Is it ethical to make enough food to feed everyone but then throw it away just because of capitalism?
Flippanarchy
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
Because ethics don't exist as far as the ones hoarding bread in this scenario are concerned.
And because you following ethics is directly beneficial for them. As long as you act 'ethically', they remain at the top and nothing can be done about it.
The reason is because these questions are often aimed at dirt poor people, not at the rich. The rich are, despite being rich, often the single most stingy, thieving bunch in existence. If you leave a bowl of candy for everyone to take from, a few might take more than their share... but the rich will want to grab massive handfuls.
The rich will take the bowl, candy and all.
Then complain about the quality of the candy. And the bowl.
And the candy will rot in their mansion as they peddle far-right conspiracy theories on Twitter.
I saw some Scrooge McDuck cartoons from the 60s that had him talk about money in a realistic way. Saying that a billion dollars is an unfathomable number, and how money must be constantly circulating otherwise problems will happen.
Even a duck tales cartoon had Scrooge lose his entire fortune so he decided to start from scratch again... And then realized that the world he was able to start his fortune in is no longer there and he cannot succeed again even if he did exactly what he did prior.
On top of that, the existence of his Lucky Dime and how his luck changes dramatically if he loses it is also an acknowledgement of the importance of luck.
That is because Scrooge wasn't written bij actual rich people. So of course he knows nuance.
Because one of these has a clear answer
I they both have clear answers, but they're obscured by which class you're in. Rich? Obviously it's not wrong to hoard. Poor? Obviously you need to eat to survive. Because of this bias, the argument for poor's needing to steal will always be the debate, always leaving room for the rich to argue against it and justify punishment for people who find ways to make ends meet.
But whom are you stealing it from? If its another poor starving family suddenly its not so clear anymore. If its the hoarding rich guy go the fuck ahead, steal it even if you aren't starving
This is the argument I have issue with. The truth is that the hypothetical isn't grounded in reality.
Hypothetically, if one stole from another within the same class out of necessity, it's impossible for any person to assign or deny the morality of the act.
The reality is there exists such an abundance of material needs, so much so that we have landfills for when we overproduce material needs that are not profitable. The hypothetical serves to divide the poor.
That is reality when you look at the entire earth, but seen from an individuals point that hardly matters. You may also just replace bread with a resource that is actually scarce.
On the other hand, us debating this topic at all proves my original point, nobody felt like debating the other question at all.
This is it.
Because ethics questions love focusing on individual choices, not the systems causing the problem in the first place.
It is never unethical to steal food. It is unethical to stop someone from stealing food, or report someone for stealing food, or to arrest someone for stealing food.
Edit: ITT, sociopaths thinking their rationalizations for denying food to people are moral. It is NEVER unethical to steal food, got it? If someone is stealing food, it's because they're hungry, and they can't afford it. If you question that, you're just an asshole.
"Never" and "always" are very difficult to use in a philosophical argument.
I can come up with a single ridiculous example that refutes a statement that uses such absolutes, once done the argument falls apart.
"I'm going to the supermarket to steal food so I can save up for a new iphone. I could just steal the iPhone, but that could be unethical, so I'll steal the food instead cause that is ALWAYS ethical."
This is such a silly discussion...
I'll going to steal food from a homeless person, they are too weak to fight back, ethically I'm fine, it is NEVER unethical to steal food.
It is never unethical to steal food.
Stealing food from someone else that doesn't have enough food.
People stealing from food banks and then throwing it away are pretty unethical in my book.
You are being too categorical. The capitalists are stealing food to hoard it, which is unethical.
What if you have enough food and are stealing it from some who doesnt have enough?
Because in our (western) society, boldness and greed are universally honored to the point that corporations are generally seen as a means to enrich their owner rather than society as a whole. If you can afford it, and it's not explicitly outlawed, it's ethically right.
As if 80% of western philosophy was written by well off people who sometimes owned slaves.
80% of western education is administered by partisan apparatchiks fulfilling an ideological mandate for their paymasters.
Western philosophy is absolutely dripping with revolutionary, abolitionist, and outright communist/anarchist sentiments. You simply aren't allowed to distribute it anywhere on a high school campus.
we should be making sure no one goes hungry. but the answer to op's question is that the second hypothetical isn't interesting (obviously it's not ethical to hoard bread) and ethical questions are made to spark debate
This actually highlights an important distinction in meta ethics (ethics about how to determine ethics). There is a divide amongst philosophers of what makes sense in pure analytical logic, and what makes sense in contextual reasoning. This divide is also shown to come up in "continental" vs "English speaking" philosophies. The two approach how to examine not just ethics, but truth overall in very different ways. I personally am of the belief that there needs to be an integration of these two in order for ethics to properly work, but to summarize this already too long Lemmy comment into one idea: fuck hoarding value of any kind.
Is it ethical to hoard land when families would willingly farm that land to grow food for themselves? Same question with housing - I am capable of building a small structure to live in perfectly happily but its illegal. Not a builder so the best I could do would likely just be a bit better than van living, but I could do it if it wasn't illegal.
Systematically answering "Is hoarding bread unethical" with "No" should result in the other questions being irrelevant.
Bread should be free. We already have enough for everyone. No one has to starve anymore, scarcity is a LIE.
Read a recent poll that said 63% of U.S. adults believe that extreme wealth is not a moral issue. Only 18% think it's morally wrong. Sad. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2026/03/19/appendix-detailed-tables-us-morality/
For a serious answer, because ethics is concerned with self. You already know the answer to the second question and will very likely never be in that situation. You do not know the answer to the first and have a much higher likelihood of being in that situation.
Because it’s easier to question the desperate than the powerful… flips the whole perspective when you think about it.
The actual answer is that in western culture, it's generally taken as a given that stealing is wrong. It's in the 10 commandments.
"Hoarding" doesn't hold the same position in western mythos.
Applying pressure to an assumed moral certainty (thou shalt not steal) is fundamentally interesting. Applying pressure to a position where people don't hold culturally ethical baggage (hoarding) is much less so.
Bible does state quite clearly that rich people don't go to heaven. Mark 10:25 which is cleverly ignored by most people.
Also greed is one of seven deadly sins, althougj deadly sins are not a biblical thing but invented few hundred years after by early christians.