tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3133078502277941061.post5580120558793968865..comments2023-07-18T08:00:22.009-05:00Comments on Steinblog: Utilitarianism and the Justification of Harm Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3133078502277941061.post-39754452669419305962016-07-22T11:39:13.656-05:002016-07-22T11:39:13.656-05:00Hi Tim,
I do agree with you that the utilitarian ...Hi Tim,<br /><br />I do agree with you that the utilitarian is inconsistent if he is fine with the government "taxing" someone to help the homeless and poor but not alright with the homeless person taking the money directly, aka stealing. However, I do think the facts lie in the consequences and this is a classic case to think of Robin Hood. Within Robin Hood, the sheriff takes any money he can find from the villagers to give to the King, describing the money as taxes. Rather than these taxes being used to help the poor, they are solely for the King's pleasure. In this case, I think that Robin Hood's stealing to give to the poor ought to be morally justified because the Sheriff and King are not acting moral towards the villagers. I think that the case of the homeless person stealing can be tricky because many homeless people do not proactively participate in Government programs such as soup kitchens and shelters and, while not the case all the time, people may steal extra money for excess goods besides the basics needed for survival. Therefore, I think that if the government is giving the taxed money to the homeless person and he is stealing money he is committing an immoral act, yet if he is not receiving any government help and he steals from someone who is not being taxed it is more acceptable. This also touches on the uneven wealth distribution in our society which is a whole other topic to discuss. Hannah Blumnoreply@blogger.com