Why not steal money and give it to Africans?

KaneKungFu123 · #1 11-26-2005, 03:12 AM

After you give all your money that you can away to [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]African babies [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], shouldnt you then steal other people's money to [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]SAVE LIVES [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]?

stealing is wrong, but preventing murder/death trumps it bt a mile. you wouldnt use violence and would only steal from people who appear wealthy. for instance, if someone is window shopping in a Prada store, you could rob their purse since they obviously have the money to spare. Its wrong to steal, but worse to allow African babies to die, correct?

ChipWrecked · #2 11-26-2005, 03:38 AM

Then the African babies can bop on down to the mall and score some Mrs. Fields.

You [censored].

KaneKungFu123 · #3 11-26-2005, 04:10 AM

by the way, this isnt suggestive of communism because you are only stealing to give to those who basic needs are not being met. im not suggesting stealing for poor people, only those who will die without your theft.

Darryl_P · #4 11-26-2005, 04:26 AM

My answer is easy...I have complete apathy towards African babies and I lost any guilt about that around the same time I lost my virginity. But I'd be curious to hear answers from people who claim that saving African lives is important, especially if they make that claim while eating a hot fudge sundae with whipped cream and a cherry.

popniklas · #5 11-26-2005, 10:14 AM

Why is saving lives (Africans or others) not important?

Darryl_P · #6 11-26-2005, 12:15 PM

The closer someone is to me geographically, genetically, or spiritually, the more I care about them and the more responsibility I feel towards them. Also, the higher the population of the world, the less empathy I have towards each person. I believe these feelings are perfectly natural and similar for a large number of people, judging from their behavior. Admitting and articulating them is rather uncommon, though. I also believe the world would be a better place if people's words more closely matched their actions and therefore I applaud threads like these which challenge people to do just that.

hmkpoker · #7 11-26-2005, 12:21 PM

I completely agree with this. If 100 starving african children that I didn't know had to be pushed off a cliff to save my little brother's life, I'd toss them in a second.

ChipWrecked · #8 11-26-2005, 01:04 PM

African men refuse to help themselves.

They won't wear condoms, even though it is proven that would help prevent the spread of AIDS in Africa (and they would receive the condoms at no cost). They put tribal warfare above humanitarian concerns. There hasn't been a proper government in Somalia in years.

Until Africans step up and make an effort to help themselves, there isn't much the rest of the world can do for them.

Peter666 · #9 11-26-2005, 02:18 PM

The problem here is that the Prada store or whatever has not contributed to the problem and is in another country. And the problems in Africa are essentially political, not economical. Without changing the governments there, it is pointless to take property that will be wasted.

De Boer's Diamonds and Shell Gas on the other hand should be looted and torched.

Dan Rutter · #10 11-26-2005, 03:59 PM

In a reply why it would be wrong to give all your money to African babies, and then steal from others to give more money I have this to say (and this is assuming African babies would actually be helped from the money). Say that the average American (or person from another developed country) has 50 units of utility. In America this person can survive on 30 units of utility. So, this person has 20 units of utility that they hold that they do not need to survive. How should they use this 20 units?

Now assume the average African (or person from a less developed country, or just a poor person in general) has 10 units of utility, and it takes this person 20 units of utility to survive. So the person who is better off should spend his or her 20 units of extra utility and save two worst off individuals.

This situation would be ideal for the "perfect" world. People who are better off would be able to on average help two worst off people. This is not true for our world though. Our society, and much of the world is dependent on luxary spending. If everyone begins to spend all of their excess, unnecessary utility, on helping the worst off, soon economies will crumble. People will soon be out of jobs because people will stop buying things unnecssary.

So, if you steal from the person who is standing outside the Prada store, and do it over and over again, and give all that money to the poor, soon Prada will not have buisness, because these people who were once wealthy can no longer afford Prada's products (this assumes Prada is just luxary, I have no idea what they sell).

Basically, if everyone keeps just giving all of their excess money, the poor will gain in the short run. In the long run the wealthy will suffer by having the economy go down. Soon businesses who require luxary spending would begin to loose business, and lot of people would be unemployed. Soon any giving that was made to the poor would stop, and the poor would be back to their same situation, if not in a worst one.

That article by Peter Singer I posted a month or two ago relates to this issue. Basically the response I gave above are the reasons he is wrong. I have a little more detatiled response on my other computer, that I did for one of my classes on the article if anyone wants to read it.