Hacker News Reader

Comment by fredsir | Hacker News Reader

Aren't we also breaking in and stealing other, not people, but livings things "stuff" when we mow down their home, destroy their supplies, and then kill them off completely? Is it really a "break in" and "theft" if you are not part of the society that has defined those collective myths? If you are not part of a society that deems that individuals can own stuff, why should you follow those rules? What about when we put upon others our will when we start a war? Is it always wrong to take other peoples possessions or put upon them our will? Is it wrong to take from others that have plenty if you have none? Isn't our modern societies built upon taking stuff that isn't inherently ours, claiming it, and then forcing our will upon those around us, humans and animals alike?

If you are not part of our society, maybe going in and taking our stuff is not as much "break in" and "theft", but just pure and simple survival.

View on HN

You could ask another question.

Should you feel empathy for other people? If the answer is yes then their are a couple of consequences.

Firstly, you should be concerned about the people you take resources from. Not just in terms of money but in terms of emotional impact.

Secondly, we should be concerned about the welfare of starving people in the wilderness. We should have sympathy for them.

Both moral imperatives exist at the same time. And accepting one imperative does not eliminate the other. If you need to steal then you should feel bad about that. And we should care about the dignity of people, even when they do things to harm us.

> Is it always wrong to take other peoples possessions or put upon them our will?

Uh, yes. As far as "wrong" has a meaningful definition, that's wrong.

I presume you are a vegan then

Animals aren't people.

To be clear, they're not people because they're outgroup, not because they're not as smart as us.

Right or wrong is relative.

If you're going to take the "might is right" standpoint then society with it's huge police and military force always wins.

I don't even understand why you need to ask these questions. In the past countries routinely ignored other countries' laws by going to war. Even nowadays China is extraditing Chinese Americans who break Chinese laws even if what they did is completely legal in the US.

I ask because the one I asked seems to believe break ins and theft is anything but collective myths existing only because the individuals in our society believe in them. Outside of society, where nature and war takes place, none of those things exist, and since the hermit was not part of society, it’s not break ins and theft, it’s survival. The only thing not allowing things out there is ethics and morals, if one is capable of such, and that, understandably, seems to crumble when standing in the way of survival.

He didn’t really leave society though because his livelihood was entirely dependent on it, without contributing back.

He just pitched a tent and didn’t talk to anyone for 27 years. He really just claimed his own campground for a long time.

Which is always the case, whoever can physically or persuasively force other to comply always win.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com