So Why is Stealing Wrong Again?

[David Sklansky]

Everybody seems to agree that looting a store of a loaf od bread to allow your children to survive, is totally OK. And burglarizing a middle class couple of their one valuable possesion, an engagement ring, so you can make a necklace for your Persian cat, isn't.

But where do you draw the line? Suppose through absolutely no fault of your own, you have to work two jobs to feed your sick wife and kid. Your neighbor inherited a billion dollars recently, hasn't moved yet, takes drugs from morning till night, and keeps 50 hundred dollar bills on his coffeetable in his unlocked home. He staggers out one day and you can walk in and grab that money to more nutritiously feed your family and get better medicine. What argument, other than it is against the law, makes it wrong for you to steal his money but not wrong for the desperate looters to loot?

[AlphaWice]

I myself don't believe in right or wrong. I think choices can be made without having to appeal to right or wrong. Most people do not believe this because they do not understand the idea of social norms.

[tek]

If it's a life or death situation and you have exhausted legal ways to obtain relief (or don't have the opportunity due to time, logistics, etc), then taking the minimum necessary to sustain life or remedy a medical problem or whatever would be acceptable behavior. In the Old Testament it is stated that stealing and self-defense killing in a life-or-death situation is ok.

[David Sklansky]

But why not otherwise?

[Alex/Mugaaz]

I don't think there are many good moral reasons when you consider it as a crime only between the 2 people in a vacuum. In those circumstances I think stealing might be morally wrong because it has very much in common as violence except spread over time, and is a direct attack on most people pursuit of happiness.

The real reasons it's morally wrong is because it's an attack on society. Society needs ownership in order to function. When theft is rampant, what is the point of industry.

This seems similar to the argument as why to punish someone who is guilty of a crime if they have already reformed and made up for their crimes in some way. There are other valid reasons for punishment, almost all of them have to deal with how not punishing this person affects society im similar circumstances.


If this question is changed to a world where these 3 are the only ones alive, I wonder if it would become morally wrong not to steal. I think the answer of that would be based on the chances of your wife dying vs the chance of your theft resulting in deadly violence between you and the druggy.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
If it's a life or death situation and you have exhausted legal ways to obtain relief (or don't have the opportunity due to time, logistics, etc), then taking the minimum necessary to sustain life or remedy a medical problem or whatever would be acceptable behavior. In the Old Testament it is stated that stealing and self-defense killing in a life-or-death situation is ok.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall those passages.

As I said in the other post, about a broke family man and a millionaire, maintaining security of property really does serve the greater good.

In addition, stealing affects both the thief and victim. The victim loses feelings of security, and is forced to waste time and resources protecting his property. The thief suffers from the curse of anyone who gains without legitimate effort - a weakening of his moral fiber, a lessening of positive motivation, and a loss of normality. His successes in life will be cheapened by the fact he couldn't make it without stealing.

Neither the first or second points above apply to something like New Orleans. And without a natural disaster, I don't believe that looting a store is OK to feed your starving children.

[Aytumious]

I'd say the main deterrent to me taking the money is my conscience. I simply would not be able to live with myself if I took the money. I'm the guy who hunts down the stranger who lost his wallet or who gives the money back if a cashier gives me the wrong amount.

I think social ostracism and the human conscience are the main deterrents in general for criminality, followed by the threat of incarceration if caught.

I really don't believe in morality per se, and I make a concerted effort to not frame my world in terms of "right" or "wrong" because doing so simplifies your view to the point of making you unable to see the true motivation behind most actions. If the situation is indeed a matter of life or death, looting from those who will not realistically be harmed in any tangible way is justified.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say the main deterrent to me taking the money is my conscience. I simply would not be able to live with myself if I took the money. I'm the guy who hunts down the stranger who lost his wallet or who gives the money back if a cashier gives me the wrong amount.

I think social ostracism and the human conscience are the main deterrents in general for criminality, followed by the threat of incarceration if caught.

I really don't believe in morality per se, and I make a concerted effort to not frame my world in terms of "right" or "wrong" because doing so simplifies your view to the point of making you unable to see the true motivation behind most actions. If the situation is indeed a matter of life or death, looting from those who will not realistically be harmed in any tangible way is justified.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't think you can say that you won't do something because you'll feel guilty, then say you can't think of any reasons why.

[garyjacosta]

David,

With your argument, you are assuming that people are entitled to basic nourishment.

In socialist/communist countries this is true, and stealing does occur by the government in order to ensure this.

To some extent, we have the same structure in our capitalist society... but to a greater extent the help provided to the poor in this country is provided through the FREE WILL of the citizens.

It all depends on your belief system.

I personally don't believe that anyone is entitled to anything. I do, however, have compassion for human suffering. Therefore, I do make donations to charity organizations that help people get back on their feet in times of crisis.

I don't support the welfare programs in this and many countries. I believe that stealing is WRONG

P.S. This belief is not because of religion. I have proudly been a nonbeliever for 10 years now.

[Lestat]

<font color="red"> If the situation is indeed a matter of life or death, looting from those who will not realistically be harmed in any tangible way is justified.
</font>

What about the guy who loses his job through no fault of his own and now he and his family are about to be evicted on the street with no money for food, housing, clothing, etc.

Is he justified in stealing/looting from someone who might not be harmed in any tangible way? Would it be ok for him to steal $30 bucks from you wallet assuming you wouldn't really miss it? In other words, what is the real difference between him and someone wandering around the flooded streets of NO?

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> If the situation is indeed a matter of life or death, looting from those who will not realistically be harmed in any tangible way is justified.
</font>

What about the guy who loses his job through no fault of his own and now he and his family are about to be evicted on the street with no money for food, housing, clothing, etc.

Is he justified in stealing/looting from someone who might not be harmed in any tangible way? Would it be ok for him to steal $30 bucks from you wallet assuming you wouldn't really miss it? In other words, what is the real difference between him and someone wandering around the flooded streets of NO?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the situation was indeed going to lead to death I would feel completely justified in stealing to feed my family.

[tek]

[ QUOTE ]
But why not otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you going in the direction of a bell curve morality?

Two standard deviations (pun intended) of aberrant behavior acceptable based on self-established justification?

Alex Mugaaz stated “The real reasons it's morally wrong is because it's an attack on society. Society needs ownership in order to function. When theft is rampant, what is the point of industry.”

ÖÖ&amp;#920; stated: ”In addition, stealing affects both the thief and victim. The victim loses feelings of security, and is forced to waste time and resources protecting his property. The thief suffers from the curse of anyone who gains without legitimate effort - a weakening of his moral fiber, a lessening of positive motivation, and a loss of normality. His successes in life will be cheapened by the fact he couldn't make it without stealing.”

Both are valid points, however, if you go back to the time between hunter-gather up to city-state days a valid point could be made that stealing WAS necessary to build their society because to do otherwise would be to their society’s detriment.

But after a society has been established, then it enters into the curve of the bell regarding morality and ethics.

But in your example to basically say “Well, he’s rich and I’m tired of just getting by…” is not an adequate justification.

I guess what I’m saying is that the bell curve of morality applies to entire societies, while more stringent rules apply to individuals. The reason being that individual’s making their own rules undermines their society from within.

Sklansky,
Why do you ask these questions. You know that there is no answer. It's a totally subjective thing. Is there a reason you're asking these questions you already know the answer to.Of course there's also the possibility that you don't get it, but I doubt it. Are you writing a book?
Shooby

[BluffTHIS!]

"THOU SHALL NOT STEAL"

That's why. Because God said so. But since you don't believe that, you have to acknowledge that 99% of all societies, democratic or otherwise, religious or otherwise, will punish you anyway because it is almost universally considered wrong. I believe of course, that this points to a minimal universal moral law, the natural law, imprinted on the soul of each man, by which he will be judged by God if he sincerely does not believe in the gospel.

[ QUOTE ]
"THOU SHALL NOT STEAL"

That's why. Because God said so. But since you don't believe that, you have to acknowledge that 99% of all societies, democratic or otherwise, religious or otherwise, will punish you anyway because it is almost universally considered wrong. I believe of course, that this points to a minimal universal moral law, the natural law, imprinted on the soul of each man, by which he will be judged by God if he sincerely does not believe in the gospel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. That's a very liberal view of the bible. In fact, it is explicitly contradicted many times in the bible if I'm not mistaken.

[Lestat]

<font color="red"> If the situation was indeed going to lead to death I would feel completely justified in stealing to feed my family. </font>

I'm not saying it's wrong, but I just want to be clear.

So if these three conditions were met:
1. Loss of job.
2. Insufficient money to tide you over until you found another one.
3. A family to support.

You are saying that you would resort to a life of crime as long as necessary? Now let me ask you this...

How "well" would your family have to be fed? Would gaunt and barely alive suffice for your children? Or is there a certain level of satiation that you would prefer?

I'm not trying to be difficult. I'll bet you're a pretty upstanding guy. I find it interesting that if just 3 conditions were met you would turn into a criminal. I'm trying to find out if you could ever feel your family was entitled to ever do more than just eat. Could your children ever be entitled to nice clothes, nice shcools, etc.? Once you've tasted crime, might you not steal more to provide your family with other things? Could this ever extend to the rationale that you're wife deserved a bigger diamond, etc?

I'm being silly of course, but it does provide some insight into how criminals can rationalize stealing and become progressive in crime.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> If the situation was indeed going to lead to death I would feel completely justified in stealing to feed my family. </font>

I'm not saying it's wrong, but I just want to be clear.

So if these three conditions were met:
1. Loss of job.
2. Insufficient money to tide you over until you found another one.
3. A family to support.

You are saying that you would resort to a life of crime as long as necessary? Now let me ask you this...

How "well" would your family have to be fed? Would gaunt and barely alive suffice for your children? Or is there a certain level of satiation that you would prefer?

I'm not trying to be difficult. I'll bet you're a pretty upstanding guy. I find it interesting that if just 3 conditions were met you would turn into a criminal. I'm trying to find out if you could ever feel your family was entitled to ever do more than just eat. Could your children ever be entitled to nice clothes, nice shcools, etc.? Once you've tasted crime, might you not steal more to provide your family with other things? Could this ever extend to the rationale that you're wife deserved a bigger diamond, etc?

I'm being silly of course, but it does provide some insight into how criminals can rationalize stealing and become progressive in crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your line of questioning. I would basically have to be convinced that if I did not steal and that there were somehow no other available options, someone in my family would die. If the choice is steal or death, I steal, though just enough to feed my family or somehow put myself into a position where the situation were not so dire.

I really don't think the line between me living comfortably playing poker and me stealing to feed my family is that wide, and therefore I try to work hard to ensure I never have to cross that line.

It is quite easy to see how people end up in situations -- like crime or drug addiction -- when they previously saw themselves as one of the "good" who would never do such a thing; I try not to have such illusions.

[Lestat]

I heard somehwere that the average American is like 6 months salary away from being homeless.

I promise not to bug you about this any more, but I'm having a hard time with:

"If the choice is steal or death,..."

Death is such a clean term, yet it's potential manifestation is so much less clear. I take it what you're saying is "If the choice is to steal or RISK death,..." People don't just die on missed meal #15. You could never really be sure when your choice is truly "steal or someone dies". This means you'd have to start stealing well before the fact if you wanted to avoid the risk of say, you'r infant dying, etc.

I guess what I'm saying is that your ideology isn't clean cut at all and therefore must be faulty somewhere. This is causing me to re-think Sklansy's question: Why is stealing wrong?

[baggins]

" In the Old Testament it is stated that stealing and self-defense killing in a life-or-death situation is ok. "

where, prey tell, is this?

[tek]

I can't quote you chapter and verse, but I remember it from Confirmation class way back which was taught by the Rabbi's wife...

[baggins]

if you have no objective standard for morality, then it most certainly is not wrong. you may get punished for it, but that doesn't make it wrong.

did ever think of asking your neighbor for a little financial help?

why is it ok to steal from somebody who won't really miss the money?

[David Sklansky]

Specifically reasons why the line should be drawn at the life or death point. And stop with the it's bad for society stuff. If you are poor and destined to remain so (as your children are as well), why should you give a hoot about that? Especially if your situation is incredibly unequal and due 100% to bad luck.

[RJT]

Without a belief that there is more to life than the here and now (there is a God/afterlife and reasons relative to such) I see no reason to not steal if one wanted to.

The only reasons not to would be for civil order.

I , especially given the fact that I have no children , wouldn’t give a hoot what the state of the world is after I am dead. If civil order started to decay, so what? I will be long gone by that time.

In fact, if there is no God, let’s get it over with and save future generations from having to deal with all the nonsense. Maybe, I am just one who likes to think that there must be more to it then this. Life is good, don't get me wrong. But, when people say (myself inlcuded) when things are good "it don't get much better than this" - well, it just ain't enough for me.

[Darryl_P]

Where to draw the line?

I'd say wherever you want, keeping in mind there will be consequences you must deal with.

Imagine a scale from 0 to 100 which measures different stealing situations based on how OK it is (as an approximation we can use the percentage of people who think it's OK). Your two examples would probably be valued at 99.9 and 0.1.

You can choose whatever point you like as your threshold but then you must live with the consequences.

Maybe 20 is the level below which you will likely end up in prison if you do it with any regularity.

Maybe 50 is the level at which your actions will not be scolded too much by others, and you can get very rich (if you're also smart), but as time passes you will start getting nagging feelings of chronic discomfort, probably accompanied by physical ailments whose origin cannot be completely explained by medical science. You may also be exposed to threats (from certain groups whose average rating is much higher) that you will not be able to comprehend. In my book these are God's way of telling you you're not living your life at a high enough level in His eyes.

If you choose levels like 90 or higher, then you will probably not be very rich no matter how smart you are, but you will have good mental health, good prospects for physical health, and feel good about yourself overall -- again, the work of God.

It's an individual choice IMO and so I see no reason to look for THE level with which everyone agrees, apart from the fact that there isn't one anyway.

The Bible advocates being at a level of 100 and leaves it to you how close you want to try to get to that level.

[Warren Whitmore]

During the presedential elections the 3 candidates views on this issue were quite different.

Bush: Lets keep health care the same. (Maintain current level of theft)

Kerry: Lets give everyone the same level of health care that the house and Senate enjoy. (Increase level of theft considerably)

Badrock: If I have $6000 in my safe that I plan to spend on health care and a burglar breaks in and steals it he has robbed me of my health.
If a tax agent charges me $6000 in taxes so that I can no longer afford health care the goverment is equally a burglar. (Decrease theft)

Being a libitarian I of course side with the last. This is by no means the norm however. Most people want theft in thier lives.

A good definition for money is "a future claim on other peoples goods and services." Now for sure the guy who is a millionaire who has $10 stolen is not going to affect his standard of living. The guy who stole the $10 from him is going to improve his standard of living quite a bit.

That is not the point however. That temporary rise in the average standard of living between the two is the wrong matrix to measure. It is the rising of the standard of living of everyone in the world that matters. That can only improve through trade and innovation. Theses are crushed through theft either through a government, church, or individual.

[Cooker]

I believe that the laws against stealing and the attitude that stealing is wrong are propagated by those with lots of stuff to steal (i.e. the wealthy). As you know, I don't believe in right and wrong, so I have no problem with stealing on its own. However, I believe that the laws against stealing must have some utility. The US is a property based society and as such has been one of the most successful of all time. I think it would be hard to have a property based society where personal property has no protection under the law. So I would not likely support a repeal of all laws involving stealing. I think when people steal there is a simple cost benefit analysis done on whether or not they should steal at least subconciously. Is the risk of going of prison for x years worth the potential gain over what I could gain through socially acceptable means during those x years with some added consideration for immediate gratification? I think most thieves would answer this question yes if they could fully grasp the meaning.

[SomethingClever]

I'd jack that bitch in a heartbeat.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
What argument, other than it is against the law, makes it wrong for you to steal his money but not wrong for the desperate looters to loot?

[/ QUOTE ]

It feels wrong to steal his money but it does not feel wrong for the desperate looters to loot.

David, there is no such thing as right and wrong. Anyone can figure this out, if they think about it.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
And stop with the it's bad for society stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know that it tough for you to see why, but this where your contraption collapses. Not for the reasons that one surmises, either.

Later.

[Scotch78]

I haven't studied enough sociology, history and psychology to answer your question. However, I have studied enough philosophy to know that the answer will lie in the social sciences rather than any logically consistent ethical theory.

Scott

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd jack that bitch in a heartbeat.

[/ QUOTE ]
i would also wreck up the place cause hes clearly an idiot.

[lehighguy]

Who's talking about right and wrong. They don't exist. Most people don't do it because they are afraid of getting caught. When that fear is removed they do as they please.

Some people choose to act "moral" even when that fear is removed, but they do so because it brings them personal satisfaction to do so. Moral principles are like ice cream, some people like them and some think they are too expensive.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody seems to agree that looting a store of a loaf od bread to allow your children to survive, is totally OK. And burglarizing a middle class couple of their one valuable possesion, an engagement ring, so you can make a necklace for your Persian cat, isn't.

But where do you draw the line? Suppose through absolutely no fault of your own, you have to work two jobs to feed your sick wife and kid. Your neighbor inherited a billion dollars recently, hasn't moved yet, takes drugs from morning till night, and keeps 50 hundred dollar bills on his coffeetable in his unlocked home. He staggers out one day and you can walk in and grab that money to more nutritiously feed your family and get better medicine. What argument, other than it is against the law, makes it wrong for you to steal his money but not wrong for the desperate looters to loot?

[/ QUOTE ]

Looting the loaf of bread from the store isn't "right" in the sense that it is unconditionally the right thing to do. It is an unfortuante situation in which a person has 2 conflicting moral obligations (not stealing from others and feeding his/her children) and decides that feeding the children is more important. As would most people I think if they were in this situation. This isn't to say then that stealing here is "right"--perhaps this person should turn himself in afterwards. or perhaps it is only OK because the crime (moral crime of stealing) is small. I think we would have to reconsider our actions if we would have to kill an innocent person to let our children live.
In (most) less serious situations though this issue shouldn't even arise.

[ QUOTE ]
If it's a life or death situation and you have exhausted legal ways to obtain relief (or don't have the opportunity due to time, logistics, etc), then taking the minimum necessary to sustain life or remedy a medical problem or whatever would be acceptable behavior. In the Old Testament it is stated that stealing and self-defense killing in a life-or-death situation is ok.

[/ QUOTE ]There are plenty of people who are down and out with not enough social services (such as food kitchens and shelters) to serve the needy. Is it OK for these people to steal?

[ QUOTE ]
The real reasons it's morally wrong is because it's an attack on society. Society needs ownership in order to function. When theft is rampant, what is the point of industry.

[/ QUOTE ]One might suggest that if there are needy people, society has failed. Which is worse: stealing when in need, or having excess and not sharing it with those in need?

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And stop with the it's bad for society stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know that it tough for you to see why, but this where your contraption collapses. Not for the reasons that one surmises, either.

Later.

[/ QUOTE ]

.....if the social mores of a particular society are such that 'stealing' is considered a 'crime' to be dealt with by a sanctioned 'punishment', then is not the most important factor that the 'punishment' fit the 'crime'?

.....if the opposite is true, i.e., stealing is not considered a crime to be dealt with by sanctioned societal punishment, are there not then ‘logical conclusions’ that can be drawn that will likely impact that society? By the way, I am not inferring whether the impact is positive or negative, just wondering about the cause and effect of unchecked stealing.

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/club.gif..actually; stealing is "wrong" because you are interferring with another soul...this is the same reason murder is not acceptable.....soul must allow other soul freedom...

yup

that's the truth..

gl

/images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[David Sklansky]

And stop with the it's bad for society stuff.

"I know that it tough for you to see why, but this where your contraption collapses. Not for the reasons that one surmises, either".

Later.

I'm not saying that being bad for society isn't a good reason to have laws against stealing. I'm asking why a desperate individual who has been horribly unlucky should feel that his stealing a few bucks from a billionaire playboy is wrong. He's expected to be a sociologist?

Put another way, if you got wind he was considering this theft, what (non religious) argument could you use that would have any impact on him (eg "your children will think less of you").

[The4Aces]

I think it is wrong because if you are a citizen of a country and obtain the benifits of a country then you should fallow the laws set up by the country or be prepaired to pay the concequesnces that come from your actions.

[snowden719]

although there is more to it than this, i think the most basic reason it is wrong is that if you were in his situation, you wouldn;t want him to steal for you, or at a very minimum you would have good reason to not want him to steal from you, and since that is the case you should take his reasons to be normative

[PorscheNGuns]

Because regardless of whether or not the stealing causes suffering, if everyone stole then any form of cooperative human society would not exist, and we would all live like individual wild animals protecting our own territory and possessions.

Therefore if one person steals, it must be deemed wrong and punished harshly so that others are persuaded not to steal.

I thought human beings figured this out thousands of years ago...?

-Matt

Why doesn't the poor man ask his neighbor for help?
Why would he choose to steal before he made an honest request of his neighbor??
Nothing on this Earth 'belongs' to us, everything has been GIVEN to us to use (and ultimately abuse).
Is stealing or looting the only choice?
If you are refering to the people affected by the hurricane, it would be redundant to take anything other than foodstuffs , bodily hydrating liquids and clothing. Why would you think you needed a big screen television with no electricity? What good is jewelry to you if you are starving, you can't barter it for food due to the fact that no one has any food to barter. Also is it really stealing if the goods were actually paid for, even if you weren't the one paying for them? I'm sure the insurance hated this storm the most of anyone.

[David Sklansky]

"although there is more to it than this, i think the most basic reason it is wrong is that if you were in his situation, you wouldn;t want him to steal for you, or at a very minimum you would have good reason to not want him to steal from you, and since that is the case you should take his reasons to be normative"

But this argument and others like it could be used to say stealing would be wrong even to save your life. Thus they are not allowed because I am stipulating that you agree such stealing is acceptable.

[lehighguy]

Morals a human creations. They are made because we derive satisfaction from living by thier principles. Even if obeying them prevents us from meeting physical wants/needs we gain psycological benefits from believing we follow a moral code. Following a moral code gives someone a sense of ego, like they are different from everyone else. It gives them a sense of self worth. It justifies thier existence. These are powerful psycological incentives to act morally. So it can really be broken down into an equation:

When
Psycological Benefit &gt; Physical Benefit
person A acts morally.

Thus, morality is simple game theory in which the players try to maximize thier own personal gain. What determines "benefit" values. Well that's more complicated. Each person is a sum of thier experiences, genetics, and for the more religous thier soul. As a result some people put a higher value on morals then others. People also devise different moral codes to suit thier different tastes, just as people enjoy different flavors of ice cream. Even a mobster lives by "mob ethics".

Even those we would consider completely immoral, such as serial killers, are acting within the confines of the above game. They have some overwhelming psycological need to kill and they are willing to risk violence, capture, prosecution and a variety of other risks to meet that psycological need.

[HDPM]

There are a lot of holes in your scenario. First, anybody who takes something in an emergency must be willing to pay restitution for it later. If because of your bad planning you steal some food and clothes to survive, fine, but you must be willing, at the time you take it, to pay for it later. If you think you have some absolute right to it you are an immoral thief. I think human life takes precedence over other considerations in an emergency, but for reasons I discuss later human life requires freedom from theft to survive in a proper sense. So you can't just steal without acknowledging the obligation to pay restitution regardless of circumstance. Even if you later can't pay it back, it makes a difference to me whether you believe in the moral obligation to pay it back or think you are entitled to the property without compensation.

The desperate guy working hard is a thief if he steals from the rich playboy. Too bad his life sucks. He should ask for help, but if no help is forthcoming he has no right to steal.

Reasons. Morality is a system to allow people to live as human beings should live. Many disagree on what that means. However, morality must support survival of the human way of life. Humans can't live properly without property rights. This is because all property, and life itself, comes from the hard work and dedication of individuals. Nobody has a right to force another person to work for him. Theft does this because in effect you are forcing another human being to work for you without remuneration. That is morally wrong. It takes longer to fully set forth the basis for this, so David will have to be satisfied with my shorthand post. But the essence of it is to have a system where people have individual rights and are protected from savage behavior. Theft is taking people's labor by force which limits their ability to survive. The thief has no claim to others' property because of his own inadequacy.

I didn't read all the posts, so if anyone agreed previously, good for you. Because we are right. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[HDPM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The real reasons it's morally wrong is because it's an attack on society. Society needs ownership in order to function. When theft is rampant, what is the point of industry.

[/ QUOTE ]One might suggest that if there are needy people, society has failed. Which is worse: stealing when in need, or having excess and not sharing it with those in need?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stealing and it's not close.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The real reasons it's morally wrong is because it's an attack on society. Society needs ownership in order to function. When theft is rampant, what is the point of industry.

[/ QUOTE ]One might suggest that if there are needy people, society has failed. Which is worse: stealing when in need, or having excess and not sharing it with those in need?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stealing and it's not close.

[/ QUOTE ]Really? I think that is a sad commentary on our society. I might agree that stealing is worse, but it must be close. Compassion, I suppose, is not valued very highly in American society.

[ QUOTE ]
Reasons. Morality is a system to allow people to live as human beings should live. Many disagree on what that means. However, morality must support survival of the human way of life. Humans can't live properly without property rights. This is because all property, and life itself, comes from the hard work and dedication of individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]Humans can live without property rights. You must define "live properly" if you want to make an agument that humans cannot live properly witout property rights.

Very few indiviuals can live at all entirely on their own. I imagine it would be just as easy to argue that live itself comes from the hard work of groups of people. Without collective works we would all be the hunter-gathers of thousands of years ago.

[HDPM]

You are mistaking the benefits of rationally pooling individual effort with the evil of collectivism. My definition of living properly includes not having to slave away for people who believe in collectivism. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[HDPM]

No, this isn't a sad commentary on our "society." Most people think that the wretched people have a lien on the better off. That is the sad thing. You are also mistaking compassion. It is entirely possible to have compassion for others and help them out while recognizing there is no obligation to do so. Also, compassion is impossible in a "society" that embraces altruism.

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
if you got wind he was considering this theft, what (non religious) argument could you use that would have any impact on him

[/ QUOTE ]

What is it you want, exactly? A reason why stealing for reasons other than sustaining life is 'wrong'? If so, then the reason is becasue it's bad for society.

Or do you want an argument you can use to prevent a friend from stealing for fun? Try something like:

- Your kids will think less of you.
- Your kids will grow up stealing, too
- You wouldn't want someone to steal from you, so don't do it yourself
- It's wrong to steal

Or do you want something that satisfies both logical analysis and is easily consumed by someone uninterested in logic? I guess there is no such thing. Why do you need it, anyway?

[ QUOTE ]
You are mistaking the benefits of rationally pooling individual effort with the evil of collectivism. My definition of living properly includes not having to slave away for people who believe in collectivism. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]Yet, your idea of living properly means that some people have to slave away for people who believe in your idea of rationally pooling individual effort.

[HDPM]

No, they don't.

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif compassion is a luxury of the rich..

gl

/images/graemlins/club.gif

[ QUOTE ]
No, they don't.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm relieved.

[Cooker]

Have you ever studied the way of life of Native American tribes in North America? They were doing just fine without property rights, and as a group were among the healthiest and most content people I have ever read about. However, their overall lack of disease turned out to be their downfall. They were essentially exterminated by biological attack and had no bioweapons of their own.

I am no expert on government systems in history, but if you are I would like to hear your account of the inherent flaws of Native North American societies.

[hicherbie]

To all of those who think you cannot justify walking into that playboys house and stealing money when you are not starving...consider what you are doing when you download a movie/mp3/comptuer software that you otherwise would have bought.

David,

The lines drawn for these moral arguments shift with what the consensus is for needs and desires. I think most of us, being good children of the enlightenment, feel as though certain freedoms and liberties are due to every person born. The most basic liberty of course, is being allowed to live. In your examples, the stealer is somebody trying to provide for helpless children, who through no fault of their own, find it nessesary for stealing to occur for them to survive. So the answers given are really in a response to the priorities that we see between liberties. We feel as though we can sacrifice the freedom to have basic comforts and desires (excess money or whatever) to allow for survival of the innocent. Im sure the answers might change a little bit if it was a degenerate gambler who had to steal bread because he keeps losing his quarters at the local casino.

making any arguement to him as a person only offers emotional responces to what should be logical moral questions. we should consider this as a case of right or wrong (or whatever degrees of both this might be) and leave the humanistic appeal out of it.

[Zygote]

There are no reasnoble reasons for him to not steal. Its that simple.