In these troubling times we see in the news that more and more people are losing their jobs. Hence, we see a rise in criminal activity. There was a news article that just recently caught my attention in the Wall Street Journal, âBusinesses Say Theft by Their Workers Is Up.â Here is the link to the article if you wish to see it, just copy and paste it in your search bar:
Let's first think about this. what are the consequences of stealing? for one thing, you get whatever you stole. It it then yours to do with it what you will. After that, the person that you stole it from doesn't have it anymore. Suppose that you stole money from some random person's wallet at the bus stop. Then later that day, when it's too late to get it back they find out that it was stolen. To nake this more realistic, lets say that they're a college studet and the $200 that you stole from them was what they were going to use for food. Now, you have put a person in the same postion that you were in and mabee you're out of that situation, but their in it. resorting to stealing is a sign that you've given up on trying to fix your problem yourself, and that you're willing to endanger another human being to make sure that you stay alive.
Think about it this way, when you steel something you're saying you don't care about working, you snub the people who work for what you are steeling. If you own the store, you wouldn't steel. Why? It's all ethics.
The only real stealing for survival is stealing food and water. But then again, even if its hard there are ways to survive without the need of stealing - but it's always seems to be an option...
I would say it's... well, okay. If I was in court i would probably forgive the person, but obviously, if the person stole a million dollars, to "survive", the case would ed up much more differently.
It goes against the word of many religions but me as an atheist, asking first would be better than just blindly stealing from the most meek looking victim.
Well, it is not right. In two senses. One that the person should not be stealing. The other that they should not be forced into that situation be it by there decisions or someone else's. I'd treat someone stealing for survival as a "white lie" in the sense that it is still wrong but done with good intentions.
Good or bad? Ha! You can't decide if something is 'good or bad' if it is naturally instinct. In all reality, humanity is just another mammal, which means we have instinct as well, many of which we can control these days. Stealing, if for survival, is neither good nor bad, it is simply instinct. Do whatever it takes to keep yourself alive, thats all instinct.
Stealing is wrong as it says in the ten commandments. If you are poor and in need of food and shelter, pray to God and things will work out eventually.
Interesting post, Silver, but I disagree. By your definition, murder would be neither good nor bad... one could argue killing is just a way to make the instinctive stealing easier, and thus is instinct as well. We have to view these things under the societal lens... Stealing is bad. If you steal, someone else suffers. Stealing for survival is bad because there is no situation where stealing is the only option. Why can't the person get an honest job? I promise you, there are jobs available, that argument always bothers me. If the person doesn't have the training/schooling, then that responsibility comes to us.. we need to be charitable and help people receive that aid.
@Kippy: I see what you are saying, and I partially agree. But I was under the impression that this thread was created because of so many workers being fired, and thus a shortage of jobs. But I do see that if there IS another option, then that option would probably be the best choice. Which is why its a good thing we have developed the mental intelligence to decide what we do, instead of just going off basic instinct. That's what separates us from animals and the like. But I still argue that, under the impression (As in, the person affected) completely, 100% believes there is no other option, they will resort to instinct. But once again, charity is all good, and we really should be paying more attention to that, but that falls onto the wealthy man as his responsibility and not that of the one affected.
@Flippin: What about atheists? not everybody chooses to take part in religion. If one truly does not believe in a god of some form, where else does he turn? Back to instinct, that's where.
@ Silver: Ahh, didn't realize that about the job losses. Hmm, so that sorta destroys my "get a job" point... interesting. I do agree with your resorting to instinct thing then, if the person believes they have no other choice... but bottom line, because we do have that "mental intelligence" you've described, stealing is still bad.
In a side note, there is always the whole "Robin Hood" case. Is stealing from an institution or person who won't miss it as bad as stealing from the needy? The ethics are sooo messed up haha.
Does that matter really? You would probably feel the same way about stealing a car as you would about stealing bike. They both cost money and both get you where you need to go. Both bread and lobster will feed you, so I don't really see a big deal on that point. But perhaps I am simply misinterpreting your post.
Sorry for the Double post, but Kippy and I posted at the same time.
@Kippy: Yes, yes we do. But you would be surprised how easily that can be taken away from you by your own brain. If you truly believe there is no other way, leaving you with two options, either steal a little food or die, I can nearly guarantee you that you will lose that mental intelligence, even if it's just for a moment (I believe this is referred to as temporary insanity?), and your instinct will take over.
As for Robin Hood, Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor. He Chose to steal, even though it was for a good cause. But you do have a point saying that stealing from someone who probably won't need it is better than stealing from someone who does. But if you have no other options, you will either die or steal. Instinct also points out is the survival of the fittest.
Right, but that's where the ethics go nutso haha. Robin Hood's thievery is a good brand of thievery, but it is still thievery. Thievery to survive is a good brand of thievery, but it is still thievery. Plus the problem is, there is no Robin Hood situation any more... If someone in the city is stealing to survive they're probably stealing from someone who is also struggling to get by. All of a sudden, its not even stealing from someone who doesn't need it any more...
Ha! There really is no way to argue in any of the three directions. Humanity these days, there just is no straight line. There are too many rules, too many exceptions. No way to choose the right path, and that is the truth, wouldn't you agree?
