Stealing from the Rich

QUESTION:

Hello Elliot

My name is Alexandra and I am an undergrad student. I was posed with a philosophical question and was wondering if you could help me out. The question is: Would it be morally acceptable to steal food from a wealthy agricultural corporation if your intentions were to give it to the poor?

My question on this is what would Aristotle say to this question? I understand his theory on the Doctrine of the Means but does that apply here because both are evenly matched. Or what other means would he use to answer this question?

Thank you.

Alexandra

MY RESPONSE:

Alexandra,

The question you raise is very interesting, especially because any intelligent answer to it would largely depend on context. Aristotle's ethics is situational, which means that what is good and right in one context may not be in another.

Also, care should be taken not to confuse Aristotle's situation ethics with other ethical theories that base morality purely on consequences and not also on motive. Indeed, if it could be shown that stealing food from an agricultural corporation to feed the poor would maximize overall welfare in the long-run by saving thousands of starving people, then some ethical theories, notably those called utilitarian, would countenance it. However, Aristotle was not a utilitarian.

For Aristotle, such an act could still be imprudent, that is, practically unwise, even if it could reasonably be expected to maximize overall welfare (that is, the balance of welfare for all affected). According to Aristotle, prudent acts are ones in which the agent deliberates well about morally acceptable means to attaining morally acceptable ends. However, a problem with stealing food from the corporation is that, even if the end is noble (namely feeding the poor), the means of attaining it may not be. This is because it could be unjust. Stealing the corporation's produce could take what the corporation had (presumptively) earned only to distribute it to others who did not earn it. If justice requires giving each what is rightfully his or her due (as Aristotle would maintain), then this cannot be a just distribution. On the other hand, if the company created jobs and allowed the poor to work for money to purchase food, then, assuming just working conditions and compensation, this would be a just arrangement.

Now, if the corporation had obtained its wealth by robbing the poor, then there could be distributive justice in simply giving the money back to the poor. However, stealing it back might not be a prudent means inasmuch as it could open the floodgates for lawlessness, which can be very dangerous for everyone. On the other hand, government intervention to regulate the unethical practices of corporations could be a prudent means of settling the problem insofar as government was itself a lawful organization that did not align itself with the businesses it was supposed to regulate. Here lies a problem with the quid pro quo relation ("You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours") that exists today between behemoth corporations and the federal government.

In the case of a lawless or unjust society where giant corporations along with their government cronies are exploiting the poor (and/or the middle class) in order to amass great power and wealth, it could take courage to stand up to the corporate and government establishment to attain justice. In such a case, there would be more sense to saying that "stealing" from the wealthy and the powerful could be a virtuous response from Aristotle's point of view.

With home foreclosures and unemployment rates as high as they are, amid flourishing corporate profits and rumblings about "class warfare," has America today reached, or is it moving toward, this extreme state of disregard for justice?

You decide.

Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D.

If you have an ethical question you would like me to consider, post a comment or drop me an email at elliotdcohen2@gmail.com