Ethics

The Philippines has recently experiences the most devastating storm, Yolanda, in its history. The most affected areas of the country were wiped out and almost all sources of food and water became scarce. Looting became common in those areas. I honestly believe that stealing is wrong, but looting, which can be defined as stealing in the most extreme situations like those of life-and-death, seems a rather different case. My question then is this: is looting ever morally justified?

Comments

I express concern for all involved: the owners, looters, bi-standers.... I have experienced times of scarcity and turmoil, but I am keenly aware that I am reading and responding to you in a coffee shop where conditions seem peaceful and I worry about being presumptuous in addressing someone in the midst of great turmoil. I suggest that a good number of philosophers may well be right in thinking that there is little difference between looting and stealing, but some such as Hobbes, among others have held that in a state of nature when there is a collapse of government and no sovereign power to impose limits which all subjects might agree to, it is "every person for him or her self." I suggest that such a reliance on government or contracts to provide a foundation for obligations and rights is implausible --that is, it cannot actually provide a moral duty for each person or citizen to comply with what is contracted or agreed upon and it also cannot do justice to a basic, intuitive sense we have of property. That is, if someone has acquired goods through free trade and without committing injustice and. let us add, the person has not been exploitive or acquired an obscene monopoly over the vulnerable that person seems to have a right to those goods, whether or not the local government is solvent or not. So.... I side with those who would equate looting and stealing, but I suggest another point needs making. Some leading philosophers, from Thomas Aquinas to John Locke, have held that there is something wrong perhaps, for them, it would be a sin, in terms of a violation of our duty to God, for persons to retain their property rights WHEN THEY HAVE SURPLUS GOODS AND THOSE GOODS ARE NEEDED FOR OTHERS IN ORDER TO LIVE. So, while most of us probably think that giving voluntarily to those in need when we have surplus think of this as a matter of justice, Aquinas and Locke and others appear to hold that it is unjust to sit on one's property rights when others need goods to live. So, in terms of your question*s* when in conditions of serious hardship and emergency, and the rule of law seems to be on edge, I think a just person should respect property rights. Though this would allow following Aquinas and Locke that the respect for property rights is compatible with giving greater respect and weight to the obligation of those with surplus to give to those in need in conditions of extremity.

Forgive me this long answer, but I wish to add one more thought: while I personally side with Aquinas and Locke on what the wealthy or property owners should do in conditions of extremity and need, it is another thing to endorse the view that if someone should not make their surplus available to those in need, it is permissible for those in need to take those needed goods when the "owners" refuse to do their duty. The matter is very tricky.... You cannot steal what is yours. This was brought to light in a clever moment during a recent meeting of the faculty of my philosophy department St. Olaf College with a member of the faculty of our neighbors, the Carleton College philosophy department. Jason Decker of Carleton a brilliant philosopher whom everyone who reads this should contact on matters of epistemology, the nature of rational disagreement and more asked me: "Can I steal this apple?" I had to answer "no" and so he took the apple and enjoyed its contribution to a fun lunch. He could have asked "Was this apple purchased jointly by both our colleges?" or "Is St. Olaf College providing apples to Carleton philosophers?" or more simply "Is this apple ours?" He did not have to. The fact that he could not steal it meant it was his to enjoy. The analogy with your situation is far from obvious for we were in Northern Minnesota under safe conditions, but I like to think that if we were in your country under extreme conditions and Jason and I had lots of apples and you asked whether you would mind if you stole or looted us, I think Jason and I would have responded that you could neither steal or loot the apples, for what we do not need......are for those in need for the eating....

Read another response by Charles Taliaferro

Read another response about Ethics