• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

When, if ever, do you feel stealing is morally okay?

Paleocon said:
To say that it is not murder required a denial of a self-evident principle, namely that the parts are not greater than the whole.

A just state would have laws that conformed to morality (and ours do in this one respect). However my mention of the law was only to point out that taking the property of another person is justified legally to save one's life, a fact that seems to escape many people.
Click to expand...

What in the world are you talking about? Murder literally means killing a person unlawful. Whether something is murder depends on the laws of the place where the killing occurred. Now, just because something isn't murder, doesn't make it morally right/okay to kill. Nor does something being legally considered murder mean that it is morally wrong.

Morality is subjective. No one on this planet shares their entire moral code with anyone else.
 
roguenuke said:
Even if that gun is right there and the best chance to escape kidnappers?

You can claim "be more crafty" all you like, but that isn't always possible and it would be plain stupid to ignore an opportunity because of moral objection to stealing another person's property rather than saving your own life (or possibly someone else's), even if it involved stealing.

And the other countries thing is kind of pointless.
Countries really don't have morality, per se. People have morality. A country can be made up of a majority of people who share certain moral stances/convictions, but that doesn't make the entire country that morality or having that morality.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




While I agree that we can't blame the entire population of a country for actions that some of the people don't agree with, nations actions are often either moral or immoral.

Take a look at the actions of the Japanese and the German nations during WWII.

A lot of the things that they did (As a nation in that war.) were very immoral. That is an ironclad fact. The fact that some of the people didn't agree with those actions doesn't change the fact that they were done.




"The law, in it's majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." ~ Anatole France
 
shrubnose said:
While I agree that we can't blame the entire population of a country for actions that some of the people don't agree with, nations actions are often either moral or immoral.

Take a look at the actions of the Japanese and the German nations during WWII.

A lot of the things that they did (As a nation in that war.) were very immoral. That is an ironclad fact. The fact that some of the people didn't agree with those actions doesn't change the fact that they were done.




"The law, in it's majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." ~ Anatole France
Click to expand...

The contention originally made was along the lines though of nations having morality, not nations (via certain groups in charge of those nations) making morally wrong decisions (judged as such by the majority of the other countries). Nations do not have morality. People within nations may make decisions that are viewed as immoral or morally wrong by a majority of the people of other nations/in the world, but that does not make the country itself morally wrong.

Plus, since morality is subjective, nothing claimed as immoral can be an "ironclad fact". It can be your opinion that it is immoral and that opinion may be shared (and in the example you gave, would most likely be) by the majority, even vast majority of people in the world, but that does not make it automatically "immoral" objectively.
 
roguenuke said:
The contention originally made was along the lines though of nations having morality, not nations (via certain groups in charge of those nations) making morally wrong decisions (judged as such by the majority of the other countries). Nations do not have morality. People within nations may make decisions that are viewed as immoral or morally wrong by a majority of the people of other nations/in the world, but that does not make the country itself morally wrong.

Plus, since morality is subjective, nothing claimed as immoral can be an "ironclad fact". It can be your opinion that it is immoral and that opinion may be shared (and in the example you gave, would most likely be) by the majority, even vast majority of people in the world, but that does not make it automatically "immoral" objectively.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...






Basically, everything that you have said here is bull****, when viewed against the reality of the history of the second world war.




Go dig up the millions of people who were killed in WWII by the Japanese and the Germans and tell them your story.

I doubt that any of them will buy it.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
Most people will make exceptions when it comes to killing of some kind or another in whether they feel it is morally okay or not to kill, even when it comes to taking human life. The most common exception is "in self defense", but others include in defense of others, during war, to end a person's suffering, or even the death penalty (to name really just a few).

However, there aren't too many times people would say it wouldn't be morally wrong to steal. I think a good number of people might say in general "when a person is starving", but even then, it is going to be greatly limiting and may not actually be morally right, but rather simply not as big of a wrong as stealing for other reasons.

I personally can think of a few extreme cases where it would be morally okay to steal (trapped in a country with little hope of getting back, and little other choice but to steal because of many possible complications in trying to actually earn food, when escaping wrongful detainment of some kind, when protecting yourself against another person, the general "when starving", etc.). There are even likely many others where I would probably say that it would be okay to steal, but it would take having a very specific set of circumstances presented to me to decide that.

On the flip side of that though, there would be circumstances where some would say a person/entity is "stealing" from them eventhough it isn't truly against the law because they have a difference of opinion on ownership and whether ownership of certain property should have transferred to a particular other party or at all.

I think stealing may be the hardest to make exceptions for when it comes to right or wrong because stealing involves a man-made concept of ownership. Life is clearly, scientifically defined.

So, I ask, what, do you feel is morally okay when it comes to stealing or is it always morally wrong to steal, no matter the specific circumstances?
Click to expand...
It's never morally okay to steal. However, I don't think it's realistic to expect humans of any philosophical flavor to behave morally at all times. Those that don't may try to rationalize their amoral behavior, which doesn't make it morally okay.
 
shrubnose said:
Basically, everything that you have said here is bull****, when viewed against the reality of the history of the second world war.


Go dig up the millions of people who were killed in WWII by the Japanese and the Germans and tell them your story.

I doubt that any of them will buy it.
Click to expand...

You can go the route of the emotional reaction all you wish, but nothing I said is "bull****". It is the truth. Morality is subjective. Do I personally think that their actions were wrong? Sure do. But that doesn't mean that it is a universal truth, and it especially is not a "fact". It doesn't matter what those who die may feel about it either.

Plus, you still ignored the initial argument being made. Whether the actions of a nation were morally right or wrong was never actually the contention. The contention was whether a country itself was moral or not or held a particular moral stance. A country cannot actually hold a moral stance. The majority of the people of a country can claim a particular moral stance on a specific issue publicly or via their laws, but that does not mean the country itself is of that particular morality.
 
lizzie said:
I don't consider it to ever be morally okay. There are circumstances in which I can understand the need, and I don't hold a thief in some circumstances in contempt, but it's not "right" to take what belongs to someone else. Now, that being said, if you are also including under this umbrella, the concept of taking something from publicly owned land (as an example,
picking a piece of fruit on government-owned property), I don't consider that to be theft at all.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




You have just as much right to that fruit as any other American has.
 
Summerwind said:
It's never morally okay to steal. However, I don't think it's realistic to expect humans of any philosophical flavor to behave morally at all times. Those that don't may try to rationalize their amoral behavior, which doesn't make it morally okay.
Click to expand...

But why are there no exceptions? Why is it that stealing is never okay, but killing is in some instances, eventhough killing involves something generally much worse and involves natural concepts while stealing is all about ownership, which is a man-made concept?
 
roguenuke said:
You can go the route of the emotional reaction all you wish, but nothing I said is "bull****". It is the truth. Morality is subjective. Do I personally think that their actions were wrong? Sure do. But that doesn't mean that it is a universal truth, and it especially is not a "fact". It doesn't matter what those who die may feel about it either.

Plus, you still ignored the initial argument being made. Whether the actions of a nation were morally right or wrong was never actually the contention. The contention was whether a country itself was moral or not or held a particular moral stance. A country cannot actually hold a moral stance. The majority of the people of a country can claim a particular moral stance on a specific issue publicly or via their laws, but that does not mean the country itself is of that particular morality.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




This is yet more bull****, like I said, go dig up the millions of people who were massacred by the German and the Japanese nations in WWII and tell them your story.

I very much doubt that any of them will buy it.

I also doubt that any of their descendents will buy your story.
 
Last edited:
shrubnose said:
This is yet more bull****, like I said, go dig up the millions of people who were massacred by the Germans and the Japanese nations in WWII and tell them your story.

I very much doubt that any of them will buy it.
Click to expand...

Those dead wouldn't tell me anything. They're dead. Any consciousness that may be left of them would be in some other place, not likely their dead bodies. I simply do not care about their personal moral convictions about it because they would probably agree with my personal beliefs on those guys being wrong, but wouldn't make it any less subjective.
 
roguenuke said:
What in the world are you talking about? Murder literally means killing a person unlawful. Whether something is murder depends on the laws of the place where the killing occurred. Now, just because something isn't murder, doesn't make it morally right/okay to kill. Nor does something being legally considered murder mean that it is morally wrong.

Morality is subjective. No one on this planet shares their entire moral code with anyone else.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about murder committed upon people who experience extreme pain. It would be nice if you kept up.

Bullcrap. This nonsensical legal positivism is just that, nonsense. Murder can be committed by the state. (see the Holocaust, amongst other examples) that the state denies that what it's doing is murder, doesn't make it not murder.

No one on this planet possesses a perfect understanding of the Earth's shape. That doesn't mean that the shape of the Earth is subjective.
 
roguenuke said:
Those dead wouldn't tell me anything. They're dead. Any consciousness that may be left of them would be in some other place, not likely their dead bodies. I simply do not care about their personal moral convictions about it because they would probably agree with my personal beliefs on those guys being wrong, but wouldn't make it any less subjective
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...




Believe whatever you want to believe, but don't expect me to agree with you.
 
Paleocon said:
I'm talking about murder committed upon people who experience extreme pain. It would be nice if you kept up.

Bullcrap. This nonsensical legal positivism is just that, nonsense. Murder can be committed by the state. (see the Holocaust, amongst other examples) that the state denies that what it's doing is murder, doesn't make it not murder.

No one on this planet possesses a perfect understanding of the Earth's shape. That doesn't mean that the shape of the Earth is subjective.
Click to expand...

Yes. I'm keeping up just fine. You appear lost though.

Murder is merely killing that is against the law. It has no impact on whether something is viewed as morally wrong or right.

And assisted suicide is the name for killing someone to alleviate their suffering.

It can be against international laws (and in general, mass genocide is). That could make it murder. However, just because something isn't deemed murder, does not make it morally right.

You are wrongly attempting to compare something objective (the shape of the Earth) to something subjective (opinions/beliefs of right and wrong).
 
roguenuke said:
Yes. I'm keeping up just fine. You appear lost though.

Murder is merely killing that is against the law. It has no impact on whether something is viewed as morally wrong or right.

And assisted suicide is the name for killing someone to alleviate their suffering.

It can be against international laws (and in general, mass genocide is). That could make it murder. However, just because something isn't deemed murder, does not make it morally right.

You are wrongly attempting to compare something objective (the shape of the Earth) to something subjective (opinions/beliefs of right and wrong).
Click to expand...

Then why did you forget what we were talking about?

Murder is the unjustifiable killing of a person.

The word is Euthanasia, assisted suicide involves, well, assisted suicide, rather than direct homicide. Although it is treated as homicde.

And neither does it automatically mean it isn't murder, just because civil laws assert that it isn't.

Morality and the shape of the Earth are both objective.

BTW, it's once in a blue moon that me and shrub nose agree with each other. That we nearly complete opposites both see the error of your assertions, goes to how evident it is to a sensible person it is that you're wrong.
 
shrubnose said:
This is yet more bull****, like I said, go dig up the millions of people who were massacred by the German and the Japanese nations in WWII and tell them your story.

I very much doubt that any of them will buy it.

I also doubt that any of their descendents will buy your story.
Click to expand...
That is because they would view it from a subjective viewpoint.
 
Excon said:
That is because they would view it from a subjective viewpoint.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Correct.

And I don't believe that you can fault them for this.

You only have to massacre my parents, grandparents and all of my relatives one time to make me have a very bad opinion of you.
 
shrubnose said:
Correct.

And I don't believe that you can fault them for this.

You only have to massacre my parents, grandparents and all of my relatives one time to make me have a very bad opinion of you.
Click to expand...
I don't.
As a Jew, I know that there is nothing more than actions, and interpretations of those actions. Everything is subjective.



Relatively speaking. iLOL
 
Last edited:
I'm an atheist so according to christians I have no moral compass, is that like claiming the 5th?
 
NGNM85 said:
I have never had the opportunity, myself, but I have no moral objection to 'stealing' from a large corporation, or a wealthy capitalist. After all, they stole it to begin with.
Click to expand...

It's not as if stealing a loaf of bread from walmart is really going to affect their bottom line. IIRC employees are only affected when big ticket items like electronics are stolen
 
shrubnose said:
The one that's running the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
aw come on,as an atheist the Coptic dude looks more realistic.The roman one looks like an alms robber to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom