Parish priest argues rationally for shoplifting

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/4813866.Full_transcript_of_the_sermon_given_by_Father_Tim_Jones

by nkurz • 17 years ago

12 51 17 years ago

yorkpress.co.uk

javert12• 17 years ago

His argument was certainly not rational.

nkurz2• 17 years ago

How so? I take a pretty dim view of most organized religion, and found this to be one of the more rational sermons I have read or heard.

He suggests that in a dire situation, stealing from the shelves of a major chain store is a less evil alternative than violent crime or prostitution.

The obvious flaw in his argument would pointing out that this is a false dilemma, that there are many other alternatives. But for the example of the recently released prisoner he cites, I'm not sure which obvious ones he's failing to consider. I'm not pro-shoplifting, but given his scenario it seems better than robbery.

pmorici3• 17 years ago

"I'm not sure which obvious ones he's failing to consider."

Soup kitchen?

hugh_4• 17 years ago

But for the example of the recently released prisoner he cites, I'm not sure which obvious ones he's failing to consider.

Begging and dying would seem to both be more morally acceptable than stealing.

javert12• 17 years ago

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

(1) No argumnet based on religion (that is, faith) can also be based on reason. Most of his sermon is about religion. It revolves around religion. Thus, it cannot be considered (as a whole) to be rational.

(2) I think it would be rational to say stealing from a major chain store is less evil than violent crime, and possibly prostitution. But it's not rational to encourage people to steal. As you point out, most of the time, there are more choices than those presented--it's a false dilemma. There may be some cases in which steadling is the best option. However, the theif would certainly have a moral obligation to repay the store when he could, and that is not mentioned here.

(Really, we need a basis for both 'rationality' and 'morality' to have this discussion, which can be had, but not in the space of a comment.)

teamonkey• 17 years ago

It was, I think.

Having exhausted every legal avenue, what is the most moral (socially-acceptable/least-harm) illegal option you need to do in order to keep alive?

His answer: steal the bare minimum required from places where you will do the least damage to individuals, i.e. large supermarkets where the cost is spread thinly over many people.

It sounds like the sort of thing you could model with game theory if you wanted to "prove" it.

nandemo• 17 years ago

Having exhausted every legal avenue, what is the most moral (socially-acceptable/least-harm) illegal option you need to do in order to keep alive?

This is a fair summary of a very twisted argument.

He's talking about very poor Brits, and his audience are supposedly the not-so-poor British.

Now, UK has an extensive welfare system. How many people come even close to starving to death there?

And assuming his audience is composed of mainly middle-class people, why doesn't he simply ask them to donate to the poor? He claims that "the hard reality is that a vicar's salary is not designed to meet the needs of everyone", but somehow it doesn't occur to him that he's not the only one who could donate.

How come shoplifting is better than begging? The passages below

One might tell them to get a job, but it is at the very best of times extremely difficult for an ex prisoner to find work

the likelihood is that, found begging, they will quickly be in trouble with the police, and therefore in breach of their parole.

made me suspect this was an elaborate satire.

I also wonder if the shoplifting suggestion also applies to poor people without a conviction history.

javert12• 17 years ago

(This comment is a copy of a comment I made in response to a similar reply to my comment...)

(Really, we need a basis for both 'rationality' and 'morality' to have this discussion, which can be had, but not in the space of a comment.)

jpr• 17 years ago

Neither was yours.

anigbrowl3• 17 years ago

Eponysterical *

* Entertainingly ironic, given the poster's username

astine8• 17 years ago

I noticed that too, but wasn't sure if I should bring it up.

anigbrowl3• 17 years ago

It's a lot more rational than rational than paroling an experienced criminal back into society without the most basic means of economic support.

While in prison, convicts typically work but the costs of their incarceration are set against their earnings, such that the amount they make is trivial, basically equivalent to pocket money for a child. Now while I don't think anyone should expect to go to prison for financial gain, society has an interest in motivating a convicted criminal to act within the law after their release. For petty and less serious crimes, providing some sort of economic incentive and organizational assistance following release from prison is probably more likely to reduce recidivism.

I mean, in prison you have a roof over your head and a few meals every day - your physical basic survival is assured. In the case described in the sermon, a newly-released prisoner is then put into a position of trying to reintegrate into society with the equivalent of about 2 days' pay at minimum wage, which is not at all adequate to ensure basic physical survival, especially in winter. No matter how sincere a prisoner's remorse and intention of reform, putting them into a drastically worse economic situation immediately after release massively increases the temptation to crime - either for its immediate gain, or as a deliberate strategy to get sent back to prison and the surety of a bed/ roof/ meal.

selven• 17 years ago

We don't just kick them out without basic economic support. Especially for some classes of criminals, like sex offenders, we put a large sign on their back saying "I'M DANGEROUS". We ostracize them from society and make them feel like they don't belong. So it's only natural for them to want to go back to prison, where their troubles are the same as the troubles of the guy next to them and where they feel like they do belong.

astine8• 17 years ago

This shouldn't shock anyone. It has long been the position of the RC Church that property rights are secondary compared to the right to live.

hugh_4• 17 years ago

Indeed. Christianity, as a religion, is designed to appeal to folks at the low end of society, so it's not too surprising. Nietzsche goes on about this kind of thing a lot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_morality

pmorici3• 17 years ago

Is there a religion that doesn't?

CapitalistCartr• 17 years ago

The RC Church may claim that, but its hardly apparent. Through most of its history, it's been entirely willing to take the lives of those that disagreed with it, or whose possessions it wanted. As for property rights, it's one of the wealthiest organizations on Earth, with vast property holdings. Enough to pay out several billions to take care of pedophile scandals, without straining the coffers.

astine8• 17 years ago

I'm confused as to what you are trying to accomplish. I was pointing out that this particular priest's position shouldn't surprise anyone as it's already largely offcsial teaching by his church. I was not making an argument for, or against the position. Even if I were, your comment is an ad-hominem attack which is hardly convincing one way or the other.

tptacek2• 17 years ago

Let my words not be misrepresented as a simplistic call for people to shoplift. The observation that shoplifting is the best option that some people are left with is a grim indictment of who we are. Rather, this is a call for our society no longer to treat its most vulnerable people with indifference and contempt.

nwatson• 17 years ago

In "Les Miserables" a poor and needy Jean Valjean steals a loaf of bread to feed his family and that one act haunts him for a long time, even after he becomes a very wealthy man.

For an interesting contrast, see this article about those who shoplift out of compulsion or thrillseeking: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/28/nyregion/shoplifting-life-...

javert12• 17 years ago

Props for the literature reference, that's a great book.

I think Jean Valjean was right to steal the bread, if that was the only way his family could survive for that day. But rarely do we meet a criminal who can honestly say, as Jean Valjean could, that he honestly did everything in his power to live honestly and morally. I also think JV's punishment was much too harsh, given his particular circumstances.

But, when people break the law, justice to those they have harmed still must be done. That is the purpose of the law, and the law is not mocked.

hugh_4• 17 years ago

The observation that shoplifting is the best option that some people are left with is a grim indictment of who we are.

Britain is already a welfare state. How much more welfare-y does he want it to be?

Also, doesn't "caring for the truly needy" fall into the Church's mission statement? If a starving person comes to a priest, shouldn't the priest share his own food rather than telling him to go steal from someone else?

javert12• 17 years ago

Agreed. Certainly the Church has not exhausted its resources feeding the poor, and it should do so before it resorts to encouraging them to steal.

tptacek2• 17 years ago

Yes.

briancooley• 17 years ago

It's not exactly suggesting that the Irish eat their children, but it's an interesting take nonetheless.

ratsbane2• 17 years ago

That's how I read it - a Swiftian proposal to make more fortunate people think what it would be like to be in a situation (e.g. 100 pounds to live on for six weeks) where shoplifting is the best option. At least, it made me think about that.

Parish priest argues rationally for shoplifting

Related Stories