All over the world there are people starving and dying because poverty is keeping their basic needs just out of reach. Conversely, the world is filled with people who have the money and the means to help end poverty; however, too many of these people are not philanthropists. For those of us who would like to help poverty but are not as able as the wealthy, it can be frustrating to witness this type of greed. When rich people ignore their own moral obligations to charity, it may fall upon people with a “Robin Hood” mentality to redistribute a portion of their wealth. If stealing is the only practical way to help starving, homeless children, can it really be considered immoral? To better explain this issue, I have designed my own pond-type thought experiment.
Imagine that you are standing near a pond when you suddenly see a young child drowning in the water. Unfortunately, you do not know how to swim. The only other person present is a lifeguard. He is holding a life preserver and has noticed the drowning boy. He is not reacting to the drowning child
…show more content…
I believe that the same thing is true for philanthropy. Stealing money from a wealthy, selfish person to save the life of an impoverished person is morally permissible. Imagine now that a woman is watching her child die from a curable illness. The only thing that is preventing her child from getting the necessary medication is the parent’s financial situation. In this case, it would be morally permissible for the mother to steal either the medication itself or the money to pay for it. Knowing that most people would steal to save their child, it is difficult to argue that it is wrong to steal in order to save another person’s child from death. It is for this reason that it is sometimes moral to steal money in order to give it to