In the seventies, I became aware of a little topic of discussion in grade schools regarding morals, or more precisely, personal ethics. We can discuss what the difference is but that's not the topic of this post.

The question asked to be discussed was, "Is it right for a person who is starving to steal a loaf of bread from a bakery store to keep from starving?" It's a dumb question but my immediate thought was, "No. It is not right." But why is it a dumb question?

Firstly, there is a bakery with goods in it supplying a necessity to the community. It is obviously not a time of destitution. Granted times may be tough, if someone is starving. But the question outlines nothing of the situation other than those basic facts. It seems to me that a bakery offering goods for sale is not an indicator of rough economic times for everyone. Instead of stealing the loaf of bread could the man not have offered some service, like sweep the floor, or something in exchange for the loaf of bread? Could he have humbled himself and begged for compassion if there were no service he could perform?

Secondly, a stolen loaf of bread is a loaf of bread that someone else may be deprived of and he may end up in the same state of starvation. As mentioned before, a bakery with goods for sale tells me it isn't that difficult to get baked goods.

Thirdly, that loaf of bread is a part of the baker's ability to keep from starviong. He has to re-invest some of his revenues back into the business, to buy supplies, flour, etc., to bake tomorrow's bread for the community. His compassion may depend upon whether he can afford to do that or not.
,
Fourthly, how did the man get into that situation? Was it some random act of nature that created his destitution? In that case, any compassionate community, would certainly come to the aid of their fellow citizen. If he was irresponsible and just gambled away his money then it is he who is responsible to restore some of his dignity and self-respect. Stealing a loaf of bread will only do further damage.

Should the person just starve and die? It wouldn't happen. Depending upon the upholding of the law or the circumstances of the time, a loaf of bread may be considered a very valuable thing. If scarcity is prevalent, should a loaf of bread be as valuable as another person's life? That would be very desperate times, indeed. One thing is certain, the baker is not going to want his goods stolen. If it were in times of abundance perhaps he would just shake his fist at the thief and be annoyed.

Anyway, a person has to maintain his self-respect, his dignity plus his character, as others see him. If he doesn't he is signing his own death warrant and may as well die.

As a bit of an outline on the difference between mores and ethics, as I see it. Mores are rules of thumb in a society as to how to behave correctly. People will behave differently in times of abundance as compared to times of scarcity. Mores and ethics can change depending upon circumstance and the times. It was once thought to be moral to sacrifice virgins in order to appease the gods and so they would provide a bountiful harvest that year for the society. Ethics are a personal standard of the individual's concept of right and wrong. He might think it right to sacrifice a virgin in exchange for a bountiful harvest. But it wasn't his decision. It is the collective idea of what's right. You can bet that the closer the relationship of the individual to the person being sacrificed, the harder it is to accept this as being moral. You would have to find where the idea came from, probably some high priest, and then prove it accomplished nothing for the society to abandon the annual sacrifice. He would have to have a sense of ethics that the life of any individual was sacred to stand up to that.

I think I may abandon my personal sense of ethics, of what is right and wrong, if I had to but that would be unfortunate. I maintain my ethical standards as much as I can but I am a fallible human.