Can theft be moral?

[AllieBaba]

Yep. All lefties approve of theft, and all righties do not. Absolutely.

You don't see righties in here starting threads about the morality of theft, now, do you? Nor do you see them supporting the morality of stealing from others.

so I guess you're right.

 

[Ravi]

Flushing meds is a very bad idea. It gets into the water supply and traces of everything flushed starts to show up in the general population. So that part, at least, would be immoral.

 

[Truthmatters]

If it removed the immediate chance of an overdose it would be moral.

How do you know those trace drugs in the water supply are not intentional?

 

[manifold]

I don't think it's immoral when Jacoby Ellsbury steals a base.

But what about stealing signs? Or stealing defensive signals in football? I think that one's only immoral if you videotape them.

 

[AllieBaba]

Oooh...that's a really good point and one I'd forgotten. They're finding all sorts of interesting things in water these days, thanks to the years and years of disposing of prescription meds by flushing them down the toilet.

I did it for two years. It was the protocol for disposing of meds which were either discontinued for clients, or left over from clients who had moved on. Now we all get to partake of the fun stuff whether we mean to or not.

 

[Truthmatters]

Theft is never moral.
But lefties will justify it anyway, because they think if THEY determine it's "ok" to steal, then it's suddenly moral.

You live in a black and white world. Life is not as simple as your little mind.

 

[jillian]

You don't see righties in here starting threads about the morality of theft

Really?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/55252-is-it-moral-to-steal.html

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't think it's immoral when Jacoby Ellsbury steals a base.

But what about stealing signs? Or stealing defensive signals in football? I think that one's only immoral if you videotape them.

Tell that to the parents of those kids who were killed when some pranksters stole an intersection stop sign, and they flew into the intersection and were wiped out. And the parents of the kids who get to rot in jail forever because they did it.

 

[manifold]

Tell that to the parents of those kids who were killed when some pranksters stole an intersection stop sign, and they flew into the intersection and were wiped out. And the parents of the kids who get to rot in jail forever because they did it.

I wondered if anyone would be ignorant enough not to realize I was referring to baseball signs. No offense.

 

[Gunny]

Theft is never moral.
But lefties will justify it anyway, because they think if THEY determine it's "ok" to steal, then it's suddenly moral.

Horsefeathers. If I have kids and they need to eat, watch me turn into Alexander Mundy in a heartbeat. If the theft is a selfless act to aid others, so long as no one is hurt as a consequence of the theft then it is easily a moral act.

I'd have ZERO problem stealing from a US Congressperson. Lord knows they've been stealing ME blind for years.

Oh, and DO explain the math on how this is a partisan issue?

 

[Paulie]

Horsefeathers. If I have kids and they need to eat, watch me turn into Alexander Mundy in a heartbeat.

No offense to you PERSONALLY, but this is a primary reason why we should always be allowed to own firearms.

I realize your kids may need to eat, but so do my family and I, and in a time of crisis, you'd be a lot better off not trying to take what I'VE got.

 

[Wow]

In societies where private property is a cultural feature there is usually a legal prohibition against taking the private property of someone else without their consent. This is usually called "theft". Different societies have different defintions of theft which makes it a bit difficult to try and work out whether an act of theft can be moral.

In fact it could be a stinking big red herring to try and work out if theft can be moral if we're using legal concepts to try and decide the question. The law isn't so much about morality as practicality.

The primary concern of a court is this - is the defendant guilty?

There's usually no examination of the morality of an alleged act or series of acts. The search is on for admissible evidence which will allow the court to draw the conclusion that the defendant did, beyond a reasonable doubt, in fact carry out those actions which are alleged in the indictment.

If the actions can't be excused by a general or specific defence then the defendant will be found guilty. The court can then consider the circumstances of the defendant's actions (among other things) in deciding on penalty. There is no examination of morality.

So in a sense the crime of theft falls outside the "is it moral" discussion if the discussion is only grounded on whether or not the crime of theft was committed.

So it's probably necessary to look at attendant circumstances to decide of a series of actions which would be described by a court as a crime can in fact be moral when examined outside of the legal framework.

Can taking another person's property without their permission ever be moral.

I say it can be moral.

I do not understand the premise of this post?

This could be construed as a threat to law-abiding citizens that can support themselves. I shoot thieves!

If a person is too proud to ask for money and chose to steal, they deserve to be shot also.

If I had someone ask me for money and explained their situation and I thought it was legitimate, I would give them some money!

 

[LOki]

On the circumstances. Theft to save someone's life...I would consider moral.

Nonsense. Saving another's life is not moral in, and of, itself; and theft is still wrong.

Theft for nothing but personal gain...I would consider immoral.

Theft is wrong, in that in taking someone's property, it is the taking of someone's time, and applied merit (which they cannot get back)--their life, to a certian degree--by force.

Is it always immoral in your view?

Yep.

Irrelevant if the stolen property was stolen from you father, grandfather and so forth?

Yep. It's not yours.

What if it was stolen legally, but stolen nevertheless?

We've already stipulated that legal does not mean moral. Do you wish to assert otherwise?

those of you seeking one-liner philosophies to guide you are rather silly, I think.

The world is complex and we cannot be guided by simplistic slogans however noble their sentiment appears to simpletons.

What one-liner philosophy, Mr. Presumpto?

What slogans; which simpletons, Mr. Dumbfuck?

I don't know... I think there are times when theft is absolutely necessary.

Being in need does not grant a moral entitlement to the life, or life product of someone else.

Does that make it moral?

No.

The sewer rats in the warsaw ghetto smuggled stolen food into the ghetto from the outside... it kept a lot of people alive.

Theives then. Not moral.

But I think I gather the thrust of your, Ravi's, and ThruthMatters' argument, which always stipulate an emergency. And when I say emergency, I mean some event, inimical to human survival, that you have no control over, and is "emergent" such that it is limited in it's duration. People who are living in a constant state of emergency are simply incompetent at life. Morality operates under normal conditions, it is normal to normal human beings; it is inherent to our humanity--basing one's morality on the conditions prevalent in emergencies is a mistake. The mistake being that the very nature of emergency set's one's morality to conditions not normally existent and inimical to human survival.

As such, stupidity, poor choices and poverty simply fall outside moral purview that appurtenant to one's actions during an emergency.

Which is not to say that emergencies make theft moral--just that an emergency might make theft neccessary.

Was it justified?

I'm sure they thought so, thieves typically do this.

"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt​

probably the same as any other self-defense or necessity argument.

Self defense is moral, and it's not the same as necessity.

Was it moral? I think so because I think what was done in the first place was immoral.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

But there may be a difference between necessity and morality.

There is. Neccessity is amoral.

If you steal the gun of a man about to commit suicide with it that is moral.

It's not. Stealing is wrong, and so is your forceful interference in the man's disposition of his own life.

If you steal food to survive that is not immoral.

It certainly is.

If you flush the prescription medicine of a friend who is addicted that is moral.

It most certainly is not.

Thieft can be moral if it has a mitigating circumstance that involves the protection of life.

I don't think so.

Theft is never moral.

Agreed.

But lefties will justify it anyway, because they think if THEY determine it's "ok" to steal, then it's suddenly moral.

"Righties" do it too--all the fucking time.

Horsefeathers. If I have kids and they need to eat, watch me turn into Alexander Mundy in a heartbeat. If the theft is a selfless act to aid others, so long as no one is hurt as a consequence of the theft then it is easily a moral act.

Someone is always hurt by theft--even if they don't know it or care.

I'd have ZERO problem stealing from a US Congressperson. Lord knows they've been stealing ME blind for years.

As discussed elswhere, this is just reclaiming your own property--not theft.

Oh, and DO explain the math on how this is a partisan issue?

srsly.

 

[AllieBaba]

Horsefeathers. If I have kids and they need to eat, watch me turn into Alexander Mundy in a heartbeat. If the theft is a selfless act to aid others, so long as no one is hurt as a consequence of the theft then it is easily a moral act.

I'd have ZERO problem stealing from a US Congressperson. Lord knows they've been stealing ME blind for years.

Oh, and DO explain the math on how this is a partisan issue?

Yeah, but it's not moral to do it. You do it because you have to. But I don't expect you then turn around and say, "It's now moral to steal!"

 

[AllieBaba]

And it's partisan because the left thinks anything can be justified, no matter how immoral, how illegal, how reprehensible, if the intentions are good. In their eyes.

 

[BrianH]

IT depends on what you're stealing and the reason for stealing it. If you or your family are going hungry during some sort of disaster, stealing food and necessities would be fine...if your a New Orleans looter who steals a flat-screen from Wal-Mart, then it's probably immoral...that is, unless he planned to take the TV apart and use the glass to refract the sun's light and start a fire...

I would avoid stealing at all costs, unless it was strickly needed for preservation of life.

 

[AllieBaba]

Case in point. In other words, if YOU think it's moral, it's ok.

Anyone will steal food for their starving kids. But that does not make it moral.

 

[LOki]

And it's partisan because the left thinks anything can be justified, no matter how immoral, how illegal, how reprehensible, if the intentions are good. In their eyes.

Neat. Let's try this one on for size:

"And it's partisan because the right thinks anything can be justified, no matter how immoral, how illegal, how reprehensible, if the intentions are good--according to the dogma planted in their pointy heads by their Sunday School teacher (or other unquestionable authority figure)."​

Yep. It fits.

 

[Ravi]

Loki, please define moral. Your post was interesting...

 

[Diuretic]

There are some really interesting points in the discussion. I hope I don't derail the thread by going back over the past few hours (time zone problem).

Loki's definition is good, better than us getting hung up on the legal interpretations which usually means a chase down the rabbit warren of semantics.

And again back in Loki's first post on this he pointed out that I haven't yet explained myself in my claim that taking another person's property without their permission can be moral. Time for me to make my stand and see what happens.

I'm not a philosopher so don't worry, I won't be going into detailed arguments, I like to keep things as straightforward as possible.

When I refer to something as being "moral" I only mean if it's regarded as "right" or " appropriate" or "acceptable" in general terms. I'm not referring to its legality but simply how the average person in a society would view the act, if they knew all the circumstances surrounding it.

This means that the average person has to have some sort of measuring stick to use to evaluate the action of an individual who is taking the property of someone else without their permission.

It's not earth-shattering and it's widely known but there can be two types of measuring sticks. The first is to look at the motivation of the actor. If some mongrel takes my car because they just want to use it and dump it (usually burning it to try and destroy their criminal DNA) then they'd committed an immoral act. But if someone takes my car because they want to get their sick child to hospital then it might not be an immoral act. The motivation is what differentiates the actions. Now we could pick those two examples apart for hours but it would be pointless. They're just examples and only meant to stand as ideas.

The other way of looking at an action is through its consequences. If the act is intended to have "good" (don't ask for a definition, again we could bat it around for hours) consequences then it might be that that act is moral. There's an old example which has been analysed by brilliant minds and some startling views can be found on it but I'm only able to discuss it at the common sense level. It concerns lying. Can telling a lie ever be moral? I think it can but I know that even an average philosopher can take that apart without much trouble.

The old example is where the authorities come to your house and ask you where so-and-so is. It just so happens that you're sheltering that person because you know they're wanted by the authorities. Now in this case the authorities are represented by a foreign power which has invaded your country and has in place a repressive regime. You know that the person you are sheltering will be summarily executed if he is found. So, you tell the authorities that he isn't in your house. The point here is that the lie avoids immoral consequences. So, I contend that it's moral to lie in those circumstances. This is disputed by some philosophers (if you're interested then Google for "categorical imperative").