An Example of In-depth Analysis
In our discussion of “deadly sins,” we mentioned
stealing as one of the negative responses to greed or envy. Let’s now
follow up on stealing in greater detail, and see whether or not we can
rule it to be an absolute vice. Clearly it works to the thief’s
benefit, at least in the short term and if he isn’t caught. But no less
clearly, stealing harms the interests of the victim, the true owner of
the stolen item. So, we must again consider a broader scope than a
single individual. Most societies nowadays—even those based on a
largely collective politic—admit to concepts of personal possession and
property. One is entitled to claim certain items as his own by right of
having earned them, or by having received them from someone who
voluntarily donated them as gifts. And one is entitled to some form of
compensation for a possession which he relinquishes to another.
Society’s structure is based and reinforced in part on rights of
ownership. These are incentives to work and earn, and thus to become
able to acquire possessions. If society devolves to a state at which
possessions may be taken from anyone without compensation, then the
incentive to work and earn is eroded correspondingly, and the society
becomes both less stable and less productive. Stealing disrupts the
normal flow of money and goods in two ways. First, it deprives the
victim of the fruits of his own labor. Second, the thief takes
a shortcut past the social obligation to produce something of value in
order to receive compensation for the productive labor involved.
Despite that the thief might put a great deal of work into planning and
executing the theft, this work produces nothing of value to anyone
else. It thus doesn’t count as a legitimate contribution to the
economic cycle of production and consumption. It doesn’t add to the
aggregate wealth of society, but rather depletes it. Theft is a
parasitic practice that simply takes from the benefits that society
provides without giving back anything in return, and thus unfairly
diminishes the amount of benefits that society can offer to those who
are productive. Since stealing harms society—and thus its individual
members—we can see that it’s harmful to human well-being, and thus is to be
avoided as a rule.
Still, there might be situations in which stealing
is justified. Suppose a severe economic recession has been dragging on
for a year or two, putting us and all of our friends out of work through
no fault of our own. Our unemployment benefits have been exhausted. We
can’t borrow from our friends, because they’re in the same financial
fix. When we go to the local charity pantry, we find that donations
have dried up and the shelves are bare. And panhandling on the street
corner yields only a rebuke from the local beat cop. In this case, we
might find it justifiable to steal a few items of food from a store in
order to keep our family from starving. So, although stealing is
generally a bad thing to do, in some cases it might be necessary in
order to stave off some greater harm. And our moral liability might be
forgiven altogether if we arrange to pay the grocer back once we’re back
to work. It’s the proverbial case, when there are no good options
available, of choosing the least of the available evils.
We can likewise analyze the beneficial or harmful
effects of many behaviors and attitudes: ambition or laziness,
conformity or individuality, creativity or destructiveness, conservation
or exploitation, faith or curiosity, learning or ignorance, modesty or
extravagance, and countless others. After investigating all angles of
each, including some aspects that might not immediately spring to our
attention, we’d probably agree on many issues, such as honesty and
industriousness, but might reach conflicting conclusions about piety and
faith, depending on our existing beliefs, and thus on our underlying
ideas of what constitutes human well-being. Some differences are to be
expected. While we’re all human and all social creatures with similar
survival instincts, we’re also individuals with unique personalities,
backgrounds, and preferences.
As we’ve just seen, analysis of the effects of behavior
under unusual circumstances needn’t be a protracted or tedious process.
It's a problem-solving activity, demanding a willingness to set aside
preconceived notions, and to explore other possibilities in some detail
with a critical mind. It should be something for we’ve developed the
skill to handle expediently when the occasion arises. If we were to
practice long enough, we might be able to find at least one justifiable
exception to almost any general rule. However, this isn’t our
objective. The purpose is not to become expert at breaking rules, but
only to learn to recognize and deal with ethical conflicts in compliance
with a well justified core value. In most actual cases, we won’t have
to dream up exceptions; they’ll present themselves to us, and we’ll
simply have to select whatever available option involves the least moral
hazard. Life surprises us once in a while, and we need to know how to
improvise constructively when that happens.
However, making exceptions to generally good rules should
not become a routine occurrence. If it does, that should signal to us
that an adjustment is in order, which probably means either that our
standards are unrealistically strict, or that our adherence to them is
too lax. Or else that we desperately need a vacation.
Next:
Simplifying the Process