Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Blueskyboris · 10-10-2005, 08:26 PM

Online dictionaries dictionary.com and m-w.com define the word "loot" to mean:

Dictionary.com: Primary definition (1): Valuables pillaged in time of war; spoils
Merriam Webster: Primary definition (1): Goods usually of considerable value taken in war.
Dictionary.com: Secondary definition (2): Stolen goods.
Merriam Webster: Secondary definition (2): Something held to resemble goods of value seized in war: as a : something appropriated illegally often by force or violence b : illicit gains by public officials.

Merriam Webster provides an etymology of "loot" as follows: Hindi lut; akin to Sanskrit luntati he plunders and a definition of "plunder" as follows: To take the goods of by force (as in war) :PILLAGE, SACK <invaders plundered the town> b : to take by force or wrongfully : STEAL, LOOT.

Of seven online media companies surveyed, only one, the Canadian Brocasting Corporation, decided not to use word "loot" in relation to destitute, hungry Pakistani citizens in need of food in a clear-cut crisis situation, and then only because they decided not to write about it.

Yahoo! news wrote the following: "Desperate Pakistanis huddled against the cold and some looted [my italics] food stores Monday because aid still had not reached remote areas of Kashmir, where a devastating earthquake flattened villages, cut off power and water, and killed tens of thousands." In this quote, Yahoo! has clearly linked the word "desperate" with "some looted", which can be interpreted two ways: 1) the Pakistanis are so desperate that only a few have give up their self-respect to steal food to survive or 2) a few bad apples "pillaged" and "stole" instead of waiting, diligently, morally, in quiet, hungry desperation. Either interpretation is valid, speaking well to both conservatives and liberals.

CNN was more scientific in its approach... '"There also are reports of looting in Muzaffarabad. "They've lost everything. They have no clothes, no food, nothing," resident Asim Butt told Reuters. "People have started looting things from shops."' ...But still persists in using the word "loot", a word etymologically equivalent, and equivalent in its primary definition, to Genghis Khan's raping and stealing. Genghis, I think it is clear, did not steal out of need. He stole and raped and warred to gain power and to satisfy his greed.

The Globe and Mail wrote more starkly, almost Marxianly: "In the quake-stricken areas, meanwhile, shopkeepers clashed with looters Monday, and hungry families huddled under tents while waiting for relief supplies after Pakistan's worst earthquake razed entire villages and buried roads in rubble." Of the six Media companies surveyed, including the Globe and Mail, not one clearly differentiates between looters who steal for gain and "looters" who "steal" out of need. I think there's a clear difference, and I think a strong argument could be made that "stealing" out of need is not stealing at all (though it is certainly a loss for shopkeepers if not insured by the government).

The BBC, one of my favourite media companies, surprisingly uses the word "loot" haphazardly: "The BBC's Aamer Ahmed Khan in the city says people have become more and more desperate, with supply trucks mobbed and reports of looting at damaged shops and homes." Instead of making a distinction between need-driven "looting" and greed-driven looting, the BBC lumps the two together: "supply trucks mobbed... looting at damaged shops and homes" [my italics]. Looters looting "food stores" are more likely "looting" for food, while people who loot homes are more likely looting for gain, because homes have very little food, while food stores have a lot of food.

IDEA TIME! IDEA TIME!: Western aid should be used to compensate shop owners after a natural disaster! After all, the food is already there, right? Let desperate citizens eat the shopowners' food in times of crisis. This would cut down on organizational and transport slowness that has caused such an international outcry. Also, it would cut down on unneeded damage to shops.

And the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, in its slow drift to the right: 'Looting broke out in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir's capital Muzaffarabad, where the old district was almost totally destroyed by Saturday's 7.6 magnitude earthquake and survivors were desperately short of food, medicine and water. "They've lost everything, they have no clothes, no food, nothing," said resident Asim Butt. "People have started looting things from shops."' :clearly links "looting" to "desperation", which is obviously better than disconnecting the two, but one must ask: Why not jettison the word "loot" and use "took"? Starving villagers desperate for food and supplies are not "stealing" out of want, they are "stealing" out of need.

Finally, Fox News writes: "Desperate Pakistanis huddled against the cold and some looted food stores Monday because aid still had not reached remote areas of Kashmir, where a devastating earthquake flattened villages, cut off power and water, and killed tens of thousands." Fox News editors have clearly linked "looting" with "desperate Pakistanis huddled against the cold" using the all-powerful word "because", but, unfortunately, did not clearly think out out the ethical implications of using the word "loot" in relation to desperate people in need of food. Comparing the actions of Genghis Khan with the actions of earthquake victims is immoral.

Sources:

http://www.theglobeandmail.ca/servle...International/

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/as...sia/index.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/pakistan_...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4327116.stm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171725,00.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...0/s1479064.htm

Blueskyboris · 10-10-2005, 08:28 PM

An amusing aside: Kuwait has pledged 100 million dollars to help Pakistan, while the United States has pledged 50 million.

Blueskyboris · 10-10-2005, 08:57 PM

Google News seems to have sidestepped the issue, while "Newsday" wrote: "Muzaffarabad and nearby Balakot are now half-populated ruins. Their buildings were crushed as though by giant fists, the rubble of their walls spilling out to block what used to be narrow streets. Men in Muzaffarabad clambered through the debris into shattered shops in search of food -- or in some cases, anything of value. Merchants fought back, throwing rocks, and police fired into the air to stop looters."

Alonzo Fyfe · 10-11-2005, 05:00 AM

I find your poll to be ambiguous for a couple of reasons, and as such I cannot answer it.

First, in the reports that you cited, people are taking more than food. Your poll seems to suggest that all looting is the same -- that the person who takes food to survive should be put in the same category as those who take other types of goods.

Second, there is a question of whether the people taking food are taking more than they need to survive, and leaving others with nothing. You do not make any distinctions here.

My position is spelled out in a short piece I wrote called, "The Fine Art of Morally Defensible Looting"

I have no problem calling this looting. However, I argue that in times of need there is a way to go about this that would not be wrong.

Alonzo Fyfe
Atheist Ethicist Blog

Blueskyboris · 10-11-2005, 07:08 PM

Alonzo Fyfe

Quote:

I find your poll to be ambiguous for a couple of reasons, and as such I cannot answer it.

True, polls, by practicality, must be pithy. The second option, in my opinion, is already too long. However, my OP does not claim to exhaust the entire argument on the use of the word "looting" relation to theives and survivors; remember the title the thread: "A Short Analysis..". I assure you, I'm not blind to the fact that looting and "looting" can be intertwined.

Quote:

First, in the reports that you cited, people are taking more than food.

Show me the quote where this distinction is made clear to the reader.

Quote:

Your poll seems to suggest that all looting is the same -- that the person who takes food to survive should be put in the same category as those who take other types of goods.

Those who stumble upon this thread should note: the poll should be read after reading the OP. The poll is secondary. If a reader has not read the OP, the central communication, but has answered the poll, he or she is not reading properly.

Quote:

You do not make any distinctions here.

It's called a "debate-hook", Alonzo Fyle.

Quote:

Second, there is a question of whether the people taking food are taking more than they need to survive, and leaving others with nothing.

Yes, I agree, there's a distinction.

Quote:

My position is spelled out in a short piece I wrote called

K.

Quote:

I have no problem calling this looting. However, I argue that in times of need there is a way to go about this that would not be wrong.

Going to have to disagree here...

Blueskyboris · 10-11-2005, 07:26 PM

From: The Fine Art of Morally Responsible Looting, Alonzo Fyfe

Quote:

However, we then heard that there were shortages of food and water. Some people needed ice to keep insulin supplies cold since the electricity has failed. Others need prescription drugs from pharmacies that were closed as the owners and employees made their way out of town.

Does morality require that these people lay there and die when food and water is just a few feet away? Do we shoot these people as looters?

Obviously no.

Quote:

The people taking clothes and appliances are not people who are fighting for their survival. They are people seeking to make their lives better and who do not care that the lives of others are made worse as a result. They care only about themselves. There is no moral defense for these people, and nothing that I will write should be interpreted as offering any.

Indeed.

Quote:

If possible, you leave a note giving your name, identifying what you took, and identifying any property that you damaged in order to get it, and you leave it in a conspicuous place at the store. However, the obligation to repay the debt does not depend on the owner’s ability to find the note. This is just a way of showing honorable intentions, and not necessarily the only way or even, in some circumstances, the best way.

After the emergency has passed, you visit the store owner and report that you would like to settle your tab. You cover the costs. You, perhaps, offer the owner some compensation for the additional hassle that your actions caused. The issue is then closed.

This system would certainly work for abandoned food stores that have been damaged badly, but would be useless in cases where the owners are still occupying their shops. Some owners would balk at "giving away food", especially when faced with long lines of strangers. Remember, a shopowner's main source of income is his or her inventory, the exahaution of which (with "IOU's") could, with nil savings, result in a broke shopkeeper. Therefore, in times of crisis I think a government-shopowner-cooperation scheme, based on the average selling prices of basic items at the time of the crisis and the shopowner's "possible inventory" in relation to shelf and storage space, would be more effective.

Blueskyboris · 10-11-2005, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Anybody identified as a possible looter should be allowed to defend himself by revealing that he left a note in which he left his name, what he took, and what he damaged along the way. If this is the case, and if the goods he took were necessary, then he should be held liable for those costs only.

This system suffers from a fundamental problem: If the note is lost, the survival-"looter" has no defense and becomes a greed-looter.

Quote:

Anybody who does not do these things so should feel a twinge of guilt and shame the next time a thief or a robber goes to prison, because he is no different and deserves no less for himself. If he reads about somebody standing trial in the community, or sits on a jury with the fate of an accused thief in his hands, he should note that whatever contempt he holds for the thief, he should hold for himself as well, because he is no better. If he hears of a friend who has had something stolen, or if some property of his should be taken from him, the hatred he may feel for those who harmed him or those he cares about is no different than the hatred he deserves for his own actions.

Preaching will not stop authentic looters from looting and will not magically make poor people repay debt.

Quote:

The father’s car won’t start. However, another fisherman has parked his car nearby. The keys are in the ignition, but the owner is not to be seen. The child is dying.

We do not condemn the father for using the car to take his child to the hospital. We should not do so — any caring father would do the same thing. However, we do hold the father responsible for compensating the owner of the car for any loss or inconvenience.

True, but it is understood that the car will likely be returned, because, barring a horrible crash, the car is not consumed. Food, however, is consumed, and when consumed by hungry, poor people sometimes repayment can not be made.

Quote:

So, he breaks in, lights a fire to keep out the chill. He has an obligation to do as little damage as possible to the home, and use only what he needs. He has an obligation to compensate the owners for any cost, and perhaps a little extra.

Again, the cabin situation is different. 1) The cabin can not be consumed like food. 2) The cabin, like the fisherman's car, is not an immediate source of income, whereas the food in the food store might be for the food store owner.

Quote:

One danger with this type of moral permission is that people might use it too liberally.

Assuming that taking food to survive is equal to "stealing" or equal to "looting" is morally indefensible. They are qualitatively different. Therefore, the offensive term "moral permission" (as if all morality is centered around possessions) can be dropped.

Quote:

Furthermore, we can reasonably hold that individuals have an obligation to prevent such an emergency from arising. If the individual’s negligence is a cause of the emergency, he can still be held in moral contempt, not necessarily because he looted to save himself, but because he put himself in a situation where he looting was his only chance of survival.

Quote:

People have an amazing capacity to come up with excuses that will make their wrong actions appear, at least in their own mind, to be right.

If the flood waters were rising on a store of electronics, I would have no problem with saving most of the merchandise for the owner.

Quote:

Perhaps the owner will offer a reward as a way of encouraging others to save his

No, the owner would not have the choice of "offering" a reward. My labour went into saving a majority of his inventory, remember. I would keep a camera, a speaker system, and perhaps an IPOD.

Quote:

Whether he does or not, the property is still his.

WRONG. The equipment would have been destroyed if it wasn't for me. My labour was expended, so I expect a share, a fee.

Quote:

In these rare circumstances, there is a fine art of morally responsible looting.

Nope. The entire semantical power-framework surrounding the word "loot" is confused. Another word, which distinguishes authentic looters from survival-"looters", is needed.

Raza · 10-11-2005, 08:27 PM

I think it's fine, but my perception of the term looting comes from online games, basically coming down to "Taking of items that are you do not possess and are not currently guarded by anyone". To be honest I think that this definition is clearer and more objectively applicable than the ones you cited, which have some odd qualifications like 'valuable' (very relative term) and the idea that it's impossible for anything to be looted unless it is in an official war situation.

The taking of food in situations like this meets the two requirements for my definition of looting.

Blueskyboris · 10-11-2005, 08:33 PM

Quote:

I think it's fine, but my perception of the term looting comes from online games, basically coming down to "Taking of items that are you do not possess and are not currently guarded by anyone". To be honest I think that this definition is clearer and more objectively applicable than the ones you cited, which have some odd qualifications like 'valuable' (very relative term) and the idea that it's impossible for anything to be looted unless it is in an official war situation.

The taking of food in situations like this meets the two requirements for my definition of looting.

It also meets the requirments of "steal".

It's good to realize that words have long-term, primary meanings, and that if words are used without care, they become meaningless, like loot, which can, in common parlance, be equated with "steal". But loot is a specificized form of "steal"; it's a specific type of stealing.

View Poll Results: ...
Another word than "loot" should be used.	9	81.82%
The word "loot" is the right word to use in relation to desperate survivors in seach of food.	2	18.18%
Voters: 11. You may not vote on this poll

10-10-2005, 08:26 PM	#1
Blueskyboris Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Inside a Cheeseburger Posts: 5,374	"Looting": A Short Analysis of the Media's Competence Online dictionaries dictionary.com and m-w.com define the word "loot" to mean: Dictionary.com: Primary definition (1): Valuables pillaged in time of war; spoils Merriam Webster: Primary definition (1): Goods usually of considerable value taken in war. Dictionary.com: Secondary definition (2): Stolen goods. Merriam Webster: Secondary definition (2): Something held to resemble goods of value seized in war: as a : something appropriated illegally often by force or violence b : illicit gains by public officials. Merriam Webster provides an etymology of "loot" as follows: Hindi lut; akin to Sanskrit luntati he plunders and a definition of "plunder" as follows: To take the goods of by force (as in war) :PILLAGE, SACK <invaders plundered the town> b : to take by force or wrongfully : STEAL, LOOT. Of seven online media companies surveyed, only one, the Canadian Brocasting Corporation, decided not to use word "loot" in relation to destitute, hungry Pakistani citizens in need of food in a clear-cut crisis situation, and then only because they decided not to write about it. Yahoo! news wrote the following: "Desperate Pakistanis huddled against the cold and some looted [my italics] food stores Monday because aid still had not reached remote areas of Kashmir, where a devastating earthquake flattened villages, cut off power and water, and killed tens of thousands." In this quote, Yahoo! has clearly linked the word "desperate" with "some looted", which can be interpreted two ways: 1) the Pakistanis are so desperate that only a few have give up their self-respect to steal food to survive or 2) a few bad apples "pillaged" and "stole" instead of waiting, diligently, morally, in quiet, hungry desperation. Either interpretation is valid, speaking well to both conservatives and liberals. CNN was more scientific in its approach... '"There also are reports of looting in Muzaffarabad. "They've lost everything. They have no clothes, no food, nothing," resident Asim Butt told Reuters. "People have started looting things from shops."' ...But still persists in using the word "loot", a word etymologically equivalent, and equivalent in its primary definition, to Genghis Khan's raping and stealing. Genghis, I think it is clear, did not steal out of need. He stole and raped and warred to gain power and to satisfy his greed. The Globe and Mail wrote more starkly, almost Marxianly: "In the quake-stricken areas, meanwhile, shopkeepers clashed with looters Monday, and hungry families huddled under tents while waiting for relief supplies after Pakistan's worst earthquake razed entire villages and buried roads in rubble." Of the six Media companies surveyed, including the Globe and Mail, not one clearly differentiates between looters who steal for gain and "looters" who "steal" out of need. I think there's a clear difference, and I think a strong argument could be made that "stealing" out of need is not stealing at all (though it is certainly a loss for shopkeepers if not insured by the government). The BBC, one of my favourite media companies, surprisingly uses the word "loot" haphazardly: "The BBC's Aamer Ahmed Khan in the city says people have become more and more desperate, with supply trucks mobbed and reports of looting at damaged shops and homes." Instead of making a distinction between need-driven "looting" and greed-driven looting, the BBC lumps the two together: "supply trucks mobbed... looting at damaged shops and homes" [my italics]. Looters looting "food stores" are more likely "looting" for food, while people who loot homes are more likely looting for gain, because homes have very little food, while food stores have a lot of food. IDEA TIME! IDEA TIME!: Western aid should be used to compensate shop owners after a natural disaster! After all, the food is already there, right? Let desperate citizens eat the shopowners' food in times of crisis. This would cut down on organizational and transport slowness that has caused such an international outcry. Also, it would cut down on unneeded damage to shops. And the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, in its slow drift to the right: 'Looting broke out in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir's capital Muzaffarabad, where the old district was almost totally destroyed by Saturday's 7.6 magnitude earthquake and survivors were desperately short of food, medicine and water. "They've lost everything, they have no clothes, no food, nothing," said resident Asim Butt. "People have started looting things from shops."' :clearly links "looting" to "desperation", which is obviously better than disconnecting the two, but one must ask: Why not jettison the word "loot" and use "took"? Starving villagers desperate for food and supplies are not "stealing" out of want, they are "stealing" out of need. Finally, Fox News writes: "Desperate Pakistanis huddled against the cold and some looted food stores Monday because aid still had not reached remote areas of Kashmir, where a devastating earthquake flattened villages, cut off power and water, and killed tens of thousands." Fox News editors have clearly linked "looting" with "desperate Pakistanis huddled against the cold" using the all-powerful word "because", but, unfortunately, did not clearly think out out the ethical implications of using the word "loot" in relation to desperate people in need of food. Comparing the actions of Genghis Khan with the actions of earthquake victims is immoral. Sources: http://www.theglobeandmail.ca/servle...International/ http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/as...sia/index.html http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/pakistan_...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4327116.stm http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171725,00.html http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...0/s1479064.htm

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-10-2005, 08:28 PM	#2
Blueskyboris Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Inside a Cheeseburger Posts: 5,374	An amusing aside: Kuwait has pledged 100 million dollars to help Pakistan, while the United States has pledged 50 million.

10-10-2005, 08:57 PM	#3
Blueskyboris Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Inside a Cheeseburger Posts: 5,374	Google News seems to have sidestepped the issue, while "Newsday" wrote: "Muzaffarabad and nearby Balakot are now half-populated ruins. Their buildings were crushed as though by giant fists, the rubble of their walls spilling out to block what used to be narrow streets. Men in Muzaffarabad clambered through the debris into shattered shops in search of food -- or in some cases, anything of value. Merchants fought back, throwing rocks, and police fired into the air to stop looters."

10-11-2005, 05:00 AM	#4
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	I find your poll to be ambiguous for a couple of reasons, and as such I cannot answer it. First, in the reports that you cited, people are taking more than food. Your poll seems to suggest that all looting is the same -- that the person who takes food to survive should be put in the same category as those who take other types of goods. Second, there is a question of whether the people taking food are taking more than they need to survive, and leaving others with nothing. You do not make any distinctions here. My position is spelled out in a short piece I wrote called, "The Fine Art of Morally Defensible Looting" I have no problem calling this looting. However, I argue that in times of need there is a way to go about this that would not be wrong. Alonzo Fyfe Atheist Ethicist Blog

10-11-2005, 08:27 PM	#8
Raza Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 1,358	I think it's fine, but my perception of the term looting comes from online games, basically coming down to "Taking of items that are you do not possess and are not currently guarded by anyone". To be honest I think that this definition is clearer and more objectively applicable than the ones you cited, which have some odd qualifications like 'valuable' (very relative term) and the idea that it's impossible for anything to be looted unless it is in an official war situation. The taking of food in situations like this meets the two requirements for my definition of looting.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.