[Hypothetical] Do The Right Thing or Do What is Necessary?

Seconded.

 

You suck as provider if you couldn't sacrifice pride in order to take care of your family.

 

No, you cannot do that. You cannot morally do that which could result in the deaths of yourself and your family. What if there was a person standing inside the store when you go in with the bag, and you say 'I found this bag outside,' and then guy says 'Oh hey thanks, I must have dropped it. Thanks, bro!' Then takes the bag and leaves with it.

And you have a starved-to-death family.

No you take it straight home immediately.

 

Why steal groceries? Isn't that what the food bank is for?

Besides, how do you know that you're not stealing from someone whose family is even worse off than you?

Also, when all you need to eat in America is $1.50 for a loaf of bread and $1.00 for a can of beans, nobody should be starving.

 

You'd think "do the right thing". But for people who's families are actually starving - those people think completely differently. They'd take the food home. The stakes are higher. Their family is starving, man, c'mon. Their kid is starving and the person that left the food got in a Range Rover for all they know.

There's probably nobody posting on CF.net qualified to answer the question correctly. Y'all cant think like someone in that situation.

 

No no, I mean, the actual person who lost it is in there right then - you are actually returning it to the person who lost it. He's not stealing it, it was actually his.

So you did the 'right thing', you returned it, he says 'Thanks' and goes on about his business.

And you haz a dead starved family.

Question: Did you really mean 'starving' - ie on the verge of death? Or did you just mean, 'They's hungry!'?

Because that is a different situation.

If you really just meant 'They's really hungry!' then you are still obligated to operate within the social contract, and a moral person would return the lost items. You would then simply have to find some other legal and moral way to solve the situation with your hungry family.

Until such time as you LITERALLY have no other options.. then you are within your rights to step outside the social contract to solve the problem - and in fact you are morally obligated to do so.

This is why it matters: literally starving or just really hungry?

 

I found $50 on a table in the park where I regularly play basketball. It was in a money clip. I left my name and number for anyone to call. If they could accurately describe the clip and the amount, I would've met them at the park and return it to them. Nobody did after a week, and my card was left untouched, so I kept it and was $50 richer.

I'd always do the right thing because I know I would like someone to do it for me if the situation were reversed.

 

"Right" is such a vague term, as morality is completely relative.

I voted necessary based on the situation because the best, or "Most Right," thing I could do is feed my family and if no other options existed, I would do that.

 

If I'm reading this hypothetical right (and that's a big "if"), you're asking if I found a bag of food on the street would I feed it to my starving family or take it to the lost and found at the nearest grocery store ("food market store")...?

Where's the moral quandary there?

 

if the food will spoil, then take it and eat it. otherwise, the food will be returned and just go to waste. no one is going to come around to claim food in the lost and found. besides, they didn't even lose it in the store but lost it in the street near the store. the chances are low of someone coming back around to claim it. meanwhile, your family is starving because you're trying to do the right thing. if it were a high dollar item or a lot of money, then that's different. but, a singular bag of some food. if it had a high dollar value, then I would return it. otherwise, dinner is served. why would food just be in a bag on the street anyway? was someone kidnapped? it makes no sense.

 

Absolutely incorrect. It may be a subject of much debate through the centuries, but to say it is 'completely relative' is essentially to imply that it does not exist at all.

Your final conclusion, however, is right.

 

Bag of groceries and my family is starving? Yeah, I'm taking it.

 

Maybe the great being in charge e of karma said, "I'm going to make sure a cart of food is left right here for a needy person that has been good and is in need of some help"

 

Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

This was also very painful to read. Who puts a receipt inside food?

There was a receipt you found inside of food inside of a store which simultaneously was in a street past a parking lot?

 

It would be a far bigger crime to let your family starve and die than it is to steal food. If we're talking about morals sometimes you just have to choose the lesser evil.

 

Or someone else might claim it and take it to the food instead...hypothetically

 

Judge much? You know everyone's situation? Come on. Have you ever been in that situation? You, personally, that you don't have one red cent to your name, and have had to do whatever it takes to feed your family.