|
|
Post by Areopagite on Sept 6, 2005 12:18:10 GMT -5
I would be interested to hear from all the humanists out there (assuming people are still checking the boards) regarding the recent looting in New Orleans in the wake of Katrina. I would be very interested in seeing someone defend man's innate goodness while ignoring man's obvious depravity and sinfulness. Oh, and I don't want to hear "human survival" in the context of stealing food. Computers and TV aren't neccesities.
|
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Sept 8, 2005 6:58:58 GMT -5
I would be interested to hear from all the humanists out there (assuming people are still checking the boards) regarding the recent looting in New Orleans in the wake of Katrina. I would be very interested in seeing someone defend man's innate goodness while ignoring man's obvious depravity and sinfulness. Oh, and I don't want to hear "human survival" in the context of stealing food. Computers and TV aren't neccesities. I quite agree. Taking food, water, medical supplies etc. from shops and such is understandable but looting for stuff that has nothing to do with survival is deplorable. Man has no innate goodness or badness. These things are formed as a result of the way we react to events in our lives, and the 'goodness' and 'badness' of a person is judged in relation to circumstance and society's prevalent opinion of what they mean. I'm as much of a product of society as anyone else, which is why I judge taking 'essentials' - something that would be unacceptable in non-critical circumstances - as being okay, but the taking of non-essentials as being 'bad'. |
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Nov 21, 2005 18:04:16 GMT -5
Well, personally I think it's a point of contention whether or not looting TVs is really that much of an evil thing. Sure, it's stealing, but in the wake of a natural disaster it's not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. All the violence, rapes and murder that happened is a different matter, I think (especially in the Superdome - God damn).
Looting from stores isn't as personal a crime as that other stuff. In a way I think it could even be seen as a victimless crime, really, as the stock would probably get damaged in the storm anyway if it wasn't taken. Shop-theft laws and other such societal rules go out the window in times of chaos.
Also, stealing TVs and stuff could still be seen as an act of survival, as most of the people probably lost everything they had and could have seen stealing valuable electronic equipment as an opportunity to have something of value they could sell later to get back on their feet after the hurricane. I'd sure do it for that reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Dec 5, 2005 23:51:19 GMT -5
Statements like that make it clear to me why the third world hates us
Looting from stores certainly is personal. This is simply bad logic. How can you justify stealing with the possibility that it might get destoryed? I was in New Orleans, and while some of the stores were completly gutted, some were only partially.
Another thing to keep in mind is the way the insurance complany handles this. Flood and wind insurance is not going to cover a stolen TV.
I'm sure it is easy to justify the wrongs of others when it does not affect you personally, but try asking the owners of the stores how they feel about their things being stolen. I am sure they are not as accepting as you are. Besides this, what does it say about our society as a whole when a disaster strikes and it is suddenly okay for us to break the law and wrong other people for the sake of something so trivial?
|
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Dec 6, 2005 5:04:13 GMT -5
I really just think that the looting pales in comparison to the other crimes I mentioned and, as you said, some of the stores were totally gutted so it often really didn't matter in the end. I can fully understand people looting from shops in the midst of such social chaos and urgency of financial need.
|
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Dec 6, 2005 18:58:18 GMT -5
Shiggy, there are several problems with your argument. You keep coming back to this "the stock would probably get damaged in the storm anyway if it wasn't taken." argument. This is an interesting ethical stance. Since something could happen, we should go ahead and cause it to happen... This type of ethic has serious flaws. All people will die, therefore we should kill (perhaps a little extreme, but the point is made).
Also, the problem with your argument is that its not looting before the storm being discussed, really, since if you can recall, the looting of TVs, etc. occured after the storm. So the whole concept of "well the items would probably be destroyed..." is ridiculous. What was being stolen was stuff that had survived the storm.
Lastly, your claim that it is a victimless crime is quite wrong. It is certainly less personable than another crime such as rape, murder, etc., but this does not make it victimless. The store owner, for example, is still hurt by the theft. Also, if stealing is victimless, which seems to be the requirement that you've made for criminal behavior (it must have a victim), then there is no reason why I shouldn't rob a local store. How can we say that "white collar" crime is wrong then?
I think Joel is right in pointing out the rest of the world. I really don't think that they would consider a TV or computer a neccesity. I think they would laugh at the suggestion.
|
|
