So Why is Stealing Wrong Again?

[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?