Midterm Essay - Part 3/3

This is the Third Post of the Midterm Assignment; make sure you read all three before you start writing anything.

Looting in Katrina

Although I do not have exact figures on this (as far as I can tell from my research, no one does), it is generally believed that the looting which occurred during the catastrophe of Katrina was conducted primarily by individuals of the following one or more social groups: minorities, economically disadvantaged (lower class to abject poverty), and less (or un)educated. As for what was taken by the looters, we can break it roughly into two categories: perishables (e.g., produce) and non-perishables (e.g., electronics). However, the breakdown is not so simple, as natural disasters turn the latter into the former; i.e., necklaces and tvs are not considered perishable until flooding washes the former away and destroys the latter beyond repair. A number of opinions have been expressed on the blog regarding the looters, ranging from (presumably unintentional) racist/classist/elitist condemnation to academic sympathy. I would like to ask you all for an in-depth analysis of how our last four thinkers would regard this incident.

For the sake of clarity, I will reduce the vast number of different possible scenarios by the following criteria:

First, assume for the sake of argument that the looters were members of one or more of the above three categories. That is, although rich white PhDs may have stolen from abandoned stores, that would be a different discussion for a different question.

Second, assume for the sake of argument that the looters acted in the absence of law enforcement. That is, although the laws themselves regarding theft were never officially revoked, you should consider those who would enforce such laws as essentially non-existent. (In this regard, remember that the state of nature is never possible, but rather an abstract theoretical model for those thinkers who utilize it. Thus, those in New Orleans were never in the state of nature, though they were in particularly close proximity to it.)

Third, assume for the sake of argument that the looters stole both of the above types of property: perishables (both foodstuffs and commodities which would have been lost or destroyed due to the natural disaster) and non-perishables (both foodstuffs and commodities which would potentially have survived, but which were abandoned by their owners). To be very clear: we are NOT considering the third option: the looting of houses or businesses outside of the actual or perceived circumference of the disaster. There was no widespread looting around the country by diaspora New Orleaners, so in the event that something like this occurred it would be separate from the social phenomenon of the Katrina looting--and would not even be called looting. Therefore, we are ONLY considering those homes or businesses that were abandoned by their owners for the reason that those owners assumed that their property was no longer safe and would (potentially) be destroyed in the disaster. (Regardless of an individual's hope--or her indignance after the fact--people don't tend to abandon their homes or business unless they assume that all is lost.)

With these things in mind, answer the following questions:

(1) Were the looters legally wrong for stealing both categories of property? Were they morally wrong for stealing both categories of property? Consider the responses of Hobbes, Locke, and Kant.

(2) Regardless of your answer in (1), should one hold them legally or morally responsible for their actions? If not, who is legally or morally responsible for what occurred? Consider the responses of Hobbes and Locke.

(3) What could be done to preclude such an incident in the future? What should be done? Can anything be done, or is this simply inevitable given the circumstances? Consider the responses of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau.

NB: PAY ATTENTION to the three criteria, as the questions are likely more complicated than they may appear, and the criteria are essential to answering them. Three examples: For (1), Locke both says that stealing is bad and that spoil is just as bad. For (3), while I have limited the looters to the aforementioned three categories, these three philosophers may not regard their socio-economic status as relevant or applicable to their actions. However, given that those responsible were so disproportionately represented by these groups, how would the philosophers account for it? For (1-3), before search and rescue operations were considered complete, almost the entire law enforcement presence in New Orleans (over 1500 officers) were ordered to stop search and rescue in order to go after looters. What would the different philosophers say of the Commonwealth when the Sovereign's priorities shift from an individual's life to an individual's property.