Does he have a valid point?

[Skybird]

Make your vote in the poll above, explain in the thread, if you want.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/north_yorkshire/8425420.stm

The key part is this:

"I do not offer such advice because I think that stealing is a good thing, or because I think it is harmless, for it is neither.

"I would ask that they do not steal from small, family businesses, but from national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices.

"When people are released from prison, or find themselves suddenly without work or family support, then to leave them for weeks and weeks with inadequate or clumsy social support is monumental, catastrophic folly.
"We create a situation which leaves some people little option but crime."

Speaking later on BBC Radio York, Father Jones said his intention had not been to rally people to shoplifting, but to encourage people to give more to charity to avoid those in need from becoming so desperate.

"If one has exhausted every legal opportunity to get money and you're still in a desperate situation it is a better moral thing to do to take absolutely no more than you need for no longer than you need," he said.



I say he has a point.

[SteamWake]

Who is 'he' might want to add that little piece of info ;)

[Skybird]

Being that evil atheist and anti-religious basterd that I am, the phrase "Father Jones" doesn't pass my lips that easy - you see my problem? :D

[Snestorm]

Yes.
I've always held that nature's law of survival trumps man's law.

[Sailor Steve]

I voted 'Yes', but with serious reservations. This brings up the old right-wing argument from the sixties strongly condemning 'Situational Ethics'. The argument then was "wrong is wrong", and you are never justified in doing wrong. Of course the minor versions of that argument sprang up immediately. You should never lie, but "does this dress make me look fat?"

I like to say "I don't lie. I don't steal. I don't cheat. But if my childrens' lives, safety or welfare were on the line I would cheerfully do all of the above."

So I voted yes, in spite of myself.

[Oberon]

Yes.
I've always held that nature's law of survival trumps man's law.

+1

At the end of the day, all the rules in civilization cannot suppress the instinct for self-preservation. As it has always been, as it will always be unless by some miracle everyone on Earth gets everything they want. :har:

[Skybird]

@ Oberon,

Isn't this less about what people want but what they need?

[Oberon]

@ Oberon,

Isn't this less about what people want but what they need?

True, although getting people to define what they need is tricky. Some people would argue that they need a 42 inch plasma TV, whereas another more realistic person would argue that they need food in their belly.
It's the fine line between need and greed which is blurred by a few people.

[Snestorm]

True, although getting people to define what they need is tricky. Some people would argue that they need a 42 inch plasma TV, whereas another more realistic person would argue that they need food in their belly.
It's the fine line between need and greed which is blurred by a few people.

So true. People should always ask themselves: Do I want it, or do I need it?
In some cases they would be quite surprised by the answer.

F.eks.: No. You do not NEED a cigaret. You WANT a cigaret.

[Skybird]

True. But I do not think that these are the standards describing the situaion that priest has had on his mind. I take it as grnated that he means simple realities like food when the stomach is burning, water when you are thirsty, warmth when the snow is falling, and shelter from the elements.

There must be a line that separates the need from luxury, yes. Cigarettes is luxury. But what about that guy you have seen on the streets, he smells ten meters against the wind, all his possessions in two plastic bags - and the little dog by his feet, staying with him in unshakable loyalty? That dog does nothing to secure his material survival. But do you have the heart to take that dog away from him because it needs food, too - maybe the only being on earth that cares for this man anymore, and to whom he has a caring, loving relation?

Man does not live by bread alone.

[Snestorm]

That dog does nothing to secure his material survival.

Here, even you, might be very surprised.

[Skybird]

Ah, I get what you mean. Okay. However, i think you got my point, too. Watch some of the old Chaplin movies, if you don't. ;)

[Snestorm]

Ah, I get what you mean. Okay. However, i think you got my point, too. Watch some of the old Chaplin movies, if you don't. ;)

No conflict here. No movies neccesary.

[August]

True, although getting people to define what they need is tricky. Some people would argue that they need a 42 inch plasma TV, whereas another more realistic person would argue that they need food in their belly.
It's the fine line between need and greed which is blurred by a few people.

People can claim they "need" all sorts of things but they're usually wrong.

[Oberon]

Man does not live by bread alone.

This is true, for a man without circuses as well as bread is merely existing. Hence the comfort that the dog to the man on the street provides, as well as a useful source of heartstring tugging to those who are fond of animals. That man needs that dog, however, let us move from the streets to the classroom. I don't know what it was like when other members of the forum were at school, but when I was there it was all about fashions and technology, if you did not have the latest items you were ostracized and referred to in all manner of derogatory terms. Hence why many parents who are able to, work themselves ragged securing the latest items for their offspring, so that they are able to better fit in with society.
Now, in regards to the psychological well being of the young, is their latest fashion item a need or a luxury?
In the strictest sense it is a luxury, I survived school with the minimalist of the latest 'in' things, and the higher up the school system you went (in my experience anyway) the less emphasis was placed on such things as the people around you matured, but there was still a certain time when life was emotionally difficult, compounded perhaps by the emotional changes of young adulthood. But does any parent want their child to suffer bullying at school? Of course not, every parent wants their child to be popular and successful (even if the two are rarely mutally inclusive these days) therefore in a less strict sense it is a need, an essential thing that parents who are able to (and sometimes those who are not and possess a credit card) strive to meet so that their child or children can interact with their fellows on the same social level.
Of course, past schoolhood the need is reduced although there is still a social emphasis on 'Bigger, better, faster', particularly in computing and vehicles, but again, this is a luxury, not a need as by this time in life, there is less of a need for material objects to fit in at a social level (with the exception of some social levels).
A seperate thing to consider on a different tangent is that whether the arrival of the internet has helped to quell the need to change oneself to fit in with a society, as more and more like-minded people congregate online, like here, for example. However, in a forced social interaction such as school, I guess the effects are somewhat limited.
I'm rambling again.... :haha:

[Platapus]

It would depend on what is being shoplifted. If it is food for his family, I can understand it (not necessarily approve of it) , but I could accept it. One would hope there would be some social program to help such people get the food they need.

If the items that are being shoplifted are luxury items, my sympathy wains.

I also object to the priest claiming that it is better to steal from a big company than a small company. It is this attitude that helps keep our litigious society, in the US, alive and kicking. People somehow think that a big company is faceless. That some how a big company can "more easily afford" it. The concept that a big business is big, somehow justifies, or lessens the moral sin of, stealing is wrong.

Which is "better":

a. 100 people stealing one item each from one big company
b. 100 people stealing one item each from 100 small companies

Does it somehow "hurt" less when it is a big company? I don't think so. In both examples businesses (stockholders, employees, customers) are being hurt by the theft. Neither case is better. :nope:

Stealing. Is. Wrong.

If circumstances present themselves where you need to steal to survive, you have to do what you have to do.... but you are still a thief. :yep: And you have to accept the penalties that society may inflict on you for your choice.

[Jimbuna]

People facing difficult times should not resort to breaking the law as a result because this act of theft will only compound matters.

Too often have I seen those who get away with relatively petty crimes eventually escalate their behaviour to far more serious offences.

This man of the cloth clearly has a different interpretation to the ten commandments when compared to other clergy I have met.

[Letum]

It would be hypocritical of us all to say that the situation does not effect
what we think id the right choice because there are situations in which all
of us would steal.

[Oberon]

There are good points raised here, and I think the key lynchpin here is society and what it deems as right or wrong. Our moral code is shaped by our upbringing and surrounding society. Although, one has to wonder at the underlying human conscience, would it kick in without precondictioning? Would a man brought up to be a murderer know that murder is wrong, or would it take his surrounding society to inform him of that, and how successful would it be?
However, taken at face value, the correct answer is "No, all stealing is wrong" however, strip away society and the moral code and the answer is less set in stone.
Jim also raises the point which ties into one I made earlier and that's the line between need and greed. A man may start out stealing to meet his immediate needs, but if allowed to continue then the human instinct of greed kicks in and he begins to steal for his wants rather than his needs.

In an ideal world, society would provide for the basic needs of all, although again, one would have to define 'basic need' and dance the fine dance between a good society and a welfare state whilst fighting off the advances of those who want more than their basic need and are willing to cheat the system to obtain this.

[Skybird]

This is true, for a man without circuses as well as bread is merely existing. Hence the comfort that the dog to the man on the street provides, as well as a useful source of heartstring tugging to those who are fond of animals. That man needs that dog, however, let us move from the streets to the classroom. I don't know what it was like when other members of the forum were at school, but when I was there it was all about fashions and technology, if you did not have the latest items you were ostracized and referred to in all manner of derogatory terms. Hence why many parents who are able to, work themselves ragged securing the latest items for their offspring, so that they are able to better fit in with society.
Now, in regards to the psychological well being of the young, is their latest fashion item a need or a luxury?

It is context-sensitive. Because everybody around them is subject to the anonymous group pressure (=if you want to be in with friends, you have to share their habits and insignias of membership: this fashionable jeans, that latest eyephone, etc), in that social context such a need exists if the indovidual wants to avoid isolation.

However, the man with the dog - like I intended the example - this is about giving love and being loved in return, it is about avoiding loneliness. and I would argue that these are desires that are not context-sensitive, but belong to the non-material needs of man, like food and water, shelter and warmth are material needs. Loneliness and a desperate heart can kill (and this I say as an ex-psychologist and I mean it not metaphorically, but literally), and can make you sick both in your soul and psyche and body. Loneliness means a feeling of being lost in the world, it is an existential despair. People try desperately to fill their life with any sort of meaning that gives them a place in life again. For some it is love. Others may replace that with craving for money and thinking they can buy themselves love and meaning. A third group of people may be very well happy to be alone as long as they can live in nature, and feeling to be part of it.

But when you are neither a Bernie Ecclestone - who said indeed that he could buy love - nor a nature-boy, and life meant it not good with you and you are left with no options you could enforce by yourself - what's left for you, then? It even does not matter anymore then whether you ended there with it being your own fault, or not.

A thief may be a thief when stealing, but if it is stealing in order to merely survive, the negative moral assessement weighs much lighter than if it is theft for greed, and craving for luxury. Christians may ask themselves if Jesus would have condemned such a sinner, or not. ;) Juveniles, as in the school example, are different in their psyche and mental awareness horizion, that's why the law in most Western nations differs between laws and penalties for adults, and juveniles. Nevertheless they form habits that in their later, adult life may live on, if not corrected. The boy stealing an MP3 player in order to finally get accepted for owing such a device, too, has a different basic motive than the older one stealing an MP3 player just becasue he likes the newer model and although he already has two players at home. Also, the younger you are, the less aware you are of long-term consequences - it is natural with our design. young people do not assess risks and expectations the same way like adults do.

Moral judgements of this kind are sometimes hard toi make, and their verdicts better shall not be encraved in stone. thankfully, the laws usually does not do that, too, but leaves judges a continuum of possible sanctions from which they can pick the adequate qmmount of "punishing stimulus" when looking at the indovidual case and person and assessing the individual details.

If these penalties always are picked wisely, is something different.



For Jim

the question: if imagining you are unable to find work and for some reason have not a penny in your pocket anymore - would you really be ready to suffer serious pain, or starve yourself to death just to not break the law? You made it sound very resolute what you said - but I question it nevertheless. that you said you saw criminal careers emerging from the offenders not being punished when they started it, should not be forgotten or minimised, not at all - but it is a completely different issue.

All I know is that I would feel ashamed if I would steal, but I also know that I would try to steal if I am in a really bad situation and hunger is driving me. I also would steal to ease the hunger of somebody with me whom I love. Does that make me an immoral man? I don't think so.

And some of us - nobody should be sure of his answer before he actually has been in that situation - maybe would even do worse things, if the situation they are in only is desperate enough.

There are lazy ones, there are stupid ones, there are parasites. But there are also those who lost everything without it being their mistake, or due to the deeds of others, and fate beating them up beyond their breaking point. If somebody seriously believes that every man, no matter his place and origin, always is the architect of his own fortune, and always has the chance to forge his own destiny - then he cannot have seen too much of the possible diversity of life. and let'S not forget that we all do not get thrown into this world with the same share of skills and strengths and starting chances. We do not have all the same chances. And some of us got so little positives when being born that in that corner of the world where we land that simply is not enough existential capital to escape that situation. that is true inside our own first world-countries, that is true in other countries, and the second and third world.

-----

Don't think in absolutes - that often ends in total cruelty while claiming morality, and some of the greatest evils in the world have been conducted in the name of morality. Always see the individual person, and the fate behind. Some look fine, but are guilty. Others look worse - but their fate is not their fault. And some are in a mess because the misdeeds of others. Should we really judge all these different types by the same moral standards? Hardly.

[CaptainHaplo]

First of all, I am appalled at a fellow man of the cloth even making it appear as if he condones an act specifically prohibited by his own religion. As a catholic minister, "thou shalt not steal" is considered the 7th of the 10 Commandments (where for protestants it is #8). Any pastor or priest must always remember to consider how he puts forth the teachings he is led to give.

Secondly, there is no moral justification in the civilization we exist in, to steal. Now I will qualify that with the statement that I base that on the level of civilization found in the States and Europe generally. At least, in the US, any person who is lacking the absolute necessities can find help if they can swallow their pride. A homeless person freezing on the street need only to go to a local shelter, or even stop a cop, to be taken to a place where sustenance and warmth are provided. It simply isn't chosen by some, out of a sense of pride and stubborness. If you go to a homeless shelter - they will let you know that you can't spit on the other residents, must conform to some basic rules, etc. Nothing onerous, but to some the mere thought of they "aren't allowed" is unthinkable. Let em freeze then I say - because stupidity kills and that is nature's way. If your poor and can't get food, there is a social net that you can use. However, you can't sit on it forever. I think the limit is something like 3 years of food stamps before you have to get a job or be cut off? I could be wrong on that, but its something like that.

Now, in third world countries where there is no infrastructure, I would say your looking at a case by case basis. But in a civilized society, there is no cause for it - because there are morally acceptable other options.

[Sailor Steve]

Man does not live by bread alone.
Just to be fair to the other side, if you're going to use a quote you should use the whole quote.

[August]

Just to be fair to the other side, if you're going to use a quote you should use the whole quote.

:D Touche'

[Snestorm]

Just to be fair to the other side, if you're going to use a quote you should use the whole quote.

Please don't invoke that.
Most of us don't have time to read posts that are the length of a book, twice or more.

Re: (Sailor Steve and Skybird-- "A Conversation That Will Live In Infamy!")
Credit to breadcatcher101

[Skybird]

Just to be fair to the other side, if you're going to use a quote you should use the whole quote.
Simply skip that bible stuff. In German this quote simply is already a saying in itself, like "what the eye doesn't see the heart does not grieve". Maybe that is why I found the English translation of the German phrase not in a bible place, but in an ordinary phrase translator. ;)

[August]

The whole quote:

"And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." Luke 4:4:

Meaning: Physical nourishment alone is not sufficient for a healthy life; man also has spiritual needs. Now you can see why Skybird didn't want it mentioned.

[Sailor Steve]

Simply skip that bible stuff. In German this quote simply is already a saying in itself, like "what the eye doesn't see the heart does not grieve". Maybe that is why I found the English translation of the German phrase not in a bible place, but in an ordinary phrase translator. ;)
But I think we can be fairly certain that the saying came from the original bible passage, since that outdates all of our modern languages and societies.

Don't mistake me though, I no longer believe either. I just have a strong dislike for partial quotes to prove an opposite viewpoint.

[Skybird]

But I think we can be fairly certain that the saying came from the original bible passage, since that outdates all of our modern languages and societies.

Don't mistake me though, I no longer believe either. I just have a strong dislike for partial quotes to prove an opposite viewpoint.
It is from the bible, no doubt, if I remember correctly, then it was Jesus saying something on people not only needing bread to live by, but also to fulfill the will of god or something like that. However, the quote as I gave it has won independent existence in contemporary language, and as that is no longer given in a strictly biblical context only, also it is used not only by Bible-swingers and Christians. Usually it indicates that not only material but also immaterial needs must be fed in order for man being happy or feeling fulfilled. this can be said in defence of funding arts or a museum or free education, or - as it was my inention - to point out the importance for man to feel being loved and to love himself. It is abiout meaning, and a sense of not only being a materialistic "number".

Sometimes it is even used as a joke!

If you want to use it in it's biblical context anymore, I think you indeed should give the full bible quote then. Else you automatically refer to the popular use and meaning fo it, that is not limited to the bible anymore.

At least I would claim that for German. Maybe it is different in English!?

[Jimbuna]

For Jim

the question: if imagining you are unable to find work and for some reason have not a penny in your pocket anymore - would you really be ready to suffer serious pain, or starve yourself to death just to not break the law? You made it sound very resolute what you said - but I question it nevertheless. that you said you saw criminal careers emerging from the offenders not being punished when they started it, should not be forgotten or minimised, not at all - but it is a completely different issue.

All I know is that I would feel ashamed if I would steal, but I also know that I would try to steal if I am in a really bad situation and hunger is driving me. I also would steal to ease the hunger of somebody with me whom I love. Does that make me an immoral man? I don't think so.

And some of us - nobody should be sure of his answer before he actually has been in that situation - maybe would even do worse things, if the situation they are in only is desperate enough.

There are lazy ones, there are stupid ones, there are parasites. But there are also those who lost everything without it being their mistake, or due to the deeds of others, and fate beating them up beyond their breaking point. If somebody seriously believes that every man, no matter his place and origin, always is the architect of his own fortune, and always has the chance to forge his own destiny - then he cannot have seen too much of the possible diversity of life. and let'S not forget that we all do not get thrown into this world with the same share of skills and strengths and starting chances. We do not have all the same chances. And some of us got so little positives when being born that in that corner of the world where we land that simply is not enough existential capital to escape that situation. that is true inside our own first world-countries, that is true in other countries, and the second and third world.



Not wanting to appear lazy or trying to reinvent the wheel, but Haplo's post (below) but in the location/welfare provision context of the UK is pretty much how I would have responded :DL

First of all, I am appalled at a fellow man of the cloth even making it appear as if he condones an act specifically prohibited by his own religion. As a catholic minister, "thou shalt not steal" is considered the 7th of the 10 Commandments (where for protestants it is #8). Any pastor or priest must always remember to consider how he puts forth the teachings he is led to give.

Secondly, there is no moral justification in the civilization we exist in, to steal. Now I will qualify that with the statement that I base that on the level of civilization found in the States and Europe generally. At least, in the US, any person who is lacking the absolute necessities can find help if they can swallow their pride. A homeless person freezing on the street need only to go to a local shelter, or even stop a cop, to be taken to a place where sustenance and warmth are provided. It simply isn't chosen by some, out of a sense of pride and stubborness. If you go to a homeless shelter - they will let you know that you can't spit on the other residents, must conform to some basic rules, etc. Nothing onerous, but to some the mere thought of they "aren't allowed" is unthinkable. Let em freeze then I say - because stupidity kills and that is nature's way. If your poor and can't get food, there is a social net that you can use. However, you can't sit on it forever. I think the limit is something like 3 years of food stamps before you have to get a job or be cut off? I could be wrong on that, but its something like that.

Now, in third world countries where there is no infrastructure, I would say your looking at a case by case basis. But in a civilized society, there is no cause for it - because there are morally acceptable other options.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Does it somehow "hurt" less when it is a big company? I don't think so. In both examples businesses (stockholders, employees, customers) are being hurt by the theft. Neither case is better.

The question is analogical to whether stealing say $100 from some poor old lady hurts more than stealing the same amount from Bill Gates. Or whether grabbing a piece of bread from a starving man whose subsisting on his last slice versus the same piece of bread off a table filled with them.

I think one is hard pressed to say "no", and that's because as one gets poorer, what money they do have gets spent on more fundamental needs, and thus the contribution of every dollar becomes more tangible and arguably simply larger.

Similarly, shoplifting from a small shop has a much more direct effect, simply because the shop is much less able to survive it. In terms of tangible effects, small (by percentage) losses effects simply shrink to the point of insignificence.

Anyway, in terms of utilitarian morality, given Brown's conditions, there is little to object to it. In terms of cost to society, it is no more than an alternate form of taxation for funding social welfare.

There's little practical difference in between, for example, a 1% sales tax (that goes to run social welfare) and a 1% price hike on the part of the shop to compensate for all the shoplifters. Buying power is equally reduced.

Given our 1st World consensus that humans have the right to social welfare and a certain minimal standard of living, even at the cost of some money (an amount that does not endanger your survival, or even your relative affluence) being taken from your own pocket, it is illogical to argue that extralegal means are morally impermissible when the legal means fail.

Unless, of course, your gain will cause proportionate harm to another, which is why it may be too much to justify stealing off someone. However, stealing off some large chainstore is similar to governmental welfare in that the pool is large, and thus the ratio of tangible gain versus tangible loss is disproportionately magnified. If we can accept the gain:loss ratio for governmental welfare programs, we should be able to accept the gain:loss for subsistence shoplifting.

[CaptainHaplo]

KS II - I hate to do it, but your analogy is incorrect.
There's little practical difference in between, for example, a 1% sales tax (that goes to run social welfare) and a 1% price hike on the part of the shop to compensate for all the shoplifters. Buying power is equally reduced.
A 1% sales tax everyone ends up paying because that tax is charged by everyone. However, a 1% price hike is going to apply to the retailer in question, and thus the customers of that retailer. All a person must do is choose NOT to buy from the higher priced source, and thus the retailer not only has the initial loss, but also more loss trying to recoup the original theft.

Also - the problem is compounded when you say "well they can afford it" better. Ever heard of death by a thousand paper cuts? In essence, what your saying is that its somehow more "acceptable" if it doesn't "hurt" as bad. Theft is theft, regardless of how much one person can "afford" it over another. It is wrong, and a crime, regardless. Trying to make some moral argument that one is "less bad" than the other is nothing more than an attempt to rationalize a wrong act.

Its like a kid who hits another kid and says "Well I didn't do it as hard as I could - so I shouldn't be in trouble". Or lets say you own 2 cars - someone steals one because hey, you can afford 2 of them. That makes it somehow "less" of a crime?

You can try to take the arguement into the "tangible effect" comparison - but the bottom line is that stealing is wrong, its also a crime, and as such should not be condoned by society.

This is not directed at KS2 by any means - but I guess I shouldnt be suprised - just one more assault on the whole concept of private ownership.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

KS II - I hate to do it, but your analogy is incorrect.

A 1% sales tax everyone ends up paying because that tax is charged by everyone. However, a 1% price hike is going to apply to the retailer in question, and thus the customers of that retailer. All a person must do is choose NOT to buy from the higher priced source, and thus the retailer not only has the initial loss, but also more loss trying to recoup the original theft.

Yes, stealing from small grocery stores does have that problem. The "tax" is charged only to a few patrons, and they might just evade the store if the storekeeper raises prices to compensate. However, by attacking a nationwide chain store that almost everyone visits, in effect everyone (or almost everyone) is being fleeced. People are also less likely to avoid nationwide chain stores - they go there by habit and really, they won't even notice the 1% price hike, which will no doubt be well-camouflaged in a wave of discounts and other appropriate marketing initiatives.

Also - the problem is compounded when you say "well they can afford it" better. Ever heard of death by a thousand paper cuts?

I don't think I've been cut a thousand times in my life, probably a few hundred but extrapolation suggests that I'll still be around for the thousand and first cut. It is actually an example of how small damages actually become almost insignificant.

In essence, what your saying is that its somehow more "acceptable" if it doesn't "hurt" as bad.

In utilitarian morality, the morality of an act is based on the ratio between its gain versus loss (hurt). Sometimes it might be difficult to quantify the two, but yes, if we can agree that an act doesn't "hurt" as bad and the gain is the same, it is more acceptable.

Theft is theft, regardless of how much one person can "afford" it over another. It is wrong, and a crime, regardless. Trying to make some moral argument that one is "less bad" than the other is nothing more than an attempt to rationalize a wrong act.

Oh, I'll agree with the first sentences. However, it is something of a different story when we compare it to a guy starving on the street. Utilitarian ethics again, balance everything out.

Its like a kid who hits another kid and says "Well I didn't do it as hard as I could - so I shouldn't be in trouble". Or lets say you own 2 cars - someone steals one because hey, you can afford 2 of them. That makes it somehow "less" of a crime?

If it can somehow be established that the kid indeed showed some restraint in his beating, then all else being equal, he should be in less trouble. Now, suppose that kid hit the other in self-defense, or after being extensively provoked. In fact, depending on the circumstances, the fact he showed some restraint is arguably praiseworthy.

I'll bite the bullet for the second one. Yes. All else being equal, I am probably indeed less inconvenienced by the theft versus someone who only has one car. Further, to match the analogies better, you might want to add that perhaps the car thief's mother is critically sick, and my cars happen to be the only transportation means to the hospital w/i a hundred miles.

If he had asked me politely and I refused, you would likely think me a bastard for placing my property rights over a life. However, if you believe that life overrides property, then in this instance, it is arguably only right that my car gets stolen, and while legally it is a crime (for the law can only be written for the majority of situations), morally one can even argue that I only got what was coming to me...

[CaptainHaplo]

I see where your coming from - and in a world where there was a "utilitarian" moral code, I could say your right. Given your condition - Further, to match the analogies better, you might want to add that perhaps the car thief's mother is critically sick, and my cars happen to be the only transportation means to the hospital w/i a hundred miles.
- I would agree.

My point is that we live in neither under a utalitarian moral code - nor in a civilization where such a code is even needed. The reason - using your own example - if his mother is critically ill, and there is no transport within a hundred miles - this means there is no hospital within a hundred miles either. Because as a society, we bear the burden to insure the critically ill can be transported, whether by land or air, as needed.

The point here being that by adding certain variables, you can justify any act. However, the world we live in is one in which society has acted already to remove those variables, so that acts such as theft for the necessities of survival is not necessary - because there are other options that are not morally objectionable.

Sure we could all come up with "what ifs" - but in the real world, there are ways of meeting the needs of food and shelter without resorting to criminal activity. Doing so thus is a choice to subvert the rights and property of a person at the whim of another person. That is the definition of anarchy.

The fact that society has already acted to make such acts unnecessary is what makes the sermon so repugnant. Again - this is stated regarding what are generally considered "first world" countries - such as where the sermon was given from.

[Aramike]

Okay, I'll admit, I've only glanced over the responses in this thread, and they seem to overly-complicate the matter (not that there's anything wrong with that; just sayin').

It seems simple to me, anyway - if you've exhausted all possibilities with which to obtain the basic necessities for survival, than stealing is morally justified. If you haven't, or intend to steal simply to increase a standard of luxary, than it is not.

As for whether or not theft hits the corporation as much as the little guy, of course not! But the problem is, the large corporation is not dealing with simply one or two thieves, like the Ma and Pa shop. Rather, they are often dealing with THOUSANDS of theives. And, when it comes right down to it, the potential for damage is equal.

The difference is that the large corporation is largely funded by individuals whose incomes don't soley depend upon the performance of the company, whereas the small business is the opposite - so people don't put a face to the loss as easily.

But come on people, just think about it - if a corporation is losing a few million in theft, do you think the stockholders are really the ones taking the hit? Yeah, right - those millions are made up. In labor costs. Jobs. People with faces, families, etc.

JUST LIKE THE MA and PA SHOP!

Think - if, say, Bob's Hardware has 1 owner and 3 employees, but the owner isn't making the money he's feels he's entitled to due to his risk, who do you think pays for that? The owner?

Doubtful.

Rather, now Bob's Hardware has 1 owner and 2 employees.

Why ANYONE thinks its different in a large corporation is beyond me...

Here's how the burden is ALWAYS prioritized:

-Labor (jobs)
-Prices
-Bottom line (owner's/shareholders' gains)

First, ANY company (be it small or large) will first attempt to reduce their most controllable cost, which is labor. Next, to further compensate for what labor can't make up, prices increase. Finally, if all else fails the owners being to absorb the hit.

So stealing is just as harmful - no matter what business you're stealing from.

[Aramike]

One more thing: this seems to be one of those topics where people tend to muddle the meanings of different things. In this case, it's the consistantly problematic challenge of differentiating between "good/bad" and "right/wrong".

In a very strict sense (if infliction of unjust pain or loss upon another is automatically considered "bad"), stealing is ALWAYS a "bad" thing. However, if you're trying to feed a starving family of four and have no other means of doing so, that "bad" thing may also be the "right" thing to do.

Being "right" doesn't make something "good", nor does being "bad" automatically make something "wrong".

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I see where your coming from - and in a world where there was a "utilitarian" moral code, I could say your right. Given your condition - - I would agree.

My point is that we live in neither under a utalitarian moral code - nor in a civilization where such a code is even needed.

I'll actually argue that all societies ultimately live under variations of the utilitarian moral code. All countries ultimately have to balance between various gains and losses - individual liberty versus some loss of security and perhaps harmony, taxes for the common good vs leaving hard earned cash to those who earned it ... etc, and make "common good" choices. It is not 100% utilitarian because of various irrationalities (not to mention foreign pressure), and the need to generalize the calculations into laws and policies, but nevertheles utilitarian still forms the base.

The fact that society has already acted to make such acts unnecessary is what makes the sermon so repugnant. Again - this is stated regarding what are generally considered "first world" countries - such as where the sermon was given from.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that any social welfare system, 1st, 2nd or 3rd World is so perfect that nobody ever slips through its cracks, and I think they are Brown's main target. In any case, in a debate about moral dilemmas, trying to evade the problem by saying it'll never happen is a cop-out IMO.

Okay, I'll admit, I've only glanced over the responses in this thread, and they seem to overly-complicate the matter (not that there's anything wrong with that; just sayin').

It seems simple to me, anyway - if you've exhausted all possibilities with which to obtain the basic necessities for survival, than stealing is morally justified. If you haven't, or intend to steal simply to increase a standard of luxary, than it is not.

Agreed.

As for whether or not theft hits the corporation as much as the little guy, of course not! But the problem is, the large corporation is not dealing with simply one or two thieves, like the Ma and Pa shop. Rather, they are often dealing with THOUSANDS of theives. And, when it comes right down to it, the potential for damage is equal.

The law of large numbers will suggest that even if we assume the PERCENTAGE of loss to be equal (say $1 off you when $10 is all you have versus $100,000 off you when you have a million), the harm is lesser (at least you won't starve, for example) for the larger company.

The damage may also be more distributed as you mention, which isn't bad. For example, if we assume instead of raising prices, workers will tighten their belts (salaries) by 5%, it is a pain, but it is probably a survivable experience and if some guys really were saved from starving out there, utilitarianly we may still have net-gained.

-Labor (jobs)
-Prices
-Bottom line (owner's/shareholders' gains)

I'll agree that's what they'll try, but it isn't a absolute game. There is a "political" cost to 1 and 2, which would encourage, in a competitive market, for 3 to make up some of the difference out of their own pocket.

[Skybird]

I think this sums it up best:
It seems simple to me, anyway - if you've exhausted all possibilities with which to obtain the basic necessities for survival, than stealing is morally justified. If you haven't, or intend to steal simply to increase a standard of luxary, than it is not.



I see that many postings have started to base on assumptions about the original case which ignore some of the basic content of this original case, what Father Jones said. So let me stress them again.


"I do not offer such advice because I think that stealing is a good thing, or because I think it is harmless, for it is neither.


"I would ask that they do not steal from small, family businesses, but from national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices.


"When people are released from prison, or find themselves suddenly without work or family support, then to leave them for weeks and weeks with inadequate or clumsy social support is monumental, catastrophic folly.
"We create a situation which leaves some people little option but crime."


Speaking later on BBC Radio York, Father Jones said his intention had not been to rally people to shoplifting, but to encourage people to give more to charity to avoid those in need from becoming so desperate.

"If one has exhausted every legal opportunity to get money and you're still in a desperate situation it is a better moral thing to do to take absolutely no more than you need for no longer than you need," he said.

The grim truth is that our wellfare systems, whether it be the voluntary, not mandatory system in the US, or the more oligational, mandatory system in europe/Germany, simply do not reach or pick up everybody who would be in need of the options they offer. There are a lot of things one can imagine to stand in the way, from the simply lack of such options in a given place, to human, subjective factors you have to take into account that hinders the individual person in need to go for a wellfare or charity option that in principle is available. Do not make the mistake to just point to an ideal situation laid out on paper and described in a plan or law. People are no abstract entities that obey the rules of reason and statistics. People are subjective, emotional, often irrational, and their wits and knowledge differ. the minimum of pride some still try to maintain, can bring them into situations worse than before, due to paradoxical effects. If you think that just because your wellfare system in theory offers any needed option (it doesn't, btw, not in the US and not in Germany), everybody in need actually being able to make use of that and being in reach of these means, then you already have done a very cruel mistake. You consider the dewscpriton of ann itnention how reality should be, to be more real than the reality many people have to deal with.

[OneToughHerring]

But I think we can be fairly certain that the saying came from the original bible passage, since that outdates all of our modern languages and societies.

Don't mistake me though, I no longer believe either. I just have a strong dislike for partial quotes to prove an opposite viewpoint.

Yea, partial quotes. Sometimes the actual quote in it's context can be quite strange, especially when coming from something like the old testament. All kinds of weird stuff in there best not spoken about a lot if you want to appear pro-christian and also sane. :)

But as far as this priest guy, yea in UK there's a lot of people without housing and work. Quite often these people die from pneumonia etc. while sleeping outside during winter etc. I guess for these people stealing is the only hope, especially when the christian church isn't helping out with it's multi-billion euro/pound wealth that keeps growing every year.

[August]

the christian church isn't helping out with it's multi-billion euro/pound wealth that keeps growing every year.

First off saying "Christian Church" is like saying "Asian Government". It's kind of ignorant to lump all the various denominations into one group.

Secondly, Christian charity organizations are the backbone of the worlds relief efforts to the poor.

Thirdly, a churches funding comes from the donations of it's members. They can spend their money as they wish and you have absolutely nothing to say about it.