Yes but so what?

Humans benefit from society. You can't have society if people go around destroying that society. You make rules and enforce them to stop that destruction. Thats morality in a nutshell.

This has been going on so long that it's hard wired into most of us. For the psychopaths that don't have that hardwire, we have places to put them. I.e. prisons and boardrooms.

Is this an anarchist perspective? Just trying to see what your broader view might be.

You just assume I'm poor. Nice.

Simple. Trashy. But simple.

According to Lemmy all poor people are good.

Tell that to Juan, the homeless I personally know that has not done anything bad, and have been always an angel. He had never hurt or steal anyone and he doesn't even have a roof over his head.

But according to Lemmy shitheads that kill, steal and rape have the same moral merit as Juan because they are not rich.

There ya go. Yes, 'threading a moral needle with bad choices' is all just pure imagery. Nothing real was said. There's no actual situation under discussion, just vapor.

So you listed a bunch of things that make sense for illegal things you might have to do in order to acquire food but just because you are poor why can’t you recycle?

The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. ... But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socio-economic unfairness. (Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms)