The Morality of Theft - Is it right in a capitalist society?

[CheViveToday]

Is it right to steal in a capitalist society? I'm not talking about armed robbery, or breaking into people's houses and stealing their posessions. I mean like shoplifting from an electronics store or something like that. What does everyone think?

I personally wouldn't say it is right, but I also don't believe it's too terrible, especially when the only victims are capitalist corporations. I also don't think it's worth the risk of getting arrested. But is it necessarily wrong?

[Valkyrie]

Morally and on priniciple, I think it's wrong. (unfortunetly, I am ruled by my own interpretations of morality) Only because I don't think society needs to degenerate the mentality level to a bunch of theives. I think Capitalism can be hit harder than shoplifting to bring it down.

In the collective sense, I do not thing so.. Especially if what is stolen is truly needed by a person. I think all people when working at their jobs, should be stealing something.. even if it's just a paperclip.

(Edited by Paris at 10:36 pm on Feb. 24, 2003)

[canikickit]

(unfortunetly, I am ruled by my own interpretations of morality)

Please, Paris, of course you are. I hate it when people say this type of shit. Why stop there, you are alos ruled by your own interpretations of "society" and "interpretation" and "mentality" and "principle" nd "wrong". It goes without saying, it's precisly this type of semantic argument which pisses me off most about discussing things on the internet (it seems to happen mainly on the interent).

Regardless, I agree with you. I think that taking something which is not yours is wrong, it is unfair to others. I'm talking about CDs and clothes and shit like that. Loaves of bread to feed starving families are alright in my book.


I think all people when working at their jobs, should be stealing something.. even if it's just a paperclip.

I am happy to report that I stole two knives from the disgusting company I used to work for.


I personally wouldn't say it is right, but I also don't believe it's too terrible, especially when the only victims are capitalist corporations. I also don't think it's worth the risk of getting arrested.

Yeah, same here.


(Edited by canikickit at 12:52 am on Feb. 25, 2003)

[Valkyrie]

Ha! I don't usually read the small print. Just pointing out the fact that I am aware that my basic viewpoints of and interepretations of a socialist system consistently diverge with the conventional ideologic view of the board and so also more than likely will on the issue of morality of theft and expect a deliberate opposition to that. That's all that was about.




(Edited by Paris at 11:26 pm on Feb. 24, 2003)

[canikickit]

Just pointing out the fact that I am aware that my basic viewpoints of and interepretations of a socialist system consistently diverge with the conventional ideologic view of the board

I agree with you most of the time. Everyone else is wrong.

That's fair enough, I just find that a lot of people like to bullshit about objectivity and subjectivity and yada, yada, yada.....boring idiots. Not you though Paris. :biggrin: Re-reading my other post it looks like i meant it aghainst you, I didn't really though, I just think that goes without saying. Don't ever say it again. :wink:

[redstar2000]

On the other hand, what do you mean by wrong?

:cool:

[Totalitarian]

Theft deprives people of resources, and is the product of either desperate, immediate need or materialist desire

[Valkyrie]

Bleep!

My subjective interpretion of objectivity is that I think its rather partiality to subjectively project an objective within it's contextextual subjective-objectibility given it's subjective error within the objections that are subjectured. I am rather impartial to dogmatism and opinions, even my own.

[canikickit]

I disagree.

[Aleksander Nordby]

I and a big gang of friend shoplifted of many money before i became a communist.

[Rebelde para Siempre]

Stealing is good. As a pseudo commie I believe in the abolition of private property and possession.

Therefore, everything you own, I OWN.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I Would say that in Capitalism it just as much "Correct" to work for a living as it is to steal for a living.

[bombeverything]

Rebelde para Siempre> Word

Yay for stealing!

[von Mises]

I can imagine when calling yourself a communistist that you think stealing is ok. Since capitalism or better liberalisme acknowledges property rights to individuals stealing is always wrong. But as we don't live in a truly liberal society I can only blame socialists and communist for the plundering of people's possessions.

[Arkham]

I would be careful dismissing discussions of the difference between objective and subjective morality. I think that it is scientifically possible and desirable to formulate an objective morality, given the construction of a proper paradigm. Personally, I subscribe to the kind of morality laid out in Pirsig's Lila, which would take way too long to get into here, but allows that stealing is okay in some situations, and not okay in others. This is not subjective, but allows for situational differences objectively.

(Edited by Arkham at 8:03 pm on Feb. 26, 2003)

[Beccie]

It should be a crime to own more than someone else in the first place…..

People should steal whatever they want, as long as it is from corporations. In my opinion the fact that the majority of people in this world live bellow the poverty line is far more morally wrong than stealing will ever be. Lets take something from the system that is keeping them there!

[Castroid]

I agree. but when communism takes over from capitalism, the people sieze all the wealth from the rich corporations, so isn't that stealing? If we think about it, the corporations 'steal' the goods the workers have made (so if you made it, it should be rightfully yours) and sell them.

[Arkham]

I think you are going to have to define "steal" absent the meaning that the law gives it. What is "theft"? Is it corporations taking the goods that workers produce and reselling them? Not according to current law. Stealing from corporations, or stealing the system from its current owners, however, is. Does theft exist outside of a legal controlling authority?

[Castroid]

Arkham, i agree with you. if there was no authority to tell you what is theft, theft wouldn't exist, since theft wouldn't be given a definition by the authority. The definition of theft and stealing largely depends on your political and moral views .

[Arkham]

Not to mention who the ruling class is.

But this is why it is important to establish a philosophically sound example of objective morality.

[Blibblob]

Dont resort to "stealing" in a communist society, thats fucked up. Its called "sharing", but dont forget sharing means that you have to share too.

[CheViveToday]

I will echo the already stated views of some of you, that stealing goes against communist/socialist/marxist ideals when your drive is the urge to obtain material posessions.


Commie01: In my opinion the fact that the majority of people in this world live bellow the poverty line is far more morally wrong than stealing will ever be.

Well said.

[von Mises]

Its called "sharing", but dont forget sharing means that you have to share too.

Wow, this states exactly why communism will never work in the real world, where a lot of people have different opinions.


Commie01: In my opinion the fact that the majority of people in this world live bellow the poverty line is far more morally wrong than stealing will ever be.

In this case governments steal from their own people by not allowing them to freely buy goods from people in poor countries.

With respect to objective morality, there is none. So therefor one can say that fundamental human rights, based on a morality, are a fiction. However the existance and importance of morality in human interaction is clear.

So let us, Capitalists and Communists, join hands in abolishing governments and live happily ever after in our own communities, without using violence in telling other people what is right and what is wrong.

(Edited by von Mises at 1:43 pm on Feb. 27, 2003)

[Conghaileach]

I think that a person's own personal morality or principles are what measures whether or not (s)he'll steal something.

Hypothetical situation:
Your wife has cancer, and a new drug that cures it becomes available. But it costs $2000. You go to the pharmacy and offer them $1000, because that's all you have, but they refuse to sell you the drug for that amount. So that night, you break into the pharmacy, and steal the drug for your wife. Is this right or wrong?

I feel that it's right. I think that the particular situation you find yourself in determines whether or not you can justify the act. I would never defend taking something just because it's there and can be taken.

[Castroid]

stealing is not wrong if you steal for the right reason, an example would be stealing a truckload of food to feed the poor.

[Blibblob]

Robin Hood

[von Mises]

Property rights in a capitalist system are absolute, in a normal situation. This clearly isn't one, and a judge will probably reckon this. However afterwards you'll have to repay.

[sc4r]

. So that night, you break into the pharmacy, and steal the drug for your wife. Is this right or wrong?


Sorry but it is just flat wrong. The entire point of socialism (or communism) is that people agree to abide by rules which have been devised to allow the maximum justice for all. It is inevitable that in such a system there will be many occasions where an individual could do better for himself by ignoring the rules. The society cannot allow or condone such actions.

This is not to say that such an action would not be understandable and (to my mind) the more unjust (subjectively) the rules of the society are the more understandable it becomes.

But to take an action or stance purely on the basis that it has an immediate personal benefit is surely the mindset of the pragmatic capitalist (not even the mindset of the idealist capitalist) not that of the socialist.

I think that liberation of drugs in this situation for the use of others could be viewed as an activist strike against the institution of capitalism; but for your own use it is merely an acknowlegement that you are motivated by personal gain not ideology.

The socialist who does not first advocate rule by democracy and conformance to the dictates of that democracy, and only second advocate socialist economics is merely conveying that he is at a disadvantage in current society and wishes to gain by the most expedient means. Such an attitude can never withstand the hard light of ideological examination.

Courage, sacrifice and fortitude in the face of adversity are the epithets we should seek. Because it is these that demonstrate out true commitment.

[Arkham]

This completely side-steps the question of what theft is, and in a larger sense, what is moral. To be sure saving the life of an idea is more moral than saving the life of a person, so under your construct, you are correct in stating that it is amoral to steal, when it destroys the idea of jointly owned property.

[sc4r]

Quote: from Arkham on 6:56 pm on Feb. 28, 2003
This completely side-steps the question of what theft is, and in a larger sense, what is moral. To be sure saving the life of an idea is more moral than saving the life of a person, so under your construct, you are correct in stating that it is amoral to steal, when it destroys the idea of jointly owned property.

Hmmmm.

Theft to me is a legal term not a moral one so the mere fact that there are laws which say you cannot break into the chemist and take the stuff without permission makes it theft.

I’m aware of course of why socialists only drink herbal tea* and it’s a perfectly good rhetorical metaphor but I don’t see it as describing a literal truth.

Morality is tougher. I don’t honestly believe there can be an objective universal morality. My morality is self defined. That it happens to coincide fairly well with that of others and also with the restraints which are essential if societies are to evolve beyond the level of individual animals is both nice and almost certainly no random co-incidence. I am evolved from animals which have found it very beneficial to have such notions.

Which really only allows me to judge morality in terms of my own beliefs, or (less surely) from the perspective of likely practical consequences. I perceive that breaking laws for self interest will be judged hypocritical by others and so I suggest it is ‘wrong’ for someone whose stated personal beliefs include conformance to democratic process to break it when it does not suit them.

I think morality can only be expressed as a sequence of progressive importance for ideas; and that it makes no sense to suggest that others should subscribe to a different sequence than the one you yourself say you follow, but this is informed really by my own morality sequence which runs:

1. Not Hypocrisy 2. Democracy 3. Socialism 4. Self interest.

Sorry if this makes less sense than I would like it to. Expressing recursive abstract ideas is hard.

I should perhaps have mentioned (which I did not because I wasn’t thinking as clearly as you have prompted me to) that I would not regard theft under laws which were not democratically formulated as immoral. If the thief happens to believe that the democratic process under which they were formulated were so flawed that he would not ask or expect to be protected under them then I could see that he might be acting morally from his perspective whether he were from mine or not. However in order for him to convince me of this he would need to show that he held such a view prior to his self interest being triggered.

Thanks for making me think m8.; PTTP

By the way I am capable of acting immorally. I am not claiming that I never have or would act outside of the sequence I give above only that I would judge myself immoral to do so and would judge someone who did not act outside the sequence more moral. Perhaps my characterisation of theft in order to save your wife as ‘wrong’ was too didactic in the circumstances.




* because all proper tea is theft if you didn’t get it J