Freedomain Radio

Hey Stef, I've noticed that in your earlier podcasts, in regards to lifeboat situations, you considered people who violate ethical rules due to severe  conditions such as stealing an apple when your starving to death to still be immoral. However, in the "hanging on by a thread" podcast, you went into the "free gift" thing, as if to say that people who violated ethical rules in severe situations such as starvation aren't immoral. So yeah, mind explaining this to me, because this podcast has left me confused.

In the "Hanging by a thread" podcast, I think Stef was using the free gift to show that one person can retroactively approve of something another person did which -- without that approval -- would be considered immoral. 

So I'm on the tree branch outside your window and I kick in the window. When you get home I explain to you what happened and you say "oh thank god you're alive... blah blah blah." So you just retroactively consented to my breaking of your window, and therefore I have not acted wrongly. 

If you don't consent, you have the right to demand that I replace the window. That's what is meant by "immoral." I'm not a bad or evil person for kicking in the window, especially when I reasonably assumed you would consent. But if you don't consent, I am -- because technically my action was immoral -- required to replace your broken property.

 
At least that's how I understood it...