Why is Stealing Wrong/immoral (however you want to put it)

[AerodynamicOwl]

Obviously the act of stealing isnt very well tolerated by society as a whole, unless youre a government, but nobody seems to know why. Nobody can give me a reasonable answer, and of course the only text readily available to me is the King james bible, and it only says its bad, and not why. :confused:

[BillKephart]

I don't think it is. The negative prohibition against stealing is really the positive protection of property rights. "Property" in the capitalist sense is largely the right to live off the fruits of other's labor who are compelled to work for you or starve. I'm against that so I don't see "property rights" in the capitalist sense as legitimate. If I could hack into a billionaire's bank account I'd rob him blind without a twinge of conscience.

[Meridian]

It depends who you are stealing from, in my opinion.

If you manage to steal money off some rich person or company, bank, etc... That's one thing.

To take money, or items worth a lot of money, or items of "personal worth", or anything really, off people who work regular jobs, then that is normally not justifiable.

[leftace53]

Stealing in current society is considered to be wrong because most people are wage slaves, and they acquire commodities using their slave rates. Since even life is commodified (we have to be exploited day after day in order to just buy food and survive to live another wage slavery day), stealing in a sense means that you are indirectly taking away from someone's "life funds" or "means to life".

This reasoning obviously does not apply if you are stealing from someone who has much more than their means to life. Yet since capitalist societies are run by those who have much more than the means to life, it is wrong to steal from them because they are your means to life. If they didn't have money to give their wage slaves, then the whole of society will go hungry and perish. Its like pissing on yourself and calling it rain.

Obviously neither of these reasons would hold up in a communist society because people won't be wage slaves.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I agree with what people have been saying - "stealing" has to be seen in a class context. In capitalism, the effort to prevent "stealing" is actually just an effort to enforce the status quo of private property. If it is theft in order to make something common into private property (as in all the land of North and South America) then it is not "stealing" according to the capitalist system.

When the nascent bourgeois and the aristocracy (the ones turned onto the idea of capital as the capitalist mode of production began to be established) enclosed common lands and forced peasants to work or be deemed "illegal" vagabonds and turned into salves... that's not stealing, it was perfectly legal! When people had their lives stolen and turned into slaves in African and Europe... that was legal and under feudalism, it was sanctioned by God! When the revolutionary bourgoise expropriated the land and wealth of the aristocracy (not a crime compared to the other examples in my opinion) that was not "stealing" according to anyone but the aristocracy.

When I go to work and, in the first few hours of my shift, my labor creates wealth equal to the average business costs for the day (including my own wages), then I have to continue working for the rest of the shift and if I decided to take the extra cash I made from my own labor... then I would be STEALING and a cop with a gun would show up at my door to take me to prison.

Exploitation is stealing. In feudal arrangements, you had to work for free for a noble for a certain amount of time and then your extra time could go to producing wealth for yourself. This kind of exploitation is obvious, but when I work and am only paid a fraction of the total wealth I make, like the peasant, I am exploited and creating wealth for free for my boss.

As Marx says in capital, one day the expropriators (the capitalists who take our labor and take common property and make it private) will be expropriated by the people who actually produce the wealth: the working class. The capitalists call this "stealing" but I think it's justice.

[Wobblie]

From a Marxist perspective morality is a faulty basis for political discussion being founded, like it has already been mentioned, in the interest of the current forces of production (among other points Marx made on the matter). Rather Marx promotes making decisions based around freedom, solidarity, and reciprocity.

In the class based society that we currently live in, to steal from a fellow worker undercuts our solidarity and is not in the interest of mutual benefit. However, to steal from a capitalist when you need to could very well promote solidarity and reciprocity among the workers.

As for post-capitalism, these same three principals would still be applicable.

A really good book on Marx's critique of morality (along with the other topics it discusses) is Analyzing Marx: Morality, Power, and History by Miller. I highly recommend it.

[AerodynamicOwl]

It depends who you are stealing from, in my opinion.

If you manage to steal money off some rich person or company, bank, etc... That's one thing.

To take money, or items worth a lot of money, or items of "personal worth", or anything really, off people who work regular jobs, then that is normally not justifiable.

Say, Car radios.

[Telemakus]

With stealing comes a reduction in efficiency - we need to take extra precautions to make sure things don't get stolen, and in the case of stealing from individuals the stolen item will generally be worth more to the person stolen from. Then there's the severe stress which is likely to be felt if you're stolen from (I think this is probably the more important issue, when it applies), and the possibility of accidental side effects, like if someone were injured or killed in a robbery. You can probably think of some other reasons yourself that apply to certain kinds of stealing.

Obviously it's not wrong all the time, but I don't think that really needs to be said unless you're Christian or something and believe morals can be expressed in action-based absolutes. Are you starving, and society provides no alternate means for you to feed yourself? Go steal a loaf of bread.


From a Marxist perspective morality is a faulty basis for political discussion being founded, like it has already been mentioned, in the interest of the current forces of production (among other points Marx made on the matter). Rather Marx promotes making decisions based around freedom, solidarity, and reciprocity.
Isn't basing decisions around "freedom, solidarity, and reciprocity" also a morality based decision making? I get what you mean though - rather than judging acts based on what kind of act it is (appearance) we should look at how the act fits into a broader societal framework, whether the act promotes good experiences or bad (reality). Remember of course that even something as seemingly fundamental as "freedom" is not in itself an absolute basis for morality, and must be justified on an even more general level.

[Wobblie]

I would really like to discuss this further but as of right now I can no longer use my computer (graphics card trouble) and won't be able to use it till Saturday afternoon (and only if we have the Internet on in the apartment because I'm moving in on that day and my roommate is handling the cable/Internet account). And as much fun as typing up a response is on an iPod I think I'll just have to table this discussion for right now, sorry.

[Ele'ill]

I think initially it depends on how much of an impact your theft has on the person or group you're stealing from.

If the impact is minimal then without saying 'it's ok' I think it's doable. I just can't justify stealing objects that have more than monetary value- Like a car from someone that needs it for employment- a GPS for the same reason- I'd argue that unless the situation is dire, don't even steal CD's from a car.

With all this said and done I don't advocate the stealing of 'stuff' just so you have new 'stuff'. There needs to be a good reason behind why you're doing it.

[Hiratsuka]

Obviously the act of stealing isnt very well tolerated by society as a whole, unless youre a government, but nobody seems to know why. Nobody can give me a reasonable answer, and of course the only text readily available to me is the King james bible, and it only says its bad, and not why. :confused:

Presumably you or someone close to you worked to acquired the items you deem your own. Perhaps it has some sentimental value. To steal is to render possession moot and thus create disunity between what one person does and what they get in return. In a relationship if you work hard to sustain a bond but find out your partner is cheating on you or someone else is trying to break you up, how does it feel?

Is it ever justifiable to steal? I think that question only becomes interesting in circumstances where theft is not already commonplace, but let's stay a starving person steals from a worker who can at least afford groceries. I don't think it's either "right" or "wrong."

[redSHARP]

i wouldnt want my stuff being stolen. fuck that! so i dont do it either.

what about intellectual property such as music or movies?

[AerodynamicOwl]

i wouldnt want my stuff being stolen. fuck that! so i dont do it either.

what about intellectual property such as music or movies?


My view on IP is pretty simple. Cloning information is not the same as depriving someone of it..

[synthesis]

Why do we think anything is wrong? Fundamentally, it's because of this:


i wouldnt want my stuff being stolen. fuck that! so i dont do it either.

Our conceptions of "right" and "wrong" are determined first by our unconscious emotional reactions to that which we judge, then intellectualized after the fact.

However, if you wish to consider the issue from a Marxist standpoint, you have to consider who's benefiting from the theft. If it's a group of workers "stealing" a factory, then it's a collective, social action. If I'm stealing your tires to fund a month-long meth binge, I'd need rehabilitation - but more importantly, I'd be acting in the name of individualism, not in that of class consciousness.

[AerodynamicOwl]

Why do we think anything is wrong? Fundamentally, it's because of this:



Our conceptions of "right" and "wrong" are determined first by our unconscious emotional reactions to that which we judge, then intellectualized after the fact.

However, if you wish to consider the issue from a Marxist standpoint, you have to consider who's benefiting from the theft. If it's a group of workers "stealing" a factory, then it's a collective, social action. If I'm stealing your tires to fund a month-long meth binge, I'd need rehabilitation - but more importantly, I'd be acting in the name of individualism, not in that of class consciousness.

Since ive became a socialist, ive had a fundamental belief (however you want to take it,) that the means of production should be utilized and benefit society as a whole through democratic means, as more of a human right. Thus you'd be taking back what's Ours.

[ABCofcommunism]

it does depend on the context, if your stealing from real necessity (food, water, shelter) then its OK, but if your stealing what someone else has earned out of your own greed then its wrong.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Stealing from a corporate entity is fine with me. For the most part, at least.

Stealing from an individual is not. Unless it's a matter of feeding you're family/clothing them etc.

However, I'd like to note that no person should ever have to steal to feed/clothe/shelter their family. One more reason to support socialism.

[Telemakus]

Our conceptions of "right" and "wrong" are determined first by our unconscious emotional reactions to that which we judge, then intellectualized after the fact.
This is unfortunately very true of most people (although a lot don't bother with the second step). Even my ethics/philosophy lecturer essentially encouraged the students to this. I think it's got a lot to do with the widespread relativism which denies absolute morality, and so tells people to believe whatever they want, or what they "feel" is right, rather than changing their views to be more sensible.

Where's Socrates when you need him?

[LC89]

Stealing from a corporate entity is fine with me. For the most part, at least.

Stealing from an individual is not. Unless it's a matter of feeding you're family/clothing them etc.

However, I'd like to note that no person should ever have to steal to feed/clothe/shelter their family. One more reason to support socialism.

I personally think it is still wrong to rob from individual to feed you're family and children. It damage the law and order or the society. And worst it a crime against working class.

[Telemakus]

I personally think it is still wrong to rob from individual to feed you're family and children. It damage the law and order or the society. And worst it a crime against working class.
There may be negative consequences, but when it becomes the only choice you have it is not the wrong thing to do. As someone mentioned earlier, no one should even have to resort to this, so if they have to it suggests that the law and order of the society is already in bad shape - if anything, you'll probably pushing for it to change.

[deLarge]

Marxism isn't for stealing. In fact, it is against it -- it simply defines ownership differently. Wage slavery is an example of theft of labour, for instance.

[synthesis]

This is unfortunately very true of most people (although a lot don't bother with the second step). Even my ethics/philosophy lecturer essentially encouraged the students to this. I think it's got a lot to do with the widespread relativism which denies absolute morality, and so tells people to believe whatever they want, or what they "feel" is right, rather than changing their views to be more sensible.

Where's Socrates when you need him?

Has he assigned you this (http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=17705)? If not, read it immediately, then get a gun and make him assign it.

[AerodynamicOwl]

Presumably you or someone close to you worked to acquired the items you deem your own. Perhaps it has some sentimental value. To steal is to render possession moot and thus create disunity between what one person does and what they get in return. In a relationship if you work hard to sustain a bond but find out your partner is cheating on you or someone else is trying to break you up, how does it feel?

Is it ever justifiable to steal? I think that question only becomes interesting in circumstances where theft is not already commonplace, but let's stay a starving person steals from a worker who can at least afford groceries. I don't think it's either "right" or "wrong."


Well, they didnt steal from me. Just somebody whos Trying to get through the same bs system.

[mel]

There's a lot of different crimes which fall under the umbrella of what we often call "stealing", and these situations basically all have a different character and justification. Ultimately, all theft is "wrong" per se, but some things commonly thought of as theft don't actually fit the bill when analyzed from a class perspective.

From a class perspective, the most important form of "stealing" is the stealing which employers do from employees. The capitalist economic system is based on this theft, by which the employer steals the product of his employees labor to use for himself. Ultimately, this results in the employee having some of the product of his labor "given back" oh-so-graciously by the capitalist in the form of wages.

With this being said, the crime which we call "shoplifting" is the crime in which somebody steals products from a capitalist. This, ultimately, doesn't really count as "stealing" in my book, since said capitalist has stolen much more of the fair value of yours or other workers labors than you can ever reclaim by shoplifting. However, the capitalist needs to maintain the status quo and therefore lays a claim to the product of your labor and uses his influence to criminalize the behavior in society. Shoplifting isn't "wrong", nor is it "stealing" when analyzed from a class perspective, but it is illegal and therefore risky because the laws are built to protect capitalist theft and punish employee reclamation.

Lastly there's theft like "you stole my bike" theft. This form of stealing is theft between members of the same class, worker from worker, and is morally unjustifiable. The reason being is that by gratifying your desire for what your fellow worker has, you are then depriving them of something which they own out of the small share of the labor value they were given back by their employer. Not only did the capitalists steal the vast majority of the products of their labor, but then you stole a chunk of the rest of it. Besides the labor value of personal posessions, there is also the possibility that you are depriving a person of strong sentimental value of these posessions, such as an antique wristwatch gifted by a deceased grandparent.

Obviously there are exceptional circumstances which change either the class character or cloud moral rulings on these cases, but for the vast majority of instances this covers it.

The only "hazy" area is so-called "intellectual property". In a socialist society, such a construct would be entirely absurd, but in a capitalist society there is a real danger that duplication of intellectual property will deprive working class people of their livelihood. This is a moral grey area, but in any case I won't classify this as "theft" as the reasons why it may or may not be wrong carry an entirely different set of arguments and concerns than what we traditionally refer to as "stealing" and even legally the Capitalists refer to it as "copyright infringement".

[MellowViper]

Obviously the act of stealing isnt very well tolerated by society as a whole, unless youre a government, but nobody seems to know why. Nobody can give me a reasonable answer, and of course the only text readily available to me is the King james bible, and it only says its bad, and not why. :confused:

Theft is bad, as a general rule, because it disrupts the general order of things and makes people more paranoid and hostile to each other. I think people should own their own house, mode of transportation, some land, etc etc. That being said, though, I think the government should cease businesses, like water and electric companies, services that are very basic necessities, if the prices they level on the public for profit are virtual theft. In Bolivia, an American owned water company was actually forcing people to take rain collectors off their houses, because they claimed ownership on the rain. The water prices got too high for people to bare, and they started rioting. Under the current government, the water services are under a public trust.

As far as land ownership goes, if a few people have a monopoly on all the land and a majority of people have to pay rent and they're starving and don't have any place to grow their own food, then I think its morally justifiable for that majority to cease property to ensure their own survival. Land would be put to better use growing crops for the community than for being used as a golf course for a few people.

To turn this argument around, why is it not considered theft against society when a public run service is privatized without the consent of the people? Its simply considered a bureaucratic affair. However, when a utility company gets expropriated, even if it was formerly a public trust in the past that was privatized, its considered high treason in the media. When they privatize public services, you'll seldom ever get them back. Its pretty much the end.

You could look at taxes as being theft, but the reason we have government provided, public services funded by taxes is so that we have more of a chance of equal protection under the law. If people were left to just pay for private mercenaries for protection, law enforcement would only be obligated to protect the moneyed elite that pays them, not society in general. The same holds true for schools, roads, and military defense. I believe government, as we know it, would become unnecessary, though, once class hierarchy is abolished. That's really the ultimate fight over government. Politics, right now, is ultimately a power struggle between capitalist interests and democratic interests. Big business wants to abolish representative democracy, their biggest obstacle to running the show, and anybody on the bottom who has their witts about them wants to keep the social security and public services that big business want abolished. I think once the working class takes control of the means of production, with or without the aide of government, government won't be needed at some time after that. I think we'll be collaborating major projects through direct democracy and volunteerism at that point. On the other hand, the capitalists that want to do away with representative government ultimately want to make us into their feudal slaves.