The choice of feeding a starving child with stolen food hardly seems like a matter to question. Accordingly to modern law, stealing is illegal. Stealing has been illegal since the beginning of time. It is even in the Bible that thou shalt not steal. However, there are differing opinions on whether it is morally acceptable to steal food, even if to feed a starving child. For the purposes of this assignment, I have reviewed the ethical positions of three ethical philosophers to determine what their course of action would be if they were presented with the task of stealing food to feed a hungry child. The three ethicists chosen are Lao-Tzu, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Paulo Freire.
Lao-Tzu is an ethical relativist. He supports the philosophy that what is deemed moral is dependent upon the society in which the moral issue presents itself. As the old adage goes…when in Rome, do as the Romans do. So, if an act follows the standards of the community, then it is moral. If the act does not follow the standards of the community, then it can deemed as immoral. What this philosophy also means is that the morality of an act can vary from person to person based on where they come from and can change over time. …show more content…
Freire is one who believes that open discourse and imparting knowledge to those seeking knowledge or in need of knowledge is the key to moral behavior. It develops and encourages morality. Freire argued that change could come through a process of dialogue and reflection leading on to change through action or intervention and or political change (Philosophy, n.d.). His viewpoint of a starving child certainly differs from that of Nietzsche. Freire respects those who are less fortunate and does not hold to the same beliefs of power ethics and Darwinism. He believes in working together through learning and equality, as opposed to the idea of someone being better than the
Lao-Tzu is an ethical relativist. He supports the philosophy that what is deemed moral is dependent upon the society in which the moral issue presents itself. As the old adage goes…when in Rome, do as the Romans do. So, if an act follows the standards of the community, then it is moral. If the act does not follow the standards of the community, then it can deemed as immoral. What this philosophy also means is that the morality of an act can vary from person to person based on where they come from and can change over time. …show more content…
Freire is one who believes that open discourse and imparting knowledge to those seeking knowledge or in need of knowledge is the key to moral behavior. It develops and encourages morality. Freire argued that change could come through a process of dialogue and reflection leading on to change through action or intervention and or political change (Philosophy, n.d.). His viewpoint of a starving child certainly differs from that of Nietzsche. Freire respects those who are less fortunate and does not hold to the same beliefs of power ethics and Darwinism. He believes in working together through learning and equality, as opposed to the idea of someone being better than the