wasoxygen Stealing is not immoral. If you steal food from a hobo you're hurting him. Even putting his life in danger. That is immoral (hurting people) If you steal a candy from a baby. You're not hurting him. He's displeased, his feeling are torn but you didnt hurt him. At worst you just abused his weakness and that's immoral (abusing weakness) As long as you did not hurt someone (we dont care much for their feelings, it's far too subjective), and you did not abuse some weakness, you're "right" and moral. Stealing from the rich did not hurt the dude. You did not abuse some weakness. It's okay.
Here is a question: If I am wealthy, and you stole my watch, and it was my great grandfather's watch, passed down to me over generations, have you done something immoral? It seems as if you are saying any disparity in material wealth is immoral, and thus stealing from those that have more sets things right. Is that correct?
Damnit I never really though of the stealing moral problem, but you make me wake up in the middle of the night. And I hate debating on the internet. But seriously you're obfuscating the problem.
And you doing it by using the oldest trick: appeal to sentiment.
You put an object into existence. By saying it's old you give it some sort of historical value. Plus you add your grandfather for sentimental hook. And you dit not choose a dumb object like a spoon or a dildo, but an object with mystical , almost sacred values as it does the exploit of counting the time itself. You add layers and layers of irrelevant junk to get your point across. If I used the same type of argument, I would add: What if your grandfather was a nazi with thousand of dead on his conscience ?
You see? That's just blurring lines around until nothing is right or wrong, and we should continue to condemn stealing out of inertia. And dont get me started on your second argument : putting opinionated though in my mind to discredit my opinion on the subject as biased. You're a naughty naughty rhetorician! I hope you received stones and pebbles for Christmas.
!
:) sorry about that. However, in all honesty, I think we cannot extract such ideas from the messy reality that we want to apply them to when we are judging their merits. Sometimes the medicine is worse than the disease, and I think the onus is on the one suggesting a remedy to provide a rationale that demonstrates the collateral damage is justified. IMO the large disparity in wealth is one of the greatest social ills of our time. However, that's why I commented elsewhere on this thread: It's not enough to demonstrate that stealing is right, or justified. Even when it is, it might not mean that it is the best course of action. This article suggests that since stealing is justified, it should be done. It does not, however, dwell upon the consequences of that approach. Thus, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.If being right was enough, everything would be so much easier.
(mk say almost the same thing below) I dont know how to address the problem (not being fluent in english, dont help either) Of course the "hurting" part is subjective (that's the mk's old watch dilemma- on a side note, nobody could decently back you up for a fucking old watch-).
And nobody alone should be able to decide what really will be considered hurting. I guess my point was just that Stealing is not inherently immoral like killing, hurting, exploiting weakness is. Stealing just might sometime involve immoral stuff (hurting, exploiting, etc) it is not that
Disparity in wealth is just luck based. Nothing moral or immoral in it. How you acquired your wealth might be. If you did steal to get rich is not inherently bad. But If you hurt people, or exploited their lack of wealth to make them work for less than minimum wage, you're probably an asshole.disparity in material wealth is immoral, and thus stealing from those that have more sets things right
I see mk's moral argument did not impress you; I will try a practical approach. The ethical rule "If a rich person has something you need, you should take it" seems far too subjective to be useful, especially compared to the traditional "You should not take things that belong to others," even though the traditional rule does not give perfect results. First of all, who is rich? There are people with wealth hundreds of times greater than mine. But I have wealth hundreds of times greater than some people. I don't mind if a homeless person asks me for money on the street, but I would object if they took my wallet. The ideas of "need" and "hurt" are also unclear to me. Say my eyes are failing and I need good vision to do my job. Can I force a wealthy person to give me their corneas? Won't that hurt them? Can I force them to pay for my surgery, because losing some money won't change their lifestyle? But if enough people like me force the wealthy person to pay for our needs, they will eventually be as poor as a hobo. Thanks for responding to my request for clarification, and in the language I know best! Your English is clear to me, and please let me know if you would like me to clarify anything I've said. The only linguistic point I would make is that the word "stealing" -- to me -- implies immorality. It is possible to take something from someone in a moral way, for example, taking a coffee from a shop after you have paid for it. Stealing is immoral taking -- taking something that belongs to someone else without their permission. So if I may rephrase your sentence, Taking just might sometimes involve immoral stuff, and in those cases we call it stealing.