this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2026
169 points (96.2% liked)
Not The Onion
21775 readers
1431 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'll address one point for now and the rest - later (sorry, I'm in a hurry)
It's not the cost, it's intention. If you are hungry - steal bread, not some Jamón Ibérico .
OK, how does that effect the morality? "You're allowed to steal for sustenance, but you aren't allowed to steal something that you enjoy." What is your ethical rule here? You said it's not cost, so it must be about how much you'll like something. What if you like the thing that's cheaper?
I don't think you've really analyzed your beliefs here. I think you've been told you're supposed to think some way but you haven't really considered the implications of that.
As a hypothetical, let's say Musk is hosting a big event. You get word on the vehicles bringing in the food. You have an opportunity to steal it with no risk. Is it morally good to do so, and distribute it to the poor? Keep in mind, this food is going to be very expensive and fancy. Does that change if it's morally good or not?
Exactly.
You ignored the context of everything else. What if you're stealing for sustenance, but it's something you enjoy? Why does enjoying it make it morally bad? You said it isn't about money, so you're only allowed to do it, in your premise, if you don't get any enjoyment out of it. Arguably, everything you eat you'll enjoy if you're hungry enough, so then stealing for sustenance is not actually allowed.
I'll clarify my stance: you're allowed to steal luxury food / treats only if it's the only food available.
And, of course, you should be starving and have no other means to sustain yourself.
To justify stealing is a slippery slope, unfortunately.
In order for this to not be a slippery slope fallacy you have to show how it could reasonable lead to whatever you're claiming it'd lead to (which you didn't even state). What is the negative outcome to (morally) allowing theft for sustenance? Keep in mind, it's still illegal, so there are potential negative consequences. There's just not a negative moral judgement (from those of us who are fine with it).
As the opposite point, hoarding when others are in need, while legal, is immoral (in my opinion). Does that create a slippery slope where people don't create/collect more things for themselves? No, obviously. This is as close to a universal moral principle that I think exists, yet people still hoard. It doesn't create a slippery slope.
I think yes. Look at the billionaires. They leech ability of creation things from the poor