Imagine you have children. You have no money, no food, and the food bank is closed. You could steal food from a large supermarket — the kind that writes off millions in food waste annually. No one will go hungry as a result of your theft; the supermarket will not even notice. You would steal just enough to feed your family tonight. Do you?
Tap to vote — results revealed after

Question

Imagine you have children. You have no money, no food, and the food bank is closed. You could steal food from a large supermarket — the kind that writes off millions in food waste annually. No one will go hungry as a result of your theft; the supermarket will not even notice. You would steal just enough to feed your family tonight. Do you?

Tap to vote — results revealed after

Accepted Answer

82% chose "Yes — survival overrides property law" and 18% chose "No — there must be another way; stealing is still wrong". This is one of the most fundamental challenges to property rights in ethics. Locke and Kant both believed property rights were foundational — but even Locke included the 'proviso' that you could acquire only what you needed and didn't leave others without enough. Thomas Aquinas argued that in cases of extreme necessity, taking what you need to survive was not theft at all, because no moral system could legitimately deny a person the means to live.

Stealing to survive

Keep exploring