>>514127929
The core issue lies in the arbitrariness of the criteria used to justify such actions. It is totally arbitrary that people could be allowed to steal to avoid "imminent" death because "imminent" is arbitrary. What constitutes imminence—a week, a month, or a decade? Without a clear, non-subjective threshold, any extension of life could be rationalized as necessary, eroding the foundational principle of property rights and personal responsibility. That's why no one should ever be able to steal even someone who is broke thin and starving to death.

This logic extends beyond individual theft to broader societal implications, particularly regarding charitable obligations. There are charities like the Against Malaria Foundation which can save the life of one extra very very young child for less than ten thousand dollars each, with at least a 100 million dollar funding gap. If it is justified to steal from the "rich" to give to the poor who will otherwise die if they don't receive food, supplements, mosquito nets, etc., then every even slightly wealthy middle class person would deserve to have all their disposable income stolen and given to effective altruist charities like this.

if someone tries to steal from me I'm morally justified in killing or enslaving them

if someone tries to steal from me I'm morally justified in killing or enslaving them

Starving poor people are not justified in stealing food and should starve to death rather than steal food from others even if the people they are stealing from have millions of tons of non perishable food. Allowing people who are "about to die" if they don't steal is a slippery slope and creates arbitrary boundaries that emerge when we permit theft under the guise of "necessity". Nobody "needs" anything everything is a want.

Everyone dies eventually. There are lots of things which can extend our lifespans, from food to advanced medical interventions and expensive mega dosed supplements, but extending life at the expense of others' rights raises profound ethical dilemmas. For instance, if a starving poor person is justified in stealing food from a rich man with lots of food so the poor person can die in a few years or decades instead of a few weeks(from starvation) , then why aren't lower middle class people who can afford enough food rent etc but can't afford lots of expensive longevity supplements and treatments justified in stealing lots of Bryan Johnson-type longevity supplements? Such theft would allow them to age slightly slower, die at maybe 94 instead of 83, and enjoy their youth a bit longer. This parallel highlights the inconsistency: both scenarios involve prolonging life, yet one is often excused (starving poor person stealing food) while the other is not.

if someone tries to steal from me I'm morally justified in killing or enslaving them

Starving poor people are not justified in stealing food and should starve to death rather than steal food from others even if the people they are stealing from have millions of tons of non perishable food. Allowing people who are "about to die" if they don't steal is a slippery slope and creates arbitrary boundaries that emerge when we permit theft under the guise of "necessity". Nobody "needs" anything everything is a want.

Everyone dies eventually. There are lots of things which can extend our lifespans, from food to advanced medical interventions and expensive mega dosed supplements, but extending life at the expense of others' rights raises profound ethical dilemmas. For instance, if a starving poor person is justified in stealing food from a rich man with lots of food so the poor person can die in a few years or decades instead of a few weeks(from starvation) , then why aren't lower middle class people who can afford enough food rent etc but can't afford lots of expensive longevity supplements and treatments justified in stealing lots of Bryan Johnson-type longevity supplements? Such theft would allow them to age slightly slower, die at maybe 94 instead of 83, and enjoy their youth a bit longer. This parallel highlights the inconsistency: both scenarios involve prolonging life, yet one is often excused (starving poor person stealing food) while the other is not.