Does he have a valid point?

[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]

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...

[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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

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.