Why do you think that's something developed countries have very very little of? Where do you gather the data because I imagine people do all kinds of things out of desperation and because it's necessary that otherwise would be inexcusable despite their social status or any distinctions of unreal, fake or faux vs real necessity, and while it's less likely that people die from hunger in a developed country, people in Africa don't really worry of dying from exposure in their own home because their gas or electric was shut off. People in Africa don't need good shoes or they lose their toes to frostbite.
You seem to think savagery is a a distinction that can be made by you as an outside observer but IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE FUCK YOU SAY, pardon my french, Because it was never up for anyone to make that distinction of anyone else and it actually mean anything more than "cool story bro, you know I was there too and he was savaging with new shoes" aka opinion.
Needs, like needing good shoes or a warm place during the winter aren't up for debate or ever matters of opinion but a matter of surviving or life vs morbidity or death. Mild savagey or complete savagery doesn't matter, even being self conscious or not doesn't mean anything, all that matters is if it was necessary, or better, if they thought it necessary or otherwise considered it so.
Posted using Partiko Android
Do you think that people in poor countries don't have needs as well, don't also live in hostile environments, and even though they may not have winter in Africa, they may have other problems such as water shortages?
The difference is that people from developed countries got used to living on the state, subsidies, or the charity of others. They became dependents. How is it possible that someone, come into adulthood, does not have a shelter to protect themselves in winter if it is a cyclical event?
In poor countries this does not happen. That returning to the objective of the publication, is because they don't have such concepts as unemployment.
Of course it is up to us, to the "outside observers", to make such a distinction, and although you tried to contradict me, you gave me the reason to give, also, your opinion.
Only in a state of unconsciousness in which man can't discern between the good and the evil of his actions, is he justified, because he was incapable of doing anything else, but at the moment in which any person believes that he can subjectively decide when his "needs" are more important than those of others, then the whole society begins to collapse.
By the way you forget that those who steal for "needs" end up leaving other people unable to meet their needs. And I would bet every time that those who need more are the second and not the first.
If I, guiding myself through extortion, agreed to do wrong to others for "my needs," then I would become the same as the extortionist, and continue the cycle of aggression. Putting others also, who have nothing to do, in similar situations.
Is that justified? As a thief stole me years ago, I am "enabled" to rob other people?
Don't think I'm talking about judges and courts, if I were talking about the state, then again we should admit that most people in the world are free, because they have freedom guaranteed by law, or that everyone is democratic, simply because based on the law, only a handful of countries declare themselves non-democratic.
Of course we are all human, and we make mistakes, and we would probably do immoral action because of extortion, I will not even discuss that. But the case you are raising is truly exceptional, and it does not really represent the issue we are dealing with, because it would be misleading to classify an act out of extortion in the same way as an act out of necessity.