• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Stealing is Fair/unfair.

Stigmata

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
8,779
It's interesting how your sense of morality is so absolute, which in my opinion isn't logical. There's a concept in United States law called mens rea , which essentially means the crime is judged by a person's intent. Perhaps the legal system is more Te/Fi and your thinking is Ti/Fe. Don't know.

Hmm. Well, rather that pillars of stability, I tend to view morals as flexible principles more or less to which I try to abide by yet are not bound to. I will flex my principles in the event I can both rationalize and justify my means for doing so, yet just because I can justify them I say they weren't morally correct.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Hmm. Well, rather that pillars of stability, I tend to view morals as flexible principles more or less to which I try to abide by yet are not bound to. I will flex my principles in the event I can both rationalize and justify my means for doing so, yet just because I can justify them I say they weren't morally correct.

Which means you're a moral absolutist, is what it seems. It strikes me as a rather Victorian mindset, "stealing is always wrong, even if you're dying of hunger and you're in that position because of the actions of other people in the society being unethical fuckwads!" and "lying is always wrong, even if telling the truth means you could be trapped in your abusive situation rather than fleeing a violent captor!"

It seems extraordinarily simplistic to me. I CAN'T EVEN WRAP MY MIND AROUND IT. IT SEEMS CRUEL AND ILLOGICAL AND COMPLETELY DIVORCED FROM "THE BIG PICTURE."

I think ethics and morality have depth. Morality and ethics have to be examined for motive, intent, and practical real-world application.
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
weigh need and potential benefit for the stealer versus need and cost for the stealee.

in general i feel like since people are unfairly born into different circumstances, stealing isn't a very clear moral no-no. it is in the sense of not being kind, but i don't necessarily see it as unfair. though it can be unjust if done improperly. it's all very complicated i think actually :)

GemPOPGem said:
E.g For an individual who has taken nothing but crap from the system and been screwed over financially because of it... i'd say hats off if they managed to defraud a multinational out of a million.
If someone who just didn't give a shit and had no need to steal, stole from a family run corner shop...i'd be very cross.

exactly.

though you do have to be careful because sometimes stealing from the "big corp" is actually going to hurt the people at the bottom more than the people at the top.

i've never really stolen anything of consequence. pen, sheet of paper, etc. i feel like in general i don't really have any justified need to steal.
 

Stigmata

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
8,779
Which means you're a moral absolutist, is what it seems.

Call it what you will.

It strikes me as a rather Victorian mindset, "stealing is always wrong, even if you're dying of hunger and you're in that position because of the actions of other people in the society being unethical fuckwads!" and "lying is always wrong, even if telling the truth means you could be trapped in your abusive situation rather than fleeing a violent captor!"
It seems extraordinarily simplistic to me. I CAN'T EVEN WRAP MY MIND AROUND IT. IT SEEMS CRUEL AND ILLOGICAL AND COMPLETELY DIVORCED FROM "THE BIG PICTURE."

I think ethics and morality have depth. Morality and ethics have to be examined for motive, intent, and practical real-world application.

Hmm. Well, in your first example, while the person may be dying of hunger which is a perfectly legitimate reason to steal, they are still in fact stealing, regardless of circumstance. I view morality and justification as two separate entities rather than in a position in which one must be complementary of the other. You seem to be saying that circumstance in turn reflects what we call the action, and to a certain extend I agree. If someone attempts to mug you in a dark alley and you in response by shooting them in an act of self-defense, and that person later dies as a result of that, that's a perfectly justifiable reason for doing so and I don't think you should be punished for that, yet despite how you justify it you did in fact kill someone. You seem to have the misconception that I'm viewing this all in a linear fashion that if by acting immorally you should be punished regardless of circumstance, which isn't true at all. I'm just saying that doesn't in turn change the actions from what they are.

As far as the second one goes, other options exist, they would just produce a result which is than optimal or ideal. You're implying the lack of other options, which I don't agree with.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Call it what you will.




Hmm. Well, in your first example, while the person may be dying of hunger which is a perfectly legitimate reason to steal, they are still in fact stealing, regardless of circumstance. I view morality and justification as two separate entities rather than in a position in which one must be complementary of the other. You seem to be saying that circumstance in turn reflects what we call the action, and to a certain extend I agree. If someone attempts to mug you in a dark alley and you in response by shooting them in an act of self-defense, and that person later dies as a result of that, that's a perfectly justifiable reason for doing so and I don't think you should be punished for that, yet despite how you justify it you did in fact kill someone. You seem to have the misconception that I'm viewing this all in a linear fashion that if by acting immorally you should be punished regardless of circumstance, which isn't true at all. I'm just saying that doesn't in turn change the actions from what they are.

As far as the second one goes, other options exist, they would just produce a result which is than optimal or ideal. You're implying the lack of other options, which I don't agree with.

The second example I gave in response to Chana is more of a Robin Hood principle and has nothing to do survival stealing.

Actions aren't immoral, intentions are. This is where you and I disagree, and apparently will continue to disagree.

It's why I can't follow Christianity or any other religion where it's all like, "okay here are the ten commandments, it's always wrong to lie, to steal, and to be gay." I can't even wrap my head around that kind of thinking.

It strikes me as Fe because it appears above and beyond to be about simplistic social control, and indeed, social control can create a harmonious society if everyone treats one another fairly, in an ideal world.

On the other hand, I think there's a great deal of room for cruelty, and for what I personally consider immoral behavior, in that sort of moral absolutism.

For example, the old lady who believes that sex before marriage is always wrong and throws her daughter out into the street for becoming pregnant out of wedlock, the daughter panics and commits suicide. The mother still feels morally justified in what she did, and then blames the daughter for acting in further immorality by committing suicide.

In my opinion, the mother is the entity of heinous evil, not the daughter.

Also, the idea of being a "martyr," people who suffer and die because they refuse to break a commandment. Oh please, give me a break. I can't get with that either, and it's unsurprising to me that martyrdom is most frequently associated with IxFJs (Fe).

I'm not saying this absolutely is an Fi vs. Fe conflict, but it seems like it. I could be wrong.

Either way, we shall have to agree to disagree.
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
It's why I can't follow Christianity or any other religion where it's all like, "okay here are the ten commandments, it's always wrong to lie, to steal, and to be gay." I can't even wrap my head around that kind of thinking.

Except that isn't Judaic-Christian either. At least, "narratively" (rather than legalistically), there are more examples of grey area morals. Take the story of Samson, for example.. a leader of the Jews who was captured by his enemies, blinded, and tied up for public display. The story (far fetched though it may be) ends with him praying to God for one last bit of strength to overcome them. He managed to bust the pillars he was tied to, caving in the entire complex he was in, killing himself and everyone along with him. He's considered a hero.

Or David, also caught by enemies (although at the time, he was disheveled and they didn't know who he was). He escaped by going "full retard", acting like a crazy man. They thought he was insignificant and let him be. You could interpret this as "lying" for a good purpose.

Or Rahab the prostitute. She was a resident of the city of Jericho, an enemy state of the Israelites. They had sent spies into the city before they began their siege, who happened to meet this prostitute on accident. She helped them, knowing that they were probably going to win, and was spared once the war began. After that point, she was kind of considered an honorary member of their society.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Except that isn't Judaic-Christian either. At least, "narratively" (rather than legalistically), there are more examples of grey area morals. Take the story of Samson, for example.. a leader of the Jews who was captured by his enemies, blinded, and tied up for public display. The story (far fetched though it may be) ends with him praying to God for one last bit of strength to overcome them. He managed to bust the pillars he was tied to, caving in the entire complex he was in, killing himself and everyone along with him. He's considered a hero.

Or David, also caught by enemies (although at the time, he was disheveled and they didn't know who he was). He escaped by going "full retard", acting like a crazy man. They thought he was insignificant and let him be. You could interpret this as "lying" for a good purpose.

Or Rahab the prostitute. She was a resident of the city of Jericho, an enemy state of the Israelites. They had sent spies into the city before they began their siege, who happened to meet this prostitute on accident. She helped them, knowing that they were probably going to win, and was spared once the war began. After that point, she was kind of considered an honorary member of their society.

Good examples. There are countless other ones in the old testament; most people are shocked if they actually read the historical sections in detail, considering all the crazy stuff described there. It's more complicated than people nowadays seem to look at it.

Other points:
- Prohibition against teh gay is not in the 10 commandments
- it's not "lying," it's "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." I.e., accuse him of doing something he didn't do, or not doing something he did do.
- another popular commandment is "not taking the lord's name in vain" = 'swearing/coarse language,' which also is not true... it's basically putting words in God's mouth, saying he will or will not do something that one doesn't have any special insight on, or else calling on God in every situation blindly, just like the heathens called on their gods as if to give validity to their own oaths. (which is why Jesus said to "let your yay's be yay's, and your nay's be nay's")
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Which means you're a moral absolutist, is what it seems. It strikes me as a rather Victorian mindset, "stealing is always wrong, even if you're dying of hunger and you're in that position because of the actions of other people in the society being unethical fuckwads!" and "lying is always wrong, even if telling the truth means you could be trapped in your abusive situation rather than fleeing a violent captor!"

It seems extraordinarily simplistic to me. I CAN'T EVEN WRAP MY MIND AROUND IT. IT SEEMS CRUEL AND ILLOGICAL AND COMPLETELY DIVORCED FROM "THE BIG PICTURE."

Think of this way: the starving man is outside your house, which would you prefer him to do? A) Knock on the door and ask you for food because he's starving to death or B) Smash the door down and steal your food.

As for the lying issue, we have another thread for that, but me and Nicodemus seem to agree that the preferred option in such a situation is to simply refuse to answer.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Concerning lying and the classic "murderer at your door" scenario:
The natural law theorist is NOT saying that you are obliged to tell the murderer where his intended victim is. In fact you are obliged not to tell him. The claim is rather that it is wrong to resort to lying, specifically, as a way of avoiding telling him. You could instead say nothing, or try to distract him, or say something that is vague or ambiguous or subtly off-topic but not untrue. You could threaten him, since he is himself threatening someone under your protection. Indeed, you can do more than threaten him if you are certain that his attempt at murder is imminent. You can punch his lights out, or even kill him if that is the only way to save your own life or that of the person you are hiding. This would be self-defense, and thus not murder. There is no question whatsoever here of your having a duty to sit back and let him do what he wants. The claim is only that it would be wrong to lie. And even if you did lie to him, the claim is not that you would have done something seriously wrong. You would be guilty of at most a venial sin, given the circumstances. So, things are hardly as dire as critics of the view might think.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/11/murderer-at-door.html

Which helps show a larger point that there are other options involved in such scenarios people. You're not trapped with a simple either/or dilemma in most situations like this. As I mentioned above, the starving man has the option of asking people for food, and certainly within Biblical morality you would be obligated to provide some care for the man. Think of the parable of the Good Samaritain as a famous example. Plus nomadic tribes in the region(both then and now) have traditions of hospitality towards strangers in need of food and water, since it's a matter of life or death in the desert.
 

Amethyst

¡MI TORTA!
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
2,191
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
7w8
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I'm not entirely against stealing, depending on who you're stealing from.


Stealing from a Wal-Mart isn't the same as stealing from a Ma and Pa shop. Just my own opinion.
 

Not_Me

New member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
1,641
MBTI Type
INTj
The basic principle of fairness is simple. A person owns what he produces. If he didn't produce it, then he has no more claim on it than anyone else. However, since trade is desirable, things get complicated. What is considered an equitable trade? If someone didn't acquire their property in a fair way, is it really unfair for others to ignore his ownership claim?
 

knight

New member
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
406
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
9
The basic principle of fairness is simple. A person owns what he produces. If he didn't produce it, then he has no more claim on it than anyone else. However, since trade is desirable, things get complicated. What is considered an equitable trade? If someone didn't acquire their property in a fair way, is it really unfair for others to ignore his ownership claim?

its not unfair, in situations like this its not about fair its about who is in a position cause harm and who isnt
 

Elfboy

Certified Sausage Smoker
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
9,625
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
i'd feel wrong stealing from an individual (unless they were rich) or a small business. big corporation chain stores are different though because nobody's being directly affected by it.

how is it exceptable to steal from someone who is rich? do you feel entitled to the fruits of others' labors?
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Do you understand how the economy actually works?
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Indeed I am. Because frankly I think the statement "stealing the fruits of someone's labor" from the rich doesn't apply to corporations.

Do you know about corporate welfare? Corporate tax breaks? How corporations are legally treated as individuals in order to wield power over employees and consumers?

Do you know how popular it is to find cheap labor in places like Indonesia?

The fruits of someone's labor my ass. It's a bit more complex than all that.
 

Elfboy

Certified Sausage Smoker
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
9,625
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Indeed I am. Because frankly I think the statement "stealing the fruits of someone's labor" from the rich doesn't apply to corporations.

Do you know about corporate welfare? Corporate tax breaks? How corporations are legally treated as individuals in order to wield power over employees and consumers?

Do you know how popular it is to find cheap labor in places like Indonesia?

The fruits of someone's labor my ass. It's a bit more complex than all that.

I'm not here to defend corporations or make any argument of the sort (I think they are an evil merger of state and economics, for many of the tax reasons you've listed among others). I'm questioning the assumption that stealing from the rich is somehow more justified or ethical than stealing from the poor.
PS: one point I will disagree on is labor in indonesia. if they are better off not having a job, then it is by all means their choice (I'm under the assumption that their lives would be much worse without a job than with one, but perhaps I'm wrong). the responsibility of a business is to make money without harming or forcing their fellow man. unless the indonesian population is being made forcibly to work for global companies, then more power to them for providing income for foreign countries. a business is not responsible for providing a luxurious living for it's employees. if the businesses aren't paying them enough, they should start their own businesses. if someone is too weak to take matters into his own hands, he is undeserving of my sympathies
 

Elfboy

Certified Sausage Smoker
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
9,625
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
in regards to your original question: economics is the distribution of power and utility. a business is designed to distribute value in the most effective and efficient means possible and sometimes to create entirely new value, and they have a very strong incentive to do this: PROFIT. however, there are a few rules in any lawful society.
1) no stealing
2) no violence
3) no controlling of other people through force or intimidation
4) respect people's right to go after their own goals, their own ambitions, their own desires and their own self interests, as long as they don't stray from the first 3 rules. that's where a legal system comes in
"my right to swing my arms stops where my neighbor's nose begins" so to speak.
5) man is entitled to the fruits of his own labor, and to no one elses. there is no such things as entitlement.
this is pure and unadulterated economics as allowed it's true existance by capitalism. under such conditions, value will be continuously redistributed efficiently and new value will be created, allowing for a cyclical trend of rapid economic growth as long as this system remains undisturbed.
corporatism is a corruption of real capitalism because of the interaction between government and economics which leads to lower productivity, higher taxes for the productive and lower taxes for the unproductive, lobbyists, cronies and corrupt businessmen who are the puppetteers or politicians.
 
Top