Can theft be moral?

[Ravi]

Or the person you are hiding could be a Jew in Nazi Germany. And by sheltering him/her, you are in a way stealing something from the authorities.

Nice post.

I'm sure Loki will rip it to shreds, word by word.

 

[LOki]

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

Thank you.

mor·al (môrl, mr-)
adj.
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character

Noun
2. morals principles of behaviour in accordance with standards of right and wrong​

That was hardly interesting, and probably unfair to your expectations--so let me venture forth with this more meaty offering for you:

The notion of morality is rendered moot where there are no choices to be made, or no choices can be made. This is precisely why eating meat is not a moral issue for lions, or photosynthesis a moral issure for plants, or standing still a moral issue for rocks--the notion simply does not apply. And it does not apply for humans where the humans have no choice in the matter, such as the case of emergencies discussed earlier.

Human beings are not innately equipped to provide for their survival in precisely the manner that other animals are. Where other animals are primarily obligated to prewired actions consistent with their survival, human beings are primarily obligated by their nature to wire themselves for survival as human beings.

Morality is the code of values required by man's nature for his proper survival as a human being; it's purpose is to guide man’s conduct—the conduct that affirms, and promotes his life as a human being. The choice to be made is to either live, as a human being, or not.​

Allow me to apologize in advance for it's ham-handedness.

Oh yeah, and it's silly simplicity.

 

[Charles_Main]

Or the person you are hiding could be a Jew in Nazi Germany. And by sheltering him/her, you are in a way stealing something from the authorities.

Nice post.

I'm sure Loki will rip it to shreds, word by word.

the whole idea that stealing from your occupier is stealing is kinda messed up if you ask me.

 

[LOki]

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.

editec thinks that's silly, since the world is complicated. Sorry about your luck.

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.

I think we've already dispensed with "legality" well enough.

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.

I agree.

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.

Seems sensible so far.

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.

Certainly.

But if someone takes my car because they want to get their sick child to hospital then it might not be an immoral act.

It is.

The motivation is what differentiates the actions.

In both cases the thieves took the car because they wanted to use it--the excuse of a sick child does not lend morality to the act of theft. There is no substantive difference in their motivations, so there's no substantive difference in their morality.

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.

So far this seems sensible too.

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?

It seems like it could be, but I'm having difficulty working it out.

I think it can but I know that even an average philosopher can take that apart without much trouble.

Well, good thing then that I'm a below average philosopher.

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").

I would agree, provided that the authority is acting immorally in this particular instance. The repressive foreign power may be interested in your axe-murdering, pedophile guest for reasons unrelated to their repressive tendencies, and sheltering that fuckass from execution might be immoral.

On second thought I'm going to disagree--the repressive foriegn power has diminished your capacity for moral actions--I think that in the spirit of the case you present, the actions you are taking may be out of neccessity and not out of moral choice; the diminishment that the repression exerts is an diminishment upon your (and your guest's) life as a human being. To the extent that you can't live and function as a human being, your actions cannot be judged moral or immoral.

 

[Diuretic]

Okay. Occupied France WWII. Allied airmen are hiding in a barn with the full knowledge of the barn owner who is a farmer sympathetic to the resistance movement and totally opposed to the German and Vichy authorities. The farmer knows that if the airmen are caught they will be imprisoned as POWs and he will probably be invited to be a guest of the Gestapo.

The Vichy authorities send the police to his farm. The police aren't that interested in finding the airmen, perhaps they're a bit sympathetic, maybe they're lazy and disinterested. Either way they ask the farmer if the airmen are on his property. The farmer lies and says they are not there. The police perform a desultory search and then leave.

Has the farmer committed an immoral act by lying? This is where I fall back on using his motivation and the consquences to argue that it's a moral act because the airmen weren't caught and the farmer didn't get to take tea with the Gestapo. But I'm really rationalising it aren't I? I mean it's common sense to say the farmer has done the right thing.

I need to change things around, to try and get over my sentimentalising.

Okay, let me try this. In modern day Iraq a farmer is visited by the Iraqi police. The police suspect he's sheltering some AQ in Iraq people who they think have been involved in bombing a military base near Baghdad. The police are a bit slack, they've been doing this all day in the summer heat and it's nearly time to knock off and go home for an iced tea. The farmer does indeed have the AQ people hiding on his property, but they're well concealed. He tells the police they're not there. The police do a quick search of the property and come to the conclusion the AQ people aren't there. They leave.

Has the farmer commited a moral act? Has the farmer commited an immoral act?

I'm quite ready to be hoist with my own petard here but that's okay because my ego isn't under threat - but my lack of knowledge might just be in for a bit of a spring clean

 

[roomy]

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.

I think you would be dead and Gunny would have fat kids

 

[Paulie]

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.

Would you steal food for your starving family?

 

[Paulie]

I think you would be dead and Gunny would have fat kids

Take Gunny's dick out of your mouth before you speak, I can't understand you.

 

[roomy]

Take Gunny's dick out of your mouth before you speak, I can't understand you.

Belt up you ponce before I eat you for breakfast

 

[editec]

I posit that there is not a single person on this board who would not steal under some circumstances.

Likewise I propose that every person here attempting to make the case that every case of theft is immoral is therefore either delusional, or simply taking an absurd position here that they know perfectly well is ridiculous.

Is killing people wrong?

Of course it is...usually.

 

[Gunny]

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.

You obviously read only one part of my post. I specifically stated that the theft would have to in effect be "harmless." Now you can argue all day about what "harmless" is but I'm going to use the common sense factor.

Walking into a restaurant kitchen and making off with some food, or stealing from some rich MFer who has so much he doesn't even know WHAT he has wouldn't bother me a bit. I wouldn't steal YOUR kid's last sandwich to feed mine.

This is a hypothetical question on morality. In reality, my children are both grown. Let's don't make this any harder than it has to be.

 

[BrianH]

You obviously read only one part of my post. I specifically stated that the theft would have to in effect be "harmless." Now you can argue all day about what "harmless" is but I'm going to use the common sense factor.

Walking into a restaurant kitchen and making off with some food, or stealing from some rich MFer who has so much he doesn't even know WHAT he has wouldn't bother me a bit. I wouldn't steal YOUR kid's last sandwich to feed mine.

This is a hypothetical question on morality. In reality, my children are both grown. Let's don't make this any harder than it has to be.

Exactly...If you were trying to feed your family, and the only method of doing so would be to steal from somewhere/someone (who wouldn't even notice the missing food), then IMO, it's moral enough. To me, it's immoral to let your family starve to death.

 

[Gunny]

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

True. However, the impact of the harm is relative to that person's wealth. I am not saying theft is right.

Morality is relative, not a universal law. In this scenario, necessity creates a contradiction to one's beliefs.

Do you let your children starve based on taking a stance on morality? Some might. I wouldn't. As long as I can reconcile the act with my conscience and do not allow it to alter for good my moral stance, I'll have no problem justifying the act.

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

Works for me.

srsly.

 

[Gunny]

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!"

It is not moral for you to do based on your moral beliefs.

It is only immoral for me to do because by moral belief happens to be the same as yours.

However, try this little scenario. Think in terms of the movie "Red Dawn." I'm sure you have it on VHS and DVD and know the script by heart.

You're an insurgent. Your country is occupied by an enemy military force. Everything you steal from your enemy helps you, and takes away from your enemy's ability to wage war against you.

Is it moral to steal?

 

[Gunny]

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.

That isn't true. You're trying to equate different with wrong. Ever stop to consider they think the same of you and your narrow-minded viewpoints and hackneyed stereotypes?

There are just as many on the right that believe anything can be justified. They just have different labels for it.

 

[Care4all]

I am sorry to those of you that get bored hearing about Jesus's Parables in the Bible but I feel it necessary to bring up the Parable of "The Good Samaratan"....

Not that this parable was about stealing, but IT WAS about what is morally "right" to do under certain circumstances, REGARDLESS OF THE LAW....the Law being Jewish law that ruled them at the time.

There was a man that was robbed, beaten up, and left for dead on the side of the road.

Two, (supposedly) Holy Men within their Religion, A Levite, and a Priest went around this man that was severly injured, and also left him for dead, as they continued on with their journey.

They, the supposedly religious Leaders, were following what they interpreted as God's Law on Keeping Clean and on the Sabbath and refused to lend a hand to this dying, bloody (unlean) man because they believed it broke God's Law....

Then came along a Samaratan man....Samaratans were thought of as a Lowly tribe....

But this Samaratan man stopped and helped the injured man and brought him to an inn and basically patched him up....the Samaratan had to continue on his journey so he left the Innkeeper with 3 days pay for 3 mights stay for the sick man and told the inkeeper if this was not enough money for the time it would take for the man to heel he would give him the rest of the money when he returned form his journey to check up on the man....

Jesus asked his diciples WHO was the moral and just ones in this parable....the answer was NOT the Religious leaders who followed what they thought was the just Law of God!

It was the Samaratan who ignored what was considered Moral and just and legal at the time, who was the Moral person.

Relating this parable to stealing, which is also against God's Laws....it would be immoral NOT to steal something, anything at all, IF IT were to save someone's life or the life of your own.

I went thru all of this, primarily for Allie's benefit....

If you and your husband were lost in the middle of the snow covered, blizzard ridden woods in the middle of Alaska for days on end with no food or cover and you came upon someone else's cabin, stocked with food and wood,

I KNOW you and your hubby would break in to the cabin, use their wood, and eat their food and not just sit outside of it in the Blizzard because it would be breaking and entering and stealing to use this other person's stock.

Care

 

[LOki]

Some relevent bits:

In a case of that kind, you cannot morally judge the action of Man B. Since he is under the threat of death, whatever he decides to do is right, because this is not the kind of moral situation in which men could exist. This is an emergency situation. Man B, in this case, is placed in a position where he cannot continue to exist. Therefore, what he does is up to him. If he refuses to obey, and dies, that is his moral privilege. If he prefers to obey, you could not blame him for the murder. The murderer is Man A. No exact, objective morality can be prescribed for an issue where a man's life is endangered.

...AND...

For instance, supposing you are washed ashore after a shipwreck, and there is a locked house which is not yours, but you're starving and you might die the next moment, and there is food in this house, what is your moral behavior? I would say again, this is an emergency situation, and please consult my article "The Ethics Of Emergencies" in _The Virtue Of Selfishness_ for a fuller discussion of this subject. But to state the issue in brief, I would say that you would have the right to break in and eat the food that you need, and then when you reach the nearest policeman, admit what you have done, and undertake to repay the man when you are able to work. In other words, you may, in an emergency situation, save your life, but not as "of right." You would regard it as an emergency, and then, still recognizing the property right of the owner, you would restitute whatever you have taken, and that would be moral on both parts.

MOAR!

 

[Paulie]

Belt up you ponce before I eat you for breakfast

You ought to be doing less eating, and more teeth brushing.

You probably ought to get some new material while you're at it, too.

 

[Diuretic]

It is not moral for you to do based on your moral beliefs.

It is only immoral for me to do because by moral belief happens to be the same as yours.

However, try this little scenario. Think in terms of the movie "Red Dawn." I'm sure you have it on VHS and DVD and know the script by heart.

You're an insurgent. Your country is occupied by an enemy military force. Everything you steal from your enemy helps you, and takes away from your enemy's ability to wage war against you.

Is it moral to steal?

Good film, saw it twice, got it at home. And yes, it does have many lessons in it. They stole weapons and ammo. Well, "liberated" them

 

[editec]

Is it moral to steal if the situtation is NOT an emergency but a consistent pattern of injustice that is constantly putting you and your family in peril?

For one example...it is immoral for let's say a Soviet peasant to steal from the communist overlords?

Do we say yes, "Because those damned Commies control what they stole from the people"?

Okay...now lets take this issue down the road of history a bit, shall we?

Let us look at one generation later, when communism has been overthrown and blessed capitalism finally installed.

Now the children of the FORMER communist overlords have all the means of production because it worked out that their fathers, who had the power during the transition phase, STILL somehow ended up with all the wealth only this time they own it as their private property.

Is it immoral for the Russian peasants to steal from their capitalist overlords who are but one generation removed from the thefts of their fathers, the communist overlords?

What do the Randian libertarians think?

How about those of us who are reasonably sane?