Okay, first, I think you're confusing moral relativity and the question of whether the ends justify the means. It isn't an issue of whether it is better to steal or let people die. The issue is whether or not a good act in and of itself justifies having committed a bad act in and of itself.
A "bad act" is a single event which is not moral. Stealing in and of itself is a bad act. Killing in and of itself is a bad act.
You didn't answe r my questions. Is there a morally superior alternative to breaking the window and using the equibment to save to people? If not how can the most moral thing to do in a situation be morally wrong? Isn't morality supposed to be a guide to how you "should" act? We're not talking abouttwo seperate acts, the saving of lives is conditional apun the "theft".
Eating and eating puppies in and of itself is a bad act.
Careful, your cultural prejudice are showing, eating puppies are bad, but I doubt you have the same reluctance to eat pork.
Second, where on Earth can you get a car window replaced for less than $100
Or 200$, not really the central issue here. personally I'm inclined to consider
several human lives worth damages of 1000$, perhaps even 2000$.
What? Seriously?!? It's morally okay for the poor to steal because the rich can afford it?
That's an elegant little straw man poor=/starving, at least not by western standards of poverty, but if you are starving and the theft, taking all derived effects, etc. etc. doesn't lead anybody else to suffer a comparable loss then it is justified.
Sure thing:
That's a very definitive "yes" you have there. Not a conditional "usually", "mostly", or even "sometimes". If that is not what you meant to say, I apologize. If I could read your mind, I would've taken Randi's challenge money long before now.
There was no need to qualify with ussualy. That qualification is inherent in the phrase "the ends justify the means". The link you yourself post later says:
"The ends justify the means" is a phrase encompassing two beliefs:
1. Morally wrong actions are sometimes necessary to achieve morally right outcomes.
2. Actions can only be considered morally right or wrong by virtue of the morallity of the outcome."
Note the "sometimes" in the first definition? Good, as for the second if I murder 10.000 people to achieve a momentary feeling of satisfaction then the outcome is 10.000 dead and my momentary satisfaction, hardly a desirable end. For your information I subscribe to utilitarian ethics.
But whether it is right for you to face consequences is a moral question.
True, then, if the US does not have a stature that legalizes "theft" to save lives, I'd consider it perfectly acceptable for you to escape the scene once the ambulance had arrived, in order to avoid the consequences of making the morally correct choice, in a country with such a morally deficient legal code. Incidentially if the US does have a stature that allows for "theft" under those circumstances do you you think that would a an unjust law?
Well, I was just joking. However, in light of your above statement that it is morally justifiable for the poor to steal from those who can afford it, help me figure out where the analogy breaks down:
It breaks down, because the thieves did not in fact steal to help starving people, they stole for personal gain.
If you have a large starving family, are you it justified to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?
I already answered that question once, my answer hasn't changed in the last 12 hours.
