I would seriously consider doing robberies where I can make more money with less effort, assuming that the risk was fairly low.
You would? Do you think of respecting others, their property and the law as some kind of luxury you could do without if you were sufficiently needy?
We could have a philosophical discussion about free will and the irresistible forces of circumstance, but in order to have a civil society we have to at least pretend that people are responsible for their own actions and will respect the law even if they might not get caught breaking it. And indeed, most poor people aren't thieves.
> Do you think of respecting others, their property and the law as some kind of luxury you could do without if you were sufficiently needy?
In the abstract, no, of course not. I think I do a fairly decent job of living a moral life, and I'd like to think that I would never be forced to consider such a thing.
In practicality, I can empathize with feeling unable to move the needle on the economic ladder, and seeing crime as a mechanism available to me when other mechanisms of earning money have been refused or strongly restricted.
My point is not that crime is acceptable, or moral, or excusable, aside from extreme edge cases - just that the OP presupposes that crime is purely a rational choice all people make when alternatives exist.
So would you seriously consider doing robbery or not? I'm not sure if you're standing by your original claim. If you are, I still don't understand why you think you would. If you're not, what makes you different than the people you assume will?
As for "steal or starve", the USDA threshold for "food insecurity" starts at "reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake."[1] That is a long, long way from starvation.
>So would you seriously consider doing robbery or not?
You seem to think our behavior is entirely rational. Even aside from the free will debate, this is completely untrue. Our behavior is motivated by a combination of unconscious impulses and consciously directed goals. If the unconscious impulses to steal became great enough it would override any rational ideals about property rights and such.
Of course you'll retort that there are millions of poor folks that don't steal so I couldn't possibly be right. Well that's true, but how many of them are kept in line by external factors such as potential jail time, shame, embarrassment, fear, etc? This is the point of society after all--create external motivations for behaviors that are beneficial to the group. All those that don't steal is not an indication that they do it for purely rational reasons.
The point is that asking "would you seriously consider robbery" to someone who is relatively well off is not a meaningful question, just like you saying (from your place of privilege) that you would never consider violating someone else's property rights no matter how destitute you became is a meaningless declaration.
You seem to think our behavior is entirely rational.
Of course not. What I do think is that poverty in the U.S. is not a sufficiently de-rationalizing force to make it likely I would commit violent crimes. Do you think it would have that effect on you?
As I've said, its a matter of degrees. It is meaningless to pretend like there is a hard line of despair that only then would violence be justified.
Yes, I can envision a possible world where I would be prone to steal for food/shelter/etc. I would go out of my way to avoid causing harm as much as possible, but I don't pretend like I'm somehow physically incapable of these things. But no, that world doesn't currently exist in the US: luckily for me I am intelligent enough and educated enough that I would be able to find other avenues for money. Others aren't so lucky.
Also, you seem to think that violence is never the rational choice (assuming you mean stealing as a form of violence). I don't agree with that either.
You would? Do you think of respecting others, their property and the law as some kind of luxury you could do without if you were sufficiently needy?
We could have a philosophical discussion about free will and the irresistible forces of circumstance, but in order to have a civil society we have to at least pretend that people are responsible for their own actions and will respect the law even if they might not get caught breaking it. And indeed, most poor people aren't thieves.