September 18. 2008 03:41

This is an excellent and thought-provoking post, Lisey. I would have to say, though, that Theft (when used as you have) is too small a term for what you mean. If you say, "Theft" is the most evil thing on earth, as opposed to say, Coercion, then people are going to nit-pick you to death on smallish actions that entail taking someone else's property....from the theft of the corporate employee who takes a pen, to the theft of someone else's time if one is habitually and willfully late to everything, to the theft of life for someone using birth control, etc. It's too broad a stroke and too nebulous. However, it is fundamentally sound as a philosophical argument, I believe....just not accurate on its face. One would have to really dig deeper, as you have in your post.

Theft is also a morally neutral term in some respects....people can take something that isn't theirs unknowingly...and this would not be described by anyone as Evil.

Cyn

September 18. 2008 04:51

Only if willfully withholding of our substance from those in need is also considered stealing.

We sanctify our greed by bandying about the holy principle of property rights, and trumpet that insidious idea that what a person has is "theirs" forever until they dispense it willingly. We so easily forget that we truly own nothing more than our own will; everything else is God's to take when He chooses.

Government tries to play the role of God and we holler at the injustice. Some of us holler just as much when God plays the role of God and demands us to give of our time, energy, and resources.

Letting the widow, childless, beggar or invalid go hungry when we have and to spare is very much a sin.

Tertium Quid

September 18. 2008 07:15

Tertium, it is a sin to let the widow, childless, beggar or invalid go hundry when we have and to spare, as you say, but it's not the height of Evil, as I would define evil. It is not what the Lord would do...but is it on the par with genocide, or torture for the fun of it, or child rape? I don't think so--strictly from a utilitarian point of view.

What happens when there are billions of poor, hungry, widowed, orphaned people and a few million who have a little bit. Your argument would fall through the floor, I think. But I've been wrong about you before.

Cyn

September 18. 2008 07:16

YIKES, another typo:

HUNGRY, not HUNDRY!

Sorry.

Cyn

September 18. 2008 09:49

You ladies have both alluded to it, but I think it bears amplification that the severity of a sin is only tangentially related to its consequences, or even intended consequences. What matters is the debasement of the sinner's soul required to see the act through. Here's a rather melodramatic example:

Imagine someone sneaking into a widow's house and stealing what little they have to buy a fancy new car, and the now-destitute widow starves.

Imagine a destitute widow I could have helped that starves while I buy a new car because I don't like the color of the one I have.

How much better am I than the thief? Both of us want nice things with money that could be feeding her. Neither of us needs to be malicious to do what we do, merely selfish. Which is the worse sinner?

I am mindful that the purpose of life is not to avoid physical discomfort or even an untimely death. Poverty isn't the worst thing ever, damnation is. We're here on earth to see what we'll do with a little power. Perhaps the passive sinner isn't as bad - he doesn't really realize how powerful he is in his ability to help others. Still, how much should our willful ignorance protect our souls from the cankers of wealth? According to Luke 12, not very much.

More and more I believe Nibley's perspective: that the purpose of wealth is to give it away. Contrast that with so many good Latter-day Saints who believe Jacob 2:18-19 means that if they keep the commandments God will make them richer than their neighbors. I have fallen into this trap myself, and as I type this I think about how much I am fallen sway under the vanity and selfishness the world preaches.

As for the billions languishing in poverty - the fact that we can't help them all doesn't excuse us from doing our best to help a few.

...now I'm trying to think of how many words in the language end in -undry. I can't think of any but laundry, foundry and sundry.

Tertium Quid