Is stealing from the rich and giving to the poor morally justifiable?
The moral choice may not always be the best choice. Examples of where both moral and immoral choices were given and the immoral choice were taken, purely because it was a better choice (whether it be economically, socially or environmentally), are littered through history. For example logging viz., where trees are cleared for development, housing etc. but the environment is harmed at the expense of our needs.
As stated by the opponent it is "immoral only if there exist no other options than killing." However, with 21,000 people dying every day due to hunger or hunger related causes (Poverty.com, 2016) is this argument really valid?
Should all of the rich wealth be depleted then perhaps the stance would lean towards the immoral side however, that isn"t happening. The rich will still be rich but the poor will just be less poor. How many superyachts could one person possibly need and how many people could be fed with that money?
Looking forward to you counter argument.
Moral choices are at least good ones, if not better ones.
Trees are requirements for humanity, e.g., for warming their houses. Otherwise some could die of cold. Therefore, cutting trees is not bad if not overused. But after cutting, we have 2 other options; planting and not planting new trees. Planting new ones adequately compensates cutting trees.
Not stealing is not doing nothing. The states can be forced to increase taxes for rich to be delivered to poor. Or the rich can be convinced to willingly help the poor. One has first to try all of such moral ways. There are such rich people that one of them can solve almost all the problems of those who are dying of hunger. If one could convince only some of such people, then the problems could be solved.
Even if one had no other choice but steal, it would still not be morally justifiable, but that person exceptionally may not be wrong.
The rich would argue that by the forcefully increasing taxes they are robbed of their fortune, so in a way, it is still stealing. As it is the super-rich avoid tax by their means.
In this case, the ends do justify the means for poverty would be solved at the little expense of the rich.
Would it be considered moral for someone that has the ability to save 21,000 people's lives and not do anything? No... So if someone stole the money from someone that doesn't need it and effectively solved the issue would it be justified?
How can money be worth more than life?
I suppose the real message in this debate is that more should be done to protect and preserve life, not only of those we can see but those we cannot see as well.
My opponent fails to show that a-there is no any good/neutral way for helping poor or b-stealing is the least bad among bad ways.
Pro objected that 1-rich people would argue that high taxes are robbery & 2-poor people are much more in number than rich ones.
1. Robbery is worse than high taxes.
2. Not all of 3.6B are dying of hunger, as Pro first asserted to prove their claim.
Not saving people from dying when one can is obviously not moral. But it doesn’t follow that stealing is moral. I suggested that one other way could be convincing the rich to help the poor, which was not challenged by Pro.
The fact that huge amounts of money CAN BE collected without stealing for search for life on Mars etc, while people (=LIVING BEINGS) are dying of hunger here, which has less importance than human life, FACTUALLY, EXPERIMENTALLY & OBVIOUSLY PROVES that there are good ways of solving all the problems of the poor without stealing.
Therefore, stealing is immoral!
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|