So Why is Stealing Wrong Again?

[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]

[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]..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

[img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[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").