Does he have a valid point?

[Skybird]

Make your vote in the poll above, explain in the thread, if you want.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/8425420.stm

The key part is this:

"I do not offer such advice because I think that stealing is a good thing, or because I think it is harmless, for it is neither.

"I would ask that they do not steal from small, family businesses, but from national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices.

"When people are released from prison, or find themselves suddenly without work or family support, then to leave them for weeks and weeks with inadequate or clumsy social support is monumental, catastrophic folly.
"We create a situation which leaves some people little option but crime."

Speaking later on BBC Radio York, Father Jones said his intention had not been to rally people to shoplifting, but to encourage people to give more to charity to avoid those in need from becoming so desperate.

"If one has exhausted every legal opportunity to get money and you're still in a desperate situation it is a better moral thing to do to take absolutely no more than you need for no longer than you need," he said.

I say he has a point.

[SteamWake]

Who is 'he' might want to add that little piece of info

[Skybird]

Being that evil atheist and anti-religious basterd that I am, the phrase "Father Jones" doesn't pass my lips that easy - you see my problem?

Yes.
I've always held that nature's law of survival trumps man's law.

[Sailor Steve]

I voted 'Yes', but with serious reservations. This brings up the old right-wing argument from the sixties strongly condemning 'Situational Ethics'. The argument then was "wrong is wrong", and you are never justified in doing wrong. Of course the minor versions of that argument sprang up immediately. You should never lie, but "does this dress make me look fat?"

I like to say "I don't lie. I don't steal. I don't cheat. But if my childrens' lives, safety or welfare were on the line I would cheerfully do all of the above."

So I voted yes, in spite of myself.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

Yes.
I've always held that nature's law of survival trumps man's law.

+1

At the end of the day, all the rules in civilization cannot suppress the instinct for self-preservation. As it has always been, as it will always be unless by some miracle everyone on Earth gets everything they want.

[Skybird]

@ Oberon,

Isn't this less about what people want but what they need?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

@ Oberon,

Isn't this less about what people want but what they need?

True, although getting people to define what they need is tricky. Some people would argue that they need a 42 inch plasma TV, whereas another more realistic person would argue that they need food in their belly.
It's the fine line between need and greed which is blurred by a few people.

Originally Posted by Oberon

True, although getting people to define what they need is tricky. Some people would argue that they need a 42 inch plasma TV, whereas another more realistic person would argue that they need food in their belly.
It's the fine line between need and greed which is blurred by a few people.

So true. People should always ask themselves: Do I want it, or do I need it?
In some cases they would be quite surprised by the answer.

F.eks.: No. You do not NEED a cigaret. You WANT a cigaret.

[Skybird]

True. But I do not think that these are the standards describing the situaion that priest has had on his mind. I take it as grnated that he means simple realities like food when the stomach is burning, water when you are thirsty, warmth when the snow is falling, and shelter from the elements.

There must be a line that separates the need from luxury, yes. Cigarettes is luxury. But what about that guy you have seen on the streets, he smells ten meters against the wind, all his possessions in two plastic bags - and the little dog by his feet, staying with him in unshakable loyalty? That dog does nothing to secure his material survival. But do you have the heart to take that dog away from him because it needs food, too - maybe the only being on earth that cares for this man anymore, and to whom he has a caring, loving relation?

Man does not live by bread alone.

Originally Posted by Skybird

That dog does nothing to secure his material survival.

Here, even you, might be very surprised.

[Skybird]

Ah, I get what you mean. Okay. However, i think you got my point, too. Watch some of the old Chaplin movies, if you don't.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Ah, I get what you mean. Okay. However, i think you got my point, too. Watch some of the old Chaplin movies, if you don't.

No conflict here. No movies neccesary.

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

True, although getting people to define what they need is tricky. Some people would argue that they need a 42 inch plasma TV, whereas another more realistic person would argue that they need food in their belly.
It's the fine line between need and greed which is blurred by a few people.

People can claim they "need" all sorts of things but they're usually wrong.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Man does not live by bread alone.

This is true, for a man without circuses as well as bread is merely existing. Hence the comfort that the dog to the man on the street provides, as well as a useful source of heartstring tugging to those who are fond of animals. That man needs that dog, however, let us move from the streets to the classroom. I don't know what it was like when other members of the forum were at school, but when I was there it was all about fashions and technology, if you did not have the latest items you were ostracized and referred to in all manner of derogatory terms. Hence why many parents who are able to, work themselves ragged securing the latest items for their offspring, so that they are able to better fit in with society.
Now, in regards to the psychological well being of the young, is their latest fashion item a need or a luxury?
In the strictest sense it is a luxury, I survived school with the minimalist of the latest 'in' things, and the higher up the school system you went (in my experience anyway) the less emphasis was placed on such things as the people around you matured, but there was still a certain time when life was emotionally difficult, compounded perhaps by the emotional changes of young adulthood. But does any parent want their child to suffer bullying at school? Of course not, every parent wants their child to be popular and successful (even if the two are rarely mutally inclusive these days) therefore in a less strict sense it is a need, an essential thing that parents who are able to (and sometimes those who are not and possess a credit card) strive to meet so that their child or children can interact with their fellows on the same social level.
Of course, past schoolhood the need is reduced although there is still a social emphasis on 'Bigger, better, faster', particularly in computing and vehicles, but again, this is a luxury, not a need as by this time in life, there is less of a need for material objects to fit in at a social level (with the exception of some social levels).
A seperate thing to consider on a different tangent is that whether the arrival of the internet has helped to quell the need to change oneself to fit in with a society, as more and more like-minded people congregate online, like here, for example. However, in a forced social interaction such as school, I guess the effects are somewhat limited.
I'm rambling again....