Stealing from the rich and stealing from the poor debate

[K. Eng]

I'm not endorsing Plinkerton's view, but there is a significant school of American legal thought that actually follows that reasoning. Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote a paper on deadly use of force to protect property. He said that one consideration of whether deadly force should be allowed or not is the comparative value of the property to the person. I have to read the paper again to be sure though.

If one steals a tent from a rich person who can go back to his big heated house, the rich person won't suffer much. But do the same to a homeless person, and that person will suffer a lot in rainy weather.

Now I think stealing is wrong regardless of who the victim is and stealing shouldn't be done, but I think there is merit to the argument that stealing from the poor and needy is morally much worse than stealing the same amount from someone who won't suffer much because of the loss.

But, I don't think stealing is stealing. Stealing 10 dollars from a millionaire is really not a big deal, but stealing that from a homeless guy, or a little kid, they'll feel it in a big way.

You are so wrong, and that is such a shame in one so young. I sincerely hope that as you age you will come to understand what ethical behavior is.

This conversation is over.

[AlphaKilo470]

Stealing from the rich to give to the poor, even if the intentions are good, is still stealing and thus is still wrong. If one wants something bad enough, they'll work for it. If taking from the rich to give to the poor was practiced on a large scale (single people add up. just one person can become a big number over time), the motivation to work would be gone. People would become lazier and lazier. Within a decade, the country will be very similar to Mexico where jobs have for the most part moved away and the country itself has gone to crap and people are fleeing in mass numbers for crappy jobs in other countries.

Now, youmay say this contradicts what I said in the thread about the guy getting a T42 instead of T23 but that's not stealing right there, IBM screwed up and gave him the T42. People pay for their mistakes, the best thing to do is learn from them.

[admsteiner]

As Plinkerton said, this conversation is over. It is extremely disrespectful to go ahead and create a new topic discussing the exact same issue not 24 hours after the old one was locked. I would request that no one else reply until such time as Bill or another moderator can lock this topic (or better yet, remove it).

Keep in mind that Judge Posner's reasoning explains whether or not such force should be used. Read Posner's recent (a few weeks back) discussion of legalizing drugs. He explicitly states that the economic factors may call for it to be legalized as a means of controlling it better and minimizing its use and that legalization is not a method of society condoning the use of drugs. Just because something is economically feasible does not make it correct.

Please, no more replies
Adam

[JaneL]

As Plinkerton said, this conversation is over.

Actually, I said that and then locked the initial thread.

Since K. Eng who started this thread is also one of the moderators, I won't lock this one. He can make his own decisions about whether or not it is appropriate.

[emorphien]

Stealing from the rich to give to the poor, even if the intentions are good, is still stealing and thus is still wrong.

I don't know the original thread but this reminds me of an interesting topic in psychology. If you ask a 5 year old whether it's ok to steal something for someone who needs it really badly, otherwise they might die (like medicine from a rich company for a dying poor person that would otherwise save them), they'll say you shouldn't because stealing it is wrong.

If you ask an 8 year old, there should be higher thought processes, ie: stealing is bad but so is letting that person die needlessly. It's a moral judgement which is worse but getting to point is a much more complex thought process (the point of the study, I forget who did it). They don't care the end decision (yes steal the medicine or don't) but they just want to see that as a child ages they can realize the law isn't always able to account for every situation in a way everyone will consider moral or acceptible.

[Nolonemo]

This is a classic example of moral absolutism vs. moral relativism.

The moral absolutist (perhaps a fundamentalist Christian?) would say that stealing is a sin, therefore wrong no matter what. The moral relativist (perhaps a Buddhist?) would say that stealing the medicine would result in the least net human suffering, and say that it's the better course.

Doesn't the Catholic church recognise situations in which a sin is excused because of necessity?

[DavidNZ]

What surprised me the most was that a discussion in 'off-topic' was locked because it seemed to raise some larger moral/ethical issues that some found troublesome.

It is a shame that a topic/discussion which is basic to Introductory Philosophy courses around the world cannot be debated openly in a public forum by intelligent folks who want to take a break from discussing technology.

EDITED to remove my statement: "In fact, I find it laughable." It is anything but funny, and this was too much of a demeaning statement.

[emorphien]

What surprised me the most was that a discussion in 'off-topic' was locked because it seemed to raise some larger moral/ethical issues that some found troublesome.

Disappointing to say the least. Some people are getting too upset over it and making rash and unnecessary actions.

[K. Eng]

I consider the whole discussion on the returned ThinkPad closed (and I won't go against Nonny's decision to lock the thread), but I was curious to see what people thought about the larger moral/ethical issues raised.

I don't know why I'm so curious - maybe it was the paper by Judge Posner, or maybe it was visions of Jean Valjean from Les Miserables being enslaved for 20 years for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister's starving children (someone correct me if I'm factually wrong on that one).

What surprised me the most was that a discussion in 'off-topic' was locked because it seemed to raise some larger moral/ethical issues that some found troublesome.

[admsteiner]

Actually, I said that and then locked the initial thread.

Since K. Eng who started this thread is also one of the moderators, I won't lock this one. He can make his own decisions about whether or not it is appropriate.

Sorry, I was looking at a previous quote and thought it was Plinkerton. I also didn't realize that K. Eng was a moderator.
--adam

[admsteiner]

Doesn't the Catholic church recognise situations in which a sin is excused because of necessity?

I think you hit the nail on the head with your last sentance. The first question is how you define morality (tangent; I was having a discussion with my criminal law professor in class regarding Devlin's belief that society can determine its own laws and that those are moral. His reasoning was that Devlin was wrong because it does not allow for societal evolution, society is stuck with the morals of the day. I disagreed with it as well, but I disagreed with his reasoning on Devlin. In the end he said Devlin was incorrect because there is an absolute morality, which Devlin did not take into account).

However, there are two scenarios or tracks.
1) Stealing from the rich is morally correct, it is "good stealing", the act is justified..
2) Stealing from the rich is morally incorrect but it is excused for certain reasons. By excused I mean that society understands it and/or won't punish for it.

When you say that stealing would be excused because of necessity that doesn't mean that you did not steal. Rather, because of other circumstances, you are not punished for it. If you say that the act is justified then you can either say the stealing was correct or, alternatively, you never stole . The "better course" which results in the least human suffering is not necesarrily the moral course, it could be an understandable/excuseable immoral course.

There is an added dimension of the law's purpose and whether it can take into account all circumstances. Posner's belief of using the law to increase economic efficiency and wealth divorces it from morality. Something could be immoral, but the best way to control it is not to punish it, but to regulate it.

Not being familiar with Christianity or Buddhism I can't really comment on whether the analogies fit (and I would emphasize that neither category is limited to 'fundamental' christians or buddhists). But for a moral relativist I would like to ask if virgin sacrifices, crucifixtion, slavery or lynch mobs are morally acceptable. It would have ramifications over those who want apologies for atrocities committed in the past...if they were morally correct (just that we do not approve of that today) then there is nothing to apologize for. I'd primarily do that to watch them squirm, I'd love to see someone get up and say "Yes, slavery in America was perfectly moral."

[Edit: I edited a couple of things for grammar...no content changed]
--Adam

[snackycat]

I did not ask for or steal a t42 it was sent to me! I am not a thief! i work hard and could hardly even afford that t23 but i picked it up on ebay for 600$. anyway I called ibm/lenovo and they did not understand what i was talking about i got someone that english may be their third language or something. i tried explaining that i have a better notebook then what i started out with but hung up in disgust that ibm/lenovo outsources their customer service besides who can trust a company that sends people the wrong notebook. sufice to say my hands are clean of this matter i tried to do "the right thing" but until ibm/lenovo pays me for my time in clearing up this issue the t42 is mine ! and please stop calling me some thief!

[K. Eng]

snackycat, I do not think you are a thief, and I think most people here do not think you are thief. We value our forum members here, and you are presumed innocent unless proven otherwise

The discussion on your T42 was closed, and I don't expect it to be discussed here.

I am not a thief!
...
the t42 is mine ! and please stop calling me some thief!

[BillMorrow]

Theft is theft, period, and dishonorable..

regardless of amount or victim..

no further discussion is required..

[AlphaKilo470]

Theft is wrong, in my opinion, as I stated in an earlier post but snackycat did not steal the T42 he has. IBM gave him the laptop. It was a mistake on IBM's part as they were supposed to give him his T23 but nonetheless, IBM boxed it up, put his name on it and mailed it to him. Now tell me how snackycat stole that laptop?

[no_man]

It is difficult to speak to those that do not hear. Perception is not reality, the box was loaded with a T42, many people are involved in product movement, the box was loaded with a T42. We refuse to believe that which we cannot understand.

[BillMorrow]

sorry, i did not see that part of the thread, but still if you get something that does not belong to you you should return it..

sort of like getting change for a $50 when all you handed the cashier was a $5..

i will not parse out address labels or intent or error..

taking advantage is not, in my mind, an honorable thing to do..

if you did not want the opinion of your peers, then you should not have spoken up..

and THAT is all i have to say..

[emorphien]

I wouldn't keep it I don't think, but I also would not pay to ship it back. They can send me the shipping materials and a label for example or send a courier. But more than that, you shouldn't be responsible for such an incovenience to you (not having your own computer back).