I believe this sort of action is addressed specifically in Catholic doctrine, reasoning that life is more valuable than property, and is not regarded as stealing. I will check my notes from my Sunday School class on the Ten Words a few years ago to see where that is.
Seems to me he could fairly assume that the owners of the premises would consent if he could find them in time to ask them. He should be ready to pay for anything he broke or consumed, even while hoping he wouldn't be asked to.
I'd hate to find out that someone died in a natural disaster because they were reluctant to break my windows in my absence and seek shelter in my home. I'd like them to assume the consent that any decent person would give if he had the chance. (I remember Grim saying once he could live with killing someone to prevent his doing something Grim would rather die than do.)
That doesn't mean they should take my TV with them when they go, or that they should expect me to support them for life because that would be more convenient. We're talking about an emergency, and easily replaceable consumption, not casually stripping someone's store to the bones and driving them out of business.
Emergency circumstances flip prohibitions to requirements. We may be required (by law or custom or faith in the teachings of Highest Authority) to lie or kill or break things... The ancient Hebrews even outlined circumstances in which a man was REQUIRED to have sex with his brother's wife. ( -a- The brother had to have recently died; -b- the brother had to have, during life, sired no sons, and probably -c- other details which now elude my recollection) Unlike "loopholes" arising from conflicts of interpretation of overlapping rules, these are anticipated circumstances when saving lives and keeping the tribe -or all of civilization- intact require us to act abnormally. Exigent circumstances.
I'm pretty sure that gluing your hands to a Renaissance painting in efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions does not fall under these rubrics.
7 comments:
Well done.
I believe this sort of action is addressed specifically in Catholic doctrine, reasoning that life is more valuable than property, and is not regarded as stealing. I will check my notes from my Sunday School class on the Ten Words a few years ago to see where that is.
Seems to me he could fairly assume that the owners of the premises would consent if he could find them in time to ask them. He should be ready to pay for anything he broke or consumed, even while hoping he wouldn't be asked to.
I'd hate to find out that someone died in a natural disaster because they were reluctant to break my windows in my absence and seek shelter in my home. I'd like them to assume the consent that any decent person would give if he had the chance. (I remember Grim saying once he could live with killing someone to prevent his doing something Grim would rather die than do.)
That doesn't mean they should take my TV with them when they go, or that they should expect me to support them for life because that would be more convenient. We're talking about an emergency, and easily replaceable consumption, not casually stripping someone's store to the bones and driving them out of business.
I did say that.
https://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2008/03/finding-home.html
There are some fools out there who STILL don't believe in guardian angels....
There is a word parallel to emergency -- exigent.
Emergency circumstances flip prohibitions to requirements. We may be required (by law or custom or faith in the teachings of Highest Authority) to lie or kill or break things... The ancient Hebrews even outlined circumstances in which a man was REQUIRED to have sex with his brother's wife. ( -a- The brother had to have recently died; -b- the brother had to have, during life, sired no sons, and probably -c- other details which now elude my recollection)
Unlike "loopholes" arising from conflicts of interpretation of overlapping rules, these are anticipated circumstances when saving lives and keeping the tribe -or all of civilization- intact require us to act abnormally. Exigent circumstances.
I'm pretty sure that gluing your hands to a Renaissance painting in efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions does not fall under these rubrics.
Well done indeed.
Grim, I recall that post fairly often, it really stuck with me, as apparently also with Tex.
Post a Comment