When, if ever, do you feel stealing is morally okay?

[Summerwind]

I feel you went a bit too far by assuming that all Christians believe that there are no exceptions to the no killing rule within Christianity. There are plenty of Christians who do not feel that God would punish someone or even expect a person to ask for forgiveness for killing someone in self defense or defense of others. This does not make these people non-Christians. They simply have a different interpretation of what the Bible says or they feel that it was covered somewhere in the Bible (especially since parts of the Bible actually demand that certain people be killed for the sins they do, right around the same area where those Commandments that include "thou shalt not kill" are).

And morals are subjective. No two people on Earth are likely to have the exact same set of moral beliefs as each other (let alone more than two people) even if their moral convictions are extremely similar.

I'm sorry but not the New Testament. People using the Old Testament to justify actions aren't using Christianity. Just isn't true, and it's their ignorance if they try to utilize it.

Duh! Morals subjective in so many ways, by individual, by socio-economic location, by active religious communities, .... to say morals are subjective is like saying water is wet.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Most people will make exceptions when it comes to killing of some kind or another in whether they feel it is morally okay or not to kill, even when it comes to taking human life. The most common exception is "in self defense", but others include in defense of others, during war, to end a person's suffering, or even the death penalty (to name really just a few).

However, there aren't too many times people would say it wouldn't be morally wrong to steal. I think a good number of people might say in general "when a person is starving", but even then, it is going to be greatly limiting and may not actually be morally right, but rather simply not as big of a wrong as stealing for other reasons.

I personally can think of a few extreme cases where it would be morally okay to steal (trapped in a country with little hope of getting back, and little other choice but to steal because of many possible complications in trying to actually earn food, when escaping wrongful detainment of some kind, when protecting yourself against another person, the general "when starving", etc.). There are even likely many others where I would probably say that it would be okay to steal, but it would take having a very specific set of circumstances presented to me to decide that.

On the flip side of that though, there would be circumstances where some would say a person/entity is "stealing" from them eventhough it isn't truly against the law because they have a difference of opinion on ownership and whether ownership of certain property should have transferred to a particular other party or at all.

I think stealing may be the hardest to make exceptions for when it comes to right or wrong because stealing involves a man-made concept of ownership. Life is clearly, scientifically defined.

So, I ask, what, do you feel is morally okay when it comes to stealing or is it always morally wrong to steal, no matter the specific circumstances?

I do not know the law in the US, but under British Common law, one is not stealing if he is starving, in need of shelter or in peril to his safety or life. Still on the books is a law requiring citizens to give "aid and assistance" in such instances, but is unenforceable.

I say that it is not stealing when the owner is irresponsible, leaving possessions behind not on your property is loss, not theft although one can be charged for having that property. I say it is not theft if one is starving or injured, I would not convict a man of breaking into a house to get bandages and treatment for wounds for himself or his family if there was no other help available.


The Obamacare mandate and other taxes, however are legal theft....

 

[Summerwind]

Except, that's just not true. Your error is mostly due to mistranslation. Killing is not the issue in the Bible, MURDER is. And the commandment actually translates correctly as Thou shalt not murder.

Legally there is a line where killing isn't murder. Factually, they are the same. Religiously, both killing and murder were never acceptable in the NT only in the OT and in the OT only if god told you to, which would legally be murder these days.

 

[Paleocon]

Did not prove anything. You are trying to use philosophy (which is absolutely subjective) to prove an objective concept.

It is your belief that natural law is true, but you cannot prove it. There is no proof to support that natural laws actually are the moral absolutes. And considering how much difference you could find in what some would claim under natural law compared to others, that too proves that it is subjective. If it was absolute, then everyone (at least of those trying to use natural law philosophy) would be claiming the exact same things under natural law as moral absolutes, yet they don't.

Your assertion that philosophy is subjective, is unsupported. You may think yourself so important that your very word is sufficient to establish something, but don't expect anyone else to.

 

[Winchester]

Morally okay, no, lesser of 2 evils... in some cases yes.

 

[roguenuke]

I'm sorry but not the New Testament. People using the Old Testament to justify actions aren't using Christianity. Just isn't true, and it's their ignorance if they try to utilize it.

Duh! Morals subjective in so many ways, by individual, by socio-economic location, by active religious communities, .... to say morals are subjective is like saying water is wet.

The interpretation of the Bible is just as subjective as morals are. So it is just as "wrong" to say that Christians that use the OT to justify killings of certain kinds as morally justified as well. There is nothing I know of in the NT that says that all killings, no matter the circumstances, are always morally wrong. Heck, even the translation of whether it is "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not murder" is in strong contention amongst many Christians/Christian scholars. Jesus even mentioned that the Jews were not following the law when it came to honoring thy mother and father because children who were "backtalking" their parents were not being put to death. (Matthew 15:1-9)

 

[roguenuke]

Legally there is a line where killing isn't murder. Factually, they are the same. Religiously, both killing and murder were never acceptable in the NT only in the OT and in the OT only if god told you to, which would legally be murder these days.

Factually they are not the same, even in the past. In fact, murder used to mean (as in the language that the original texts for the Commandments was taken from) "to kill a person with malice". There is always a caveat to distinguish between murder and killing.

Do you have any evidence to support that "killing and murder were never acceptable in the NT"? Because I can't find anything that supports this assertion. Even Jesus seems to have felt that at least some Jews were wrong for not killing as mandated by the commandment honour they mother and father when that particular commandment was broken.

 

[roguenuke]

I do not know the law in the US, but under British Common law, one is not stealing if he is starving, in need of shelter or in peril to his safety or life. Still on the books is a law requiring citizens to give "aid and assistance" in such instances, but is unenforceable.

I say that it is not stealing when the owner is irresponsible, leaving possessions behind not on your property is loss, not theft although one can be charged for having that property. I say it is not theft if one is starving or injured, I would not convict a man of breaking into a house to get bandages and treatment for wounds for himself or his family if there was no other help available.


The Obamacare mandate and other taxes, however are legal theft....

There is a difference between stealing in general and stealing as recognized by the law. There are in fact some legal exceptions for stealing. But I based this not on what the law considers stealing but what the actual definition of stealing is, which is merely taking another person's property, without their permission, with no intention of returning it to them. The point was that laws are subject to the society they exist in and the feelings/beliefs of that society on that issue (in this case theft/stealing). However, much more could fall under the definition of stealing than what is recognized as stealing under the law.

Another example, can a person "steal" another man's wife? After all, at one time women were viewed as property. If you adopt the child of a person who is still alive, but lost custody of that child, are you "stealing" that child? We would say that a person "stole" a child if they were kidnapped by someone to be raised illegally away from their parents. So the very definition stealing is subjective since a big contention involves property rights and ownership.

 

[calamity]

They didn't own it. Can't take from them something they did not own.


They adapted and then became shrewd sellers.


Doesn't change the fact that most was bought or ceded.


:naughty
Broken treaties does not necessarily make it theft.


So back to your original statement. It is false on it's surface and an exaggeration.

The Cherokee had businesses and houses from which they were evicted and sent to camps, like the Jews in Germany. Definitely theft.

How is breaking a treaty and taking away the land the treaty defined as theirs not theft?

 

[Your Star]

Any survival situation. If your choice is either to die or to steal, it's not even a choice.

There are various other situations that I can think of, but that would be the main scenario.

 

[Excon]

The Cherokee had businesses and houses from which they were evicted and sent to camps, like the Jews in Germany. Definitely theft.

How is breaking a treaty and taking away the land the treaty defined as theirs not theft?

I did not say anything specifically about the Cherokee did I? I said in reply; "Doesn't change the fact that most was bought or ceded."
Your original statement was false on it's surface and an exaggeration.
We do not live in a country that was stolen.
The majority of the land was bought and ceded.

As for treaties.
Treaties are broken all the time. It doesn't make it theft.
Which all matters not to your original false claim. We do not live in a country that was stolen.

 

[Fearandloathing]

There is a difference between stealing in general and stealing as recognized by the law. There are in fact some legal exceptions for stealing. But I based this not on what the law considers stealing but what the actual definition of stealing is, which is merely taking another person's property, without their permission, with no intention of returning it to them. The point was that laws are subject to the society they exist in and the feelings/beliefs of that society on that issue (in this case theft/stealing). However, much more could fall under the definition of stealing than what is recognized as stealing under the law.

Another example, can a person "steal" another man's wife? After all, at one time women were viewed as property. If you adopt the child of a person who is still alive, but lost custody of that child, are you "stealing" that child? We would say that a person "stole" a child if they were kidnapped by someone to be raised illegally away from their parents. So the very definition stealing is subjective since a big contention involves property rights and ownership.

I think I dealt with it on both the legal and moral sides, there is no absolute here and should not be.

The wife issue is resolved through British common law circa 1625, women are not property and therefore do not qualify.

The US maintained anti-theft laws of slaves into the 19th century but would be a poor example today. By the same token, children are not possessions, and are not a matter of ownership but guardianship and responsibility.

Can someone steal and education? I know of many, many people who have attended full classes without credit to get the learning to be used in a career. They got the knowledge but not the piece of paper, but walk away without charges. Can a politician "steal" an election? Say through subterfuge, deceit, and false promises?

If so, what should be the penalty?

 

[calamity]

I did not say anything specifically about the Cherokee did I? I said in reply; "Doesn't change the fact that most was bought or ceded."
Your original statement was false on it's surface and an exaggeration.
We do not live in a country that was stolen.
The majority of the land was bought and ceded.

As for treaties.
Treaties are broken all the time. It doesn't make it theft.
Which all matters not to your original false claim. We do not live in a country that was stolen.

Meh...still say it was stolen.

 

[Summerwind]

The interpretation of the Bible is just as subjective as morals are. So it is just as "wrong" to say that Christians that use the OT to justify killings of certain kinds as morally justified as well. There is nothing I know of in the NT that says that all killings, no matter the circumstances, are always morally wrong. Heck, even the translation of whether it is "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not murder" is in strong contention amongst many Christians/Christian scholars. Jesus even mentioned that the Jews were not following the law when it came to honoring thy mother and father because children who were "backtalking" their parents were not being put to death. (Matthew 15:1-9)

Hence the problem with asking any question or making any decision based on either religion or morals, except for yourself.

As for Jesus noticing something... I see people on here often noticing that many of the tenets of the old testament such as killing children that don't honor their parents, but that doesn't in any mean one is advocating for it to begin/resume being the law of the land. Did Jesus come back to demand that the OT be honored or was to show a "new and improved," more loving way to get to heaven.

 

[Excon]

Meh...still say it was stolen.

In spite of the actual evince that the majority wasn't.
Figures.

 

[calamity]

In spite of the actual evince that the majority wasn't.
Figures.

The land was theirs, until we took it away from them. It's no less stealing than raiding a village and running off with their store of crops.

 

[the_recruit]

To the bolded: I wouldn't consider that stealing, because the individual holding them hostage is committing a serious crime.

Probably because there is no intent to assume ownership of said object. In circumstances where someone is being held hostage, the driving motivation is to regain freedom from mortal threat. If I were not being held captive, it wouldn't occur to me that I wanted someone else's gun.

So which is it? First you said it's not stealing because the owner "is committing a serious crime". Now you're saying it's not stealing because the taker doesn't have "intent to assume ownership".

Define "stealing". The colloquial definition is "person A takes property belonging to person B without person B's consent". What do you take it to be?

 

[Excon]

The land was theirs, until we took it away from them. It's no less stealing than raiding a village and running off with their store of crops.

:doh
The fact is that the majority of the land was ceded or bought bought, not stolen.

Which shows your original claim to be false on it's surface and an exaggeration.

We do not live in a country that was stolen.

 

[Oftencold]

"Stealing" can never be OK.

Hopefully in an act of desperation that involves seizure of another's property the act is considered to be something else. Governments do this, else we'd have no taxation.

Under Law in America and Western nations generally, we have provisions in time of emergency and time of plenty that requires people of substance to surrender a portion of their treasure sufficient for historically lavish care of the poor.

 

[roguenuke]

"Stealing" can never be OK.

Hopefully in an act of desperation that involves seizure of another's property the act is considered to be something else. Governments do this, else we'd have no taxation.

Under Law in America and Western nations generally, we have provisions in time of emergency and time of plenty that requires people of substance to surrender a portion of their treasure sufficient for historically lavish care of the poor.

The act of stealing is defined though. Just like the act of killing is defined. It can't be considered really something else. I'm not talking about what the law says (particularly since technically under the law it is theft/larceny, the charge is not "stealing", at least for most places). I am talking about stealing, as it is defined. Taking another person's property without their permission with no intention of returning it. That is separate from the law. The law allows for exceptions or at least defenses when it comes to theft/larceny. It is highly unlikely that anyone would ever charge a kidnappee with theft of an item that aided in their escape (although, theft of an item that was merely taken for its value may be a different matter).

Actually this got me thinking. Two different scenarios.

1) Kidnapped victim has opportunity to escape. While escaping, he takes a map, food, water, and some other small supplies, all of which will aid in his escape and none of them belong to him (they were in the building he was being held in). Stealing or not? If stealing, was he morally wrong to take those supplies? If not, why?

2) Kidnapped victim has opportunity to escape. While escaping, he takes an expensive looking necklace that he just happens to come across within the building. Stealing or not? If stealing, was he morally wrong to take the necklace? If not, why?

This goes into my question as to why people are so reluctant or outright unwilling to recognize exceptions to stealing or to try to redefine an action as not actually being stealing, but something else simply because of the circumstances. If you kill someone to save your life or the life of another, you still killed that person. Many people feel that it was in no way morally wrong to do so, it would be part of the general exceptions we see in most people's moral codes. Under the law, it would not be considered murder, but it is still killing.

 

[roguenuke]

Hence the problem with asking any question or making any decision based on either religion or morals, except for yourself.

As for Jesus noticing something... I see people on here often noticing that many of the tenets of the old testament such as killing children that don't honor their parents, but that doesn't in any mean one is advocating for it to begin/resume being the law of the land. Did Jesus come back to demand that the OT be honored or was to show a "new and improved," more loving way to get to heaven.

In that verse, Jesus was angry at them for not following that tenet. And from what I have found, he was not against killing, only murder (which was actually defined differently back then). Jesus never said that the OT should be ignored/forgotten/not followed, particularly the Commandments. In fact, he mentioned following the Commandments several times in the OT.

 

[roguenuke]

I think I dealt with it on both the legal and moral sides, there is no absolute here and should not be.

The wife issue is resolved through British common law circa 1625, women are not property and therefore do not qualify.

The US maintained anti-theft laws of slaves into the 19th century but would be a poor example today. By the same token, children are not possessions, and are not a matter of ownership but guardianship and responsibility.

Can someone steal and education? I know of many, many people who have attended full classes without credit to get the learning to be used in a career. They got the knowledge but not the piece of paper, but walk away without charges. Can a politician "steal" an election? Say through subterfuge, deceit, and false promises?

If so, what should be the penalty?

You continue to speak mainly about the laws regarding stealing here though.

Plus, the idea of what can and can't be owned has certainly changed throughout the years. But we still do treat children as possessions, whether that is right or not.

Maybe, to the education, yes to the election. An education is learning information that others possess. Some of it is able to be figured out another way or from someone else, but some of it might not be. Now, generally what is taught in school should be publicly available knowledge. But that might not be the case for every school (afterall, it could easily be described as stealing information in an educational environment if someone were stealing it from a military school that has classified information being taught). However, you could easily say that an election should go to the person who would be the best for the job, the one the people would be most likely to vote for when all candidates stick to simply giving their views/positions on the issues and what they will do. But if the person faces lies or cheating by the other candidate, then that could easily be seen as a having that position "stolen" from him/her due to the actions of someone else. Now, that doesn't mean it would necessarily be against the law. And it would be hard to prove even if it is against the law. That doesn't mean the position was not "stolen".

And there are still people today that do consider their wives or even their husbands their "property". This may not be how the law views it, but that doesn't mean that even some outside the marriage may not view it as "stealing another person's spouse/mate" if someone was intentionally working toward breaking up a couple so that they could get with one of them after. It is even now still common for people to say "You stole my girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband!" when confronted a person like the one I described above.

 

[calamity]

:doh
The fact is that the majority of the land was ceded or bought bought, not stolen.

Which shows your original claim to be false on it's surface and an exaggeration.

We do not live in a country that was stolen.

Handing money to a person not authorized by the people to sell the land is not legally buying it. I can't hand the first Hatian I see a $100 and then say I own Florida. :roll:

If you drive people off their land, killing them if they refuse to leave, it's theft.

BTW, I'll double down on my claim. We not only stole the land, we also stole the labor which built the country. All of us are guilty of receiving stolen goods.

 

[Oftencold]

The act of stealing is defined though. Just like the act of killing is defined. It can't be considered really something else. I'm not talking about what the law says (particularly since technically under the law it is theft/larceny, the charge is not "stealing", at least for most places). I am talking about stealing, as it is defined. Taking another person's property without their permission with no intention of returning it. That is separate from the law. The law allows for exceptions or at least defenses when it comes to theft/larceny. It is highly unlikely that anyone would ever charge a kidnappee with theft of an item that aided in their escape (although, theft of an item that was merely taken for its value may be a different matter).

Actually this got me thinking. Two different scenarios.

1) Kidnapped victim has opportunity to escape. While escaping, he takes a map, food, water, and some other small supplies, all of which will aid in his escape and none of them belong to him (they were in the building he was being held in). Stealing or not? If stealing, was he morally wrong to take those supplies? If not, why?

2) Kidnapped victim has opportunity to escape. While escaping, he takes an expensive looking necklace that he just happens to come across within the building. Stealing or not? If stealing, was he morally wrong to take the necklace? If not, why?

This goes into my question as to why people are so reluctant or outright unwilling to recognize exceptions to stealing or to try to redefine an action as not actually being stealing, but something else simply because of the circumstances. If you kill someone to save your life or the life of another, you still killed that person. Many people feel that it was in no way morally wrong to do so, it would be part of the general exceptions we see in most people's moral codes. Under the law, it would not be considered murder, but it is still killing.

I'd have to say that outside of law, there can be no stealing since there can be no property either, just control.

If you apply the idea of morality, I'd consider that a form of law, or indeed Law, since ral moarlity must be absolute, contrary to anything Obi Wan ever said, and look what it got him.

I suppose that if the needy person were able to convince himself that he was going to make every effort to repay the person he took the food from from later, a case could be made that he wasn't stealing. Failing that, it is probably morally correct on the part of the needy person to starve. But under Christian Morality at least, I think that the owner who let him starve would be a murderer. (Human beings, in my opinion are ill advised to appeal to absolute morality and certainly not to true fairness, which also must be absolute. The man who demands fairness from the Universe, or worse from God should be prepared for annihilation.)

1. The Kidnap victim would only be wholly justified in taking the property of the kidnapper. Otherwise, the same conditions as I posited above for the needy person would hold true.

2. Insufficient data, since we don't know the answers to the issues raised in answer #1, and because we don't know if merely escaping the building would truly restore the victim. Are they in their own country, or hostile territory? Among people likely to help or harm? Are the gem stones in the necklace actually dilithium crystals which will be vital in evading Klingon pursuers and allowing peace negotiations to come to fruition between Troyius and Elas?

 

[roguenuke]

I'd have to say that outside of law, there can be no stealing since there can be no property either, just control.

If you apply the idea of morality, I'd consider that a form of law, or indeed Law, since ral moarlity must be absolute, contrary to anything Obi Wan ever said, and look what it got him.

I suppose that if the needy person were able to convince himself that he was going to make every effort to repay the person he took the food from from later, a case could be made that he wasn't stealing. Failing that, it is probably morally correct on the part of the needy person to starve. But under Christian Morality at least, I think that the owner who let him starve would be a murderer. (Human beings, in my opinion are ill advised to appeal to absolute morality and certainly not to true fairness, which also must be absolute. The man who demands fairness from the Universe, or worse from God should be prepared for annihilation.)

1. The Kidnap victim would only be wholly justified in taking the property of the kidnapper. Otherwise, the same conditions as I posited above for the needy person would hold true.

2. Insufficient data, since we don't know the answers to the issues raised in answer #1, and because we don't know if merely escaping the building would truly restore the victim. Are they in their own country, or hostile territory? Among people likely to help or harm? Are the gem stones actually dilithium crystals which will be vital in evading Klingon pursuers and allowing peace negotiations to come to fruition between Troyius and Elas?

Morality is not law. Morality is merely beliefs about right or wrong. Most laws (legal laws) come from collective morality, but morality itself is not actual law.

You seem to be answering under collective morality (seemingly Christian morals), while I'm looking for a more personal answer. Heck, I don't really believe that all Christians believe that all stealing is wrong morally, just as I don't think all Christians believe that all killing is wrong morally or all lying is morally wrong. I think most believe there are exceptions that can be made giving certain circumstances.

You seem to be assuming that the owner would even know that someone stole from him/her during the commission of the crime or at least shortly within the period it happened. That isn't necessarily the case.

1. Why would any kidnapped victim even think about giving back items he took from his captors to aid in his escape? And why would he have to in order to not be doing something wrong?

2. The only reason he took them was for their worth, for him to keep or perhaps give to his wife/girlfriend/whoever. Pure greed motivated this act of stealing. So would it be seen as the same as stealing the supplies (assuming the person has no intention of giving anything back or compensating his kidnappers) or is it different in some way?