Why do people justify stealing?

[WhoCares]

Okay so I work with a lot of different people. And there is a common theme amoung the great numbers of people I come across. Many people will justify theft on some level. They either justify it as being innocuous (low value items) or having no victim (I'm stealing from a company not a person) or by seeing it as some kind of right of theirs to take something (The company/person owes me this). Even people I like and enjoy the company of at some stage justify some small theft of theirs. Seriously from what I've observed this causes no consternation to the average person, it's okay to take something that doesn't belong to you just as long as.....insert excuse here.

So without getting into my dark thoughts on humanity. Why does an act which obstensibly most people recognise as being wrongful, suddenly become right in certain (common) situations. And not talking about extreme moral inequities like, robin hood type situations. I'm talking about the everyday nicking of stuff just because....Situations like this.

Company provides food on the job, but employee doesn't like the food offered and helps themselves to a better choice from food not offered.
Work in cafe where a free morning coffee is allowed, so you have two or three instead.
Office workers nicking pens, or a whole packet of pens for use outside of work.
Office workers using the company photocopier to create copies of their kids school project/magazine etc...

So yeah. On the magnitude of criminal offences these things aren't really up there. But it's a curiosity of mine, if you will, why lowering the magnitude of something makes it right when really the act itself is no different to stealing someone's car or TV set.

 

[WALMART]

Mice eat cheese

 

[WhoCares]

Mice eat cheese

So are you saying it's basic human nature to nick stuff?

 

[WALMART]

So are you saying it's basic human nature to nick stuff?

Now is when I would like to hear your dark thoughts on humanity.

 

[WhoCares]

Ah! I see, it's a trap.....and I didn't even see the obvious metaphor. Fuck I'm dumber than I thought I was....

 

[hacbad macbar]

bcc its fun

 

[Tellenbach]

It's the secularization of society and the moral ambiguity that attends it. No longer is something "right or wrong"; now it's "it depends".

 

[á´…eparted]

It's the secularization of society and the moral ambiguity that attends it. No longer is something "right or wrong"; now it's "it depends".

No. Being secular does not preclude one from being moral, nor do morals have to come from religious institutions.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/misinformation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion

 

[á´…eparted]

I think the biggest justification towards stealing is a thought process similar to this "this likely won't effect anyone in a way they will notice, what they don't know won't hurt them. Also, what if I don't get caught? I can simply get away with it".

Even if someone is morally against stealing, it doesn't mean they are going to obey their own morals on the matter. It's quite common in fact for individuals go go contrary to their own moral code, and generate some cognitive dissonance so as not to worry/stress about it.

 

[five sounds]

I often gave away extras when I worked in food service when I could. I know the product is hugely over priced, and my heart is with the customer in front of me. I never would do something on a large scale or systematically. This is because it would more likely impact someone or become some kind of operation which I'm not comfortable with.

I stole a bottle of hair dye from a pharmacy once as well and have never felt good about it. No justification there, I was with a friend and was being stupid.

 

[Tellenbach]

No. Being secular does not preclude one from being moral, nor do morals have to come from religious institutions.

I never said it precluded it, nor did I did say that morals must come from religious institutions. Also, that psychology today blog post has lots of misinformation such as:

Secular nations such as those in Scandinavia donate the most money and supportive aid, per capita, to poorer nations.

The US, which is highly religious, gives $851/year per person compared to $120/year for Germans and $96/year for the French. Daily Breeze, Dec 15,1999.

Also,

"And within America, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be the highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates tend to be the among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon."

Are these murders committed by devout people or regular churchgoers or are they committed by non-churchgoers?

"Harvard economist Richard B. Freeman finds that church attendance is a better predictor of who escapes poverty, drug addiction, and crime than are family income, family structure, and other variables. An exhaustive review article in Criminology in 1995 found that even under adverse social and economic conditions, churchgoing serves as "an insulator against crime and delinquency.""

Punishment Up, Crime Down

 

[Forever_Jung]

Forever_Jung and the Tell-Tale Grape

One time when I was 4, my mom took me grocery shopping and I stole a grape. I was overcome with guilt afterwards, but by God, I reasoned, I deserved to have that grape, I was hungry and my mom was taking forever to finish shopping. I had managed to put the whole incident behind me until...

One year later

We returned to the same grocery store. Oh God, this is where IT happened. They all know. They're looking at me. I have to come clean, I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE! *Stands up in grocery cart and starts shouting* I STOLE A GRAPE! I KNOW IT WAS WRONG! I'm sorry, I was hungry *incoherent yammering through tears*.

Needless to say, I learned my lesson.

 

[PeaceBaby]

 

[LadyLazarus]

bcc its fun

Finally someone makes a REAL argument.

/procrime2010

 

[á´…eparted]

I never said it precluded it, nor did I did say that morals must come from religious institutions. Also, that psychology today blog post has lots of misinformation such as:

Are these murders committed by devout people or regular churchgoers or are they committed by non-churchgoers?

"Harvard economist Richard B. Freeman finds that church attendance is a better predictor of who escapes poverty, drug addiction, and crime than are family income, family structure, and other variables. An exhaustive review article in Criminology in 1995 found that even under adverse social and economic conditions, churchgoing serves as "an insulator against crime and delinquency.""

Punishment Up, Crime Down

Your post implied it, which is why I commented on it.

I also do not find your cited sources credible, but that's another matter we will never, ever, agree on so I don't care to get into that. Even so, that's from 1997, what I cited is from 2011, so the information contained within are more recent.

The sources the wiki sites seems sound. So really both statements are true. Religon seems to on an individual level lower the crime rate, where as secularism as a group tends to lower the crime rate. The relationship is likely much more complicated than the effect of religon itself, but we can observe the effects of it. Which, is why I find the claim that secularism as a group increases crime. It doesn't.

 

[Noll]

Stealing from a giant corporation is nothing compared to stealing from a homeless person. Disgustingly rich people don't really need more money, if you're extremely poor, theft may be completely understandable and even justifiable.

 

[wildflower]

I think the biggest justification towards stealing is a thought process similar to this "this likely won't effect anyone in a way they will notice, what they don't know won't hurt them. Also, what if I don't get caught? I can simply get away with it".

this. these days there are all sorts of easy opportunities to steal little things (e.g. mp3s) so there is a lot of temptation to do it especially when "everybody else is doing it".

Even if someone is morally against stealing, it doesn't mean they are going to obey their own morals on the matter. It's quite common in fact for individuals go go contrary to their own moral code, and generate some cognitive dissonance so as not to worry/stress about it.

and definitely this. people justify their actions so they can keep doing them and enjoy the benefits of the action. if one is not responsible then they can keep stealing and enjoying the "free" post-it notes, etc. and not feel any guilt. if people admit it is wrong then they will most likely feel some guilt and the need to stop stealing so they lie to themselves instead.

 

[Sunny Ghost]

I can sympathize with a thief that has morals. Robin Hood style stealing from the rich to give to the poor. And by that I mean, if someone is extremely poor and steals a loaf of bread from big corporation WalMart, I wouldn't raise a brow. Some hooligan stealing from a mom and pops store on the other hand just pisses me off. The one is likely not to notice such a small theft, and likely is crooked to their non salaried staff anyways. The other has their personal livelihood, sweat, tears, and blood at stake. And if you're going to swipe a radio and break and car window in the process, steal it from the beamer who likely has amazing insurance and not from the person who looks like they're struggling to afford gas and likely only has liability.

 

[Tellenbach]

No. Being secular does not preclude one from being moral, nor do morals have to come from religious institutions.

Have you considered that perhaps religious institutions are more efficient at instilling morals than secular institutions (such as school or secular family life)? Take for example the poor kid raised by a single mother in Detroit. Is this child more likely or less likely to have a good moral education without religion?

Even so, that's from 1997, what I cited is from 2011, so the information contained within are more recent.

The blog post you linked to:

"Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is widespread."

It's a huge leap to make any conclusions as to why this is, don't you agree? For instance, is this guy including the islamic jihadist nations of the middle east and africa? That outlier by itself would skew the statistics.

Of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries."

Are there jihadists, drug dealers, or gang members living in these cities? I'm guessing probably not and that is why they're safe; it has nothing to do with religion.

"And within America, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be the highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates tend to be the among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon."

Again, does this guy take into account poverty rates, illegitimacy rates, gun laws, etc? Might not these factors be important? For instance, we know that African American males commit half the gun homicides in the country. Are there more blacks in Louisiana and Alabama vs Vermont and Oregon?

Reading through this blog post, I'm confronted with one misleading point after another. It's sloppy in its presentation and it's very clearly biased.

 

[á´…eparted]

Have you considered that perhaps religious institutions are more efficient at instilling morals than secular institutions (such as school or secular family life)? Take for example the poor kid raised by a single mother in Detroit. Is this child more likely or less likely to have a good moral education without religion?

I have, and I do not agree at all. You don't need an "institution" to instill morals. If you did, countries with very low religious numbers would not be as they are.

It's a huge leap to make any conclusions as to why this is, don't you agree? For instance, is this guy including the islamic jihadist nations of the middle east and africa? That outlier by itself would skew the statistics.

No, that's not a huge leap. It is what it says. We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Are there jihadists, drug dealers, or gang members living in these cities? I'm guessing probably not and that is why they're safe; it has nothing to do with religion.

I don't know. Religion itself doesn't cause a problem on an individual level in the vast majority, but we can observe the bulk effect of it. See my previous post.

Again, does this guy take into account poverty rates, illegitimacy rates, gun laws, etc? Might not these factors be important? For instance, we know that African American males commit half the gun homicides in the country. Are there more blacks in Louisiana and Alabama vs Vermont and Oregon? Reading through this blog post, I'm confronted with one misleading point after another. It's sloppy in its presentation and it's very clearly biased.

I don't find it to be misleading at all. Further, if this (or any) article was written from the opposite prospective, I could ask the exact same kinds of questions. There's a lot of metrics that could frame it, and they don't act independently. Nevertheless we can observe that the less religious a country is, the better the quality of life is. There will be outliers, but this is a satistic we're talking about so it's a pattern.

I should have just kept my mouth shut like I normally do. We're so impossibly far apart politically and morally that I don't think any common ground exists. We're both set in our ways too, so neither is going to budge.