360 Degrees: Moral Questions
Whenever my family takes long road trips together, my dad loves bringing up moral questions for a discussion. My favorite, or at least the one that got me thinking the most, was "If your family is dying from starvation, is it morally right for you to steal an ear of corn from a corn field (you can't ask the farmer for one reason or another) to feed them?"
My automatic response was yes, of course. My family comes first to me and if they're dying, of course I'm going to steal one ear of corn from thousands so they can live. But then I have to think, "Is it morally right?" My emotions tell me it's okay, but in the end that's not always what's right. I still believe that doing something to save a life, if it's not taking someone else's, is morally acceptable. If I'm not killing this farmer or his children to save my family, then yes it is okay.
But then I begin thinking, this man spends everyday sowing and watering and growing these ears of corn, is it right for me to take one away from him? He spends a lot of money on those seeds just to grow and sell them. It's what he does for a living; do I have any right to take one away?
And then there's another point. It's just one. He has rows upon rows upon rows of corn, he's not going to miss one measly ear. This ear can save my families life, not just be an extra side dish for a meal. Isn't that a good enough reason to take just one?
So is it right for me to steal an ear of corn to feed my starving family? This farmer puts his life's work and dedication to his field of corn, why should it be morally right for me to steal something from him? Stealing is wrong, no matter what it is. Right?
Maybe not. Maybe saving a life is more important than the act of stealing. The life overrules the stealing. So isn't saving a life more important than all of these things? Yes, this farmer spends a lot of time on his corn, but if I take 1/1000 of it away so my family can live another day, that to me is morally right. My family's, or anyone else's life is more important than this man's minor loss of income.
Nikki-just like you, my immediate answer would have been yes. Of course I would steal for my family. Above all else, my family is the most important thing in my life. However, your blog post helped me see beyond my instinctive response. In the end, I made the same conclusion that you did. One of the terrible things about this world however is that some people are faced with this decision everyday. I wonder if they see this the same way as we do. Another point I wanted to bring up though was what if you have to take it to the next level? What if, in order to save your family, you had to kill a stranger? Could you justify the murder if your family is kept safe? How far over the line of morals would you go?
ReplyDeleteFirst I would like to point out that you posed a very interesting question with many conflicting views. If I were in this situation I would steal the corn, but whether or not it is morally right or not is where I would have to disagree with your idea. In my opinion, it is not morally correct because, although it may be in a time of dire need and desperation, theft is still a morally incorrect act of injustice. The only justification for this act, if any, would be something along the lines of survival of the fittest. Similarly, in response to Dana's comment about whether or not we could justify the murder of a stranger in order to save your family, I believe the answer here should be the same as the one in the corn scenario. Yes, I would commit this horrendous act in order to save my family, but it would not be morally justified, rather, the only justification it could possibly have is that of survival of the fittest: it's either him or my family.
ReplyDeleteAs shown above there are many situations, actual or hypothetical, in which we may try to stretch our morals in order to justify our actions. But, I believe that our morals should be firm and invariable no matter the situation, and that we should have the line of distinction clear before we judge our actions as moral or not. No one will ever agree on what is morally correct, therefore there will always be conflicting judgments on whether an action was morally correct or not, but in terms of judging the action as morally correct, only the action itself should be judged, not the situation.
Nikki,
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of some questions my math substitute asked my class in eighth grade. They were all on the topic of lying, and she asked us, "Is it wrong to lie about..." questions, progressing from horrible lies, to not as bad lies. The last question was, "Is it wrong to lie about taking a cookie from the cookie jar when you weren't supposed to?" You can imagine that a group of eighth graders of course answered with a resounding "no". It's only a cookie, there are a million more cookies in the world, and it's not like anyone is getting hurt.
Isn't that the same idea you had with the corn? Nobody is getting hurt, in fact, you are helping your family, and the farmer would probably never notice. But is it RIGHT?
Seriously, that question kills me. Right against wrong. We commit some wrongs, we're humans, we can't help it, but isn't the point to try to live a good life and do as little wrong as possible. But that cookie just looks so dang good, and you need the corn to live.
Sometimes, I think it's just a judgement call. Will my mom be disappointed when she finds out I lied to her? Yes. And is it worth that cookie? Probably not. But your situation, is more extreme and desperate. And in your case, I agree with you one hundred percent, life is worth much much more than trying not to hurt someones feelings because you took and ear of their corn.
Nikki, this blog post is a very interesting specific example of one of the main moral questions lawmakers, and normal people, face today, albeit in many other forms. Your back and forth about the morality of it (e.g, its only one out of a thousand, but the farmer worked hard for it, but is a life more important, but is stealing so wrong as to never be done, etc...) seems very realistic. In the end, you seem to come to the conclusion that lives, especially those of your family, are more important morally than a unknown farmer's ear of corn.
ReplyDeleteTo begin analyzing this question, one must first determine what morals are being used to determine justification; governmental legislation? Religious doctrine? Personal standards? I believe that the most interesting conversations come from considering the latter of these options. It is, in my opinion, also good to know that any standards of morality come from a base desire to benefit one's self; even something like honor (for example, using Nikki's scenario, while stealing the corn is obviously physically beneficial to Nikki and her family, the sense of dread that comes with stealing may or may not "outweigh" on Nikki's subconscious).
And using these two base definitions, the question, while still infinitely complex, does become somewhat simpler. All in all, does saving the lives of your family and yourself benefit you more than keeping a sense of high moral authority? Most, like Nikki, and myself, would say yes, but in history we have seen notable examples where this is not always the case; for example, seppuku in Japan. Unfortunately, humans cannot look ahead far enough ahead to accurately weigh impacts of their choices, and so much of it does depend on the person involved.
But to make things more interesting; would you allow the death of your family, or, half of the world's population (no-one would know it was you that had suddenly caused a surprise mass death)?