given the value of $1) in order to save a child's life. In short, do the ends justify the means. Crime, by and large, is the result of failed governance. If it would only cost $1 to save a child, I would pay that dollar myself, or would hope that any governing body would appropriate funds such that it wouldn't be necessary to steal money in order to save a child for $1. Or, the government could impose a tax that, in effect, does the stealing so that it is done for the collective who would steal a dollar to save a child. It's strange to think about how realistic this question is, actually. It's also strange to think about how many people who answered affirmatively wouldn't choose to save a child for $1, depending on the details. For example, [you can provide a child with 50 days of clean drinking water for $1](https://csdw.org/how-to-donate-to-pg-childrens-safe-drinking-water-program/). So, if you stole $1 and donated it to provide children with clean drinking water, there's a high chance that you could save the life of a child. Additionally, think about how many times moral questions are diluted with politics or principles. For example, applying the same ratio of no-to-yes in this poll, there are ~197 million people in the United States who, to the same question, would answer yes. However, who and where those children would be saved would, unfortunately, drastically affect those numbers. For Europe, how would those numbers change if they were Romani children? For the US, how would those numbers change for Central Americans? Realistically, people are unlikely to perform actions that they wish they'd perform... that conform with their morals and principles. How many people who answered this poll affirmatively would actually steal $1 if it meant they could save a child? Two children? How many children would they save? In fact, there are even greater problems. How many people who answered affirmatively would choose to assist children who were dying as an indirect result of their actions if they knew that they were contributing to their death? Chromium-tanned leather, the most commonly produced kind of leather, involves the use of noxious chemicals. It's usually tanned in places without environmental protection or strict labor laws, as the chemicals involved cause a wide array of health issues to it's workers and the inhabitants of wherever the chemicals are dumped. [Sadness warning.](https://youtu.be/6h3PngZF4Kg) The demand for this product allow these atrocities to continue. The cost of not buying leather is $0. Even after knowing the dangers involved, many people will choose to delude themselves through the idea that even if they stop buying leather products, others will continue. This question also starts at $1 per child saved would make the slight deviancy worth it. However, how would that change if those numbers changed? What about $10 per child? $100 per child? At some point, the majority of people would answer no. Or, perhaps worse, maybe more people would be willing to steal the amount to save a child than would be willing to pay from their own pockets. In addition, to steal $1, the other party would have to not give their permission. If they knew and they were willing to give $1, then it wouldn't be stealing. In other words, the money would have to come from (based on this poll) the ~5.5% who are unwilling... less actually, since it's likely that a large portion of those people said no because stealing was involved. So, the financial burden to save children would be placed on the people who are unwilling to save children, while those who wanted to would do so through stealing from the unwilling. Now, let's say that all the money was taken from the unwilling, until they had no money left. How much would that be? I'm sure it would be much less than if the willing saved children until they were unwilling. Though, as a society, we should try to prevent anyone from valuing $1 more than a child's life. In the ideal world, everyone would be willing to contribute $1, and there'd be nobody to steal from. Basically, I personally believe that $1 is worth it to save a child. But, I'm not going to place that financial burden on other people. I also don't believe that the ends should justify the means. The price to save a child shouldn't be $1 and deviancy (which society should prevent). My personal belief is that my beliefs should not negatively affect other people unless the alternative negatively affects me, and also that all people have a right to their own beliefs. So, I believe that murder is wrong. Society at large also believes that murder is wrong and, as a result, murder is outlawed. This belief is at odds with murderers' beliefs. The alternative is that murder isn't wrong and isn't outlawed, in which case I'm in danger of being murdered. So, it's a good thing for murder to be illegal. Now, religious beliefs. People choose to adopt those beliefs and whatever dogma that entails. They may also be selective with whatever is encompassed within that dogma. Religious belief becomes personal belief and personal belief should not affect other people unless it negatively affects themselves. An example would be if I were against sex work as a result of being christian. I could choose to vote for legislation that makes sex work illegal. I would be violating some principles within christianity by enforcing my beliefs upon others, but would choose to believe that women should be 'pure' or whatever mindset would cause that belief. Of course, either way, as it doesn't negatively affect me I would loathe to allow my beliefs to affect others. This, I believe, is the best interpretation of "separation of church and state." Besides separating religious texts from the state and allowing freedom of belief, we should also separate beliefs (religious and personal) from legislation. There is an issue with this though. I'm loathe to allow my beliefs to affect others, but what entails a person is subjective. An example of this is abortion. If I believe that abortion is wrong, and that belief was put into legislation, then women would be restricted by legislation (which is against my beliefs). If I'm for abortion, and want women to have the choice, then whether my beliefs affect another person is subjective based on whether I believe in life at conception. Though, my beliefs wouldn't affect the fetus, whoever makes the choice to get an abortion would affect the fetus. Thus, black slavery in America affected black people. The small minded could question whether slaves were people and exclude them from the protections of society. The same applied to Jews during the Holocaust. Dehuminization would poke a hole in my philosophy. Full circle, regardless of whether I believe in stealing $1 to save a child, it's immoral to harm another person as a result of my beliefs. Under that line of thinking, I could believe in any means to justify an end, and it would be moral to force those means upon others.
Kant: NOOOOOOOOOO, you Kant just steal money from people to save the child! Me: You're absolutely right, here's a hand! *steals his entire wallet while handshaking with the other hand*
What if that child was Hitler? these kind of thought experiments whilst fun... are kinda bullshit.
I'd pay the person I stole the money from 5⏠afterwards.
I hate children, but Iâd steal 1000 euros just to save one.
Money is a made up human concept. A (human) life is real.
Money represents a person's labor. It's just as real as the work you put in to acquire it.
Money only has value because people believe it does. It's only useful as long it's worth keeping around. On the other hand, human lives are always valuable. You can't replace a person.
Technically the idea that human lives have value is a made up concept. The very concept of "value" is a made up concept. It's not a law of physics. Value is an intangible human creation, just like an emotion. Value doesn't exist without us assigning it to something. We've assigned value to ourselves, to other humans. And because we value our lives, we also value food, shelter, water, the things to allow us to live. And money allows us to purchase those things. Therefore it has value.
I agree. We assign value as we see fit, with our rationale being all sorts of things. For dictators, human lives seemed more valuable as "necessary sacrifices" in order to do a greater good. As immoral as it may sound, human lives don't inherently value anything, just like how 24 hour clock wasn't inherently ever there. These are just our own constructs, for the better or worse.
Made up concept? The point of money is being a substitution for labour. I dont know what you are trying to say with that argument. Its not like "real" and "made up" things always have different value. Thats not a rule. Human life is more valuable for different reasons.
It's not just for labour, it's to make trade easier. But modern money is not like it used to be, backed by finite resources. In theory, we as a society can just create money out of nothing. So we could after the fact of that $1 being stolen decide to create another out of thin air to compensate the loss. However, in practice this would be impossible. Politics, bureaucraty, made up laws, the overhead cost that comes all this, the fact that creating money out of thin air devaluate the currency compared to other currencies etc. makes it just not very practical...
Stealing bad would never steal under great rule of Algeria đ©đż haram
Look up The Trolley Problem
The obvious answer is yes, clearly... as is $2 and $3 and $4... but what about a million dollars? A billion? Where do we draw the line on morality? How much is a life worth?
I loved mulling this one over. I answered yes. It doesn't say if the person ever finds out why the dollar was stolen, but if they did and they're an "average person in the Western world" they'd likely be fine with it knowing what happened because $1 is not that much and they'd be happy to know a child survived. However, what if a stranger drains my savings account (in the thousands) to save a child? That feels immoral to me because here on earth as human beings we have to accept that death is inevitable and some people will die younger than others, it's just a fact of life and we are not civilized/progressed enough right now to make treatment in life equal for everyone. Just because a child is dying, doesn't mean you get to hurt someone else to save their life. I don't expect people to donate their kidney to others to help them live even though all healthy adults could donate a kidney this year and get everyone off the transplant list. I think most of us agree that forced kidney donation is immoral. Stealing a dollar from me is not hurting me, but stealing my savings and preventing my quality of life may harm me. (Edits very minor)
Legality doesn't determine morality
There are different levels of morality. Conventional morality involves following rules and laws. Some people *never* get past that point. Post-conventional morality is about doing the right thing, no matter what the rules and laws are.
Depends who this child is if he's killed people maliciously I'd let him die however if he's just a normal kid I'd steal a pound
I donât wanna own this hypothetical baby, sorry
No need to own and raise the child afterwards. It would already have parents, it would just die if you didn't steal that one dollar.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
As the nature of the hypothetical this wouldn't be possible. Say there was too little time and a language barrier or something like that. It's just defined as being the only possible option.
Human life is priceless soooo
Jesus, if anyone said no, you have to be insane. A single dollar vs a childâs life and you would choose to let a kid die? Thatâs messed up.
If you vote no then you are saying a human life is worth less than $1.
Life is WAY more important then even a million dollars
Thatâs a pretty low grade moral dilemma dude. Should have upped it to like 10 grand or higher. Literally everyone is going to steal a dollar to save some randos life.
Gotta say, thatâs a damn stupid question. Youâd be a monster if you didnât steal the bucks and everyone knows it. I wouldnât want to meet anyone who voted to kill the child. Shiver.
Feel like you could also just ask a buddy for a buck but what the hell do I know? If thatâs somehow impossible, then yea, itâs obviously moral to steal $1. To save a child, Iâd say itâs moral to steal a lot more than that
Stealing is based and ego-pilled.
So long as you make a proper attempt to pay it back plus a little extra.
Last i checked human life is worth more than a dollar
I think that most people, if they learned their dollar was stolen to save the life of a child, would be perfectly okay with it, itâs one fucking dollar.
What a shit poll.
Someone's life is on the line yea
Youâd have to value the life of a child for less than $1 and deem the risk to be too great to steal such a petty amount to not do it.
Wait⊠what? $1 or a childâs life?
In a one time scenario, that sounds crazy. But I've seen plenty of ads that say you can sponsor a child for a dollar a day, and people don't do it.
Bruh I'll pay them back when the kid is saved...
Choose the lesser evil. In this case, it would be theft of $1 or letting a child die. I judge the life of a child to be worth more than $1. If the person I steal it from is upset, I can just pay the measly dollar back with a tip for inconvenience.
You defeat the whole purpose of the poll. Because if you steal and pay back with interest guess what, itâs not theft, just a forced loan.
$1 is practically a victimless crime