[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.”

ÖÖΘ 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.