> If you think that is what I said, you did not understand what I wrote.
I cannot think otherwise because you seem to say that stealing is still the only means of survival. I offered what this person could do instead of stealing. Stealing is still not the only solution.
My point, which you still do not seem to understand, is that someone who is starving is not in a frame of mind where you can expect them to be able to calmly and logically go through the available options, weigh them, find the most moral one, and execute on it.
Hence why I asked if you have ever experienced starvation rather than just hunger.
To me the above ranks with the (admittedly apocryphal) "let them eat cake". Technically, yes, he "could" have done many things.
No, hell no. Its not let them eat cake. Its there were other ways to save yourself and not cause pain to others.
Going hungry and starvation are two vastly different things, both physiologically and mentally.
> There was choices made by this person before they hit starve.
And these choices were insufficient to save him. So now what? Do you want him to starve to death because he was unable to fix things? Are property rights for a few euros worth that much to you compared to the well-being of a fellow human?
> Why is visiting a church or other organization unacceptable to you?
If you think that is what I said, you did not understand what I wrote.