Does he have a valid point?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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 - - 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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:

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.