Does he have a valid point?

[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.

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. 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]

Originally Posted by Oberon

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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

Touche'

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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

Originally Posted by 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.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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.