Stealing Food (Case #2)

Name:
Instructor’s name:
Course:
Date:
Case 2: Stealing Food
Facts of the Case
Katia and her family are starving in the house because they cannot get access to food. Her town is under siege during wartime. To save herself and her family from starvation, Katia breaks into another person’s house in search of food. She finds the food and steals it.
Context, History, and Background of the Case
According to Thiroux and Krasemann “larceny is the felonious taking and removing of another’s personal property with the intent of permanently depriving the owner” (277). Besides property, stealing also applies to inventions, ideas, and other individual creations. Theft is considered as one of the least acceptable and most significant moral violations that a person can engage in. Stealing does not directly violate “Value of Life” principle, however, it violates “Truth Telling and Honesty”, Justice and Fairness”, and “Rightness” principles. Stealing may also be considered as a violation of the principle of “Individual Freedom” because it gives a perpetrator an unjustified freedom but denies victims of violation their freedom.
Questions and Answers
Is Katia justified to steal in this instance? In her situation, Katia is justified to steal. Why? Bombing and putting under siege the town in which Katia lives has created a “crucial emergency situation” (Thiroux and Krasemann 297). Food is scarce in the town and businesses are closed. Katia has only two choices. She can either steal for herself and her family or let her family starve to death.

According to “Human life is more important…than property rights, and stealing, when more important issues such as preserving human life are at stake, is morally justified” (Thiroux and Krasemann 297) Therefore, in the dilemma that Katia and her family were in, stealing is justifiable.
Would there be a difference if it were hard though peaceful times, and Katia couldn’t buy food due to lack of a job? Yes, it would make a difference. Why? During peacetime, despite hard times and the inability of Katia to get a job and earn money to buy food, there is no crucial emergency situation. There are possibilities of her getting a job or receiving aid from other people within the town who are doing well. In conclusion, Katia is not justified to still unless it is an emergency situation.
Proposed Solutions and Why They are Better Than Others
First, to prevent and end stealing of food, the government should supply food and water to the town and encourage victims to stock and use them responsibly. Bombing and putting a town under siege cuts its food supplies since no businesses. Supplying the victims with food will prevent and stop them from stealing due to necessity. This proposed solution would cover emergency cases of the food crisis.
Second, the government should stop the siege and allow for free inflow and outflow of goods and services. The people will be able to run businesses, and the town can get back on its feet. Food supplies will be increased and therefore, there will be reduced cases of food theft. This proposed solution would cover long-term food problems and reduce food theft for decades.
Recommendation On How People Associated With The Case Should Act
Individuals who are faced with food shortages should borrow or seek food aid where possible rather than steal. Finding food help or borrowing of food is legal, unlike stealing which is illegal. Food can be convicted and therefore, to avoid court charges, individuals should seek food aid or borrow it from those around them not unless there is human life at stake, in which they are allowed to steal.
Work Cited
Thiroux, Jacques P., Keith Krasemann. Ethics: Theory and Practice, 10th Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions, December, 2008.