The moral dilemma is the father's obligation to feed the family and duty not to steal. Here he is faced with two actions, but he cannot do both. Using deontological ethics that involves a variety of actions including those that are morally required as well as the prohibited, the obligation of the father to feed his family overrides prohibition of stealing. When the utilitarian approach is used, the agent is expected to take the action that produces the greatest to many people (Evans, 2007). In this case, stealing would cause less harm compared to harm that it would have caused if the family is left to starve. Also, the virtue of ethics perspective argues that the action taken must build a character producing virtues such as justice, prudence, and fortitude.
Although the action of a father may seem morally justified the legal implications, societal norms and values and expectations would not allow it. Personally, the father may suffer imprisonment because stealing is a crime punishable by the law. Nobody will understand that he was stealing to save his family from starvation. Many times petty issues such as stealing a loaf of bread are subjected to heavier punishment than serious crimes. Additionally, the family will suffer because they will lose their breadwinner. The family is probably poor and so bailing him out maybe difficult. The family may become more vulnerable to starvation (Evans, 2007).
On the other hand, allowing the man to steal for his family will have negative impacts on the community and the society at large. Crime is a crime whether big or small and so allowing one will compromise the situation. It will encourage other more serious crimes because people will use it to justify their actions.
References
Evans, G. R. (2007). The good, the bad & the moral dilemma. Oxford: Lion.
