[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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...