The Ethics of stealing.

[In Bloom]

It's indicative of much left-wing thinking that this debate is revolving around consequentialist talk of evil corporations and not the personal immorality of theft.

It doesn't matter what one thinks of supermarket chains (and personally I'd have the lot of them broken up under anti-trust laws for being effective monopolies) to say stealing from them is absolutely wrong. As is stealing from anyone, barring necessity. (Genuine mother with starving children necessity, not "I fancy a sarnie but I'm skint" necessity.) It's the act itself, and not the merits of its victim, that counts. Theft is a declaration that you're entitled to take instead of earn, and unearned acquisition is immoral, for both its dishonesty and its exploitation of other people's labour.

You can't seperate the morality of an action from its consequences or its context, they are all inextricably linked. By admitting that there are circumstances in which theft is acceptable, you accept that context and consequence carry moral weight.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

One of the things wrong with big corporations, supposedly, is that they are in effect stealing from the workers who make the goods, and from the customers, via profit margins.

We don't like them because they steal. How can you call yourself morally superior, if you sink to their level?

I knew a guy who used to steal records [this was in the days of vinyl] from a large department store chain. He was a track star in school, and could always outrun the store dicks. Problem was that sometimes he'd be stealing records produced by small independent labels, by artists who were less than superstars.

The way some of this stuff works, is that reps put the merchandise into the department stores, and the store gets a percentage when it's sold. If it doesn't sell, it goes back to the distributor.

The point is that although my friend was stealing from a department store, he was also stealing from the indy label, and from the musician.

 

[In Bloom]

One of the things wrong with big corporations, supposedly, is that they are in effect stealing from the workers who make the goods, and from the customers, via profit margins.

That's not limited to big corporations, though there are other reasons why corporations are very slightly marginally worse than other businesses.

We don't like them because they steal. How can you call yourself morally superior, if you sink to their level?

Calling yourself morally superior to others is a cunt's game. The point I'm making is that profit is generated by the extraction of surplus value, by the exploitation of us as a class. As such, I don't lose too much sleep at the prospect of somebody's act of petty theft costing Walmart a few pennies.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That's not limited to big corporations, though there are other reasons why corporations are very slightly marginally worse than other businesses.


Calling yourself morally superior to others is a cunt's game. The point I'm making is that profit is generated by the extraction of surplus value, by the exploitation of us as a class. As such, I don't lose too much sleep at the prospect of somebody's act of petty theft costing Walmart a few pennies.

But the pennies add up, and chances are that shrinkage will cause the corporate board to scrimp on wages, instead on limiting dividends to shareholders.

 

[In Bloom]

Oh aye, because otherwise, they try to keep wages as high as possible, just out of the goodness of their hearts.

Trickle down economics has failed to deliver on its promises every time it has been applied.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Oh aye, because otherwise, they try to keep wages as high as possible, just out of the goodness of their hearts.
.

Not at all; what I'm saying is that other things being equal, if the company starts losing money through theft, it will find a way to take it out of the workers' hides, not the shareholders.

 

[In Bloom]

Companies will keep wages as lows as they can get away with and cut staff whenever it's convenient regardless of how profitable they are. That's the nature of the profit imperitive.

In any case, I can't see any major supermarket in this country losing more money through theft than it makes in profit.

 

[fela fan]

Theft invites a land of take-what-you-please ruled by the strongest and fastest.

Wasn't robin hood correcting to some degree a land of the stongest and fastest? Giving back to those that had been stolen from?

 

[rhys gethin]

Wasn't robin hood correcting to some degree a land of the stongest and fastest? Giving back to those that had been stolen from?

A capitalist at primary accumulation but with good PR?

 

[ICB]

It's indicative of much left-wing thinking that this debate is revolving around consequentialist talk of evil corporations and not the personal immorality of theft.

It doesn't matter what one thinks of supermarket chains (and personally I'd have the lot of them broken up under anti-trust laws for being effective monopolies) to say stealing from them is absolutely wrong. As is stealing from anyone, barring necessity. (Genuine mother with starving children necessity, not "I fancy a sarnie but I'm skint" necessity.) It's the act itself, and not the merits of its victim, that counts. Theft is a declaration that you're entitled to take instead of earn, and unearned acquisition is immoral, for both its dishonesty and its exploitation of other people's labour.

Theft invites a land of take-what-you-please ruled by the strongest and fastest. Destroying legal protection of property leaves anyone too weak to defend themselves at risk. It's a legitimization to robber-barony, and as with all criminality, it's the poor and weak, not evil corporations, who ultimately suffer the most.

So it's wrong because of its consequences, that the weak and poor suffer more and that labour is exploited (more). I don't understand what it is that you're proposing as an alternative to the consequences of an action that determine its morality or immorality, is it God telling us it's wrong through Moses, or Kant telling us it's wrong as an absolute maxim or something?

Perhaps I'm just fixating unnecessarily on your use of the word "consequentialist"?

 

[NoEgo]

Since when does taking risks give you some moral superiority to anybody else? Burglers take lots of risks, doesn't make them right.

Never. Being a burgler means that you steal. Stealing means that you are a thief. It's bad.

 

[NoEgo]

How clever of the landowners to invent land!

Land was never invented, it was always there. If I am to read you correctly you are probably referring to property rights. Are you thus trying to tell me that property rights are bad?

 

[weltweit]

If I am to read you correctly you are probably referring to property rights. Are you thus trying to tell me that property rights are bad?

He might be I would not.

But inheritance might well be bad.

 

[Azrael]

You can't seperate the morality of an action from its consequences or its context, they are all inextricably linked. By admitting that there are circumstances in which theft is acceptable, you accept that context and consequence carry moral weight.

Of course you can't divorce morality its consequences, but you can't define it by them either. The personal immorality of theft is wiped-out by the supposed evil of its victim? That's pure ends-justify-means thinking and such thinking is the end of morality.

The mother stealing for starving children is not only justified by the consequences of her actions, but the absence of greed. Necessity ensures she hasn't crossed the line from survival to unearned profit. Both outcome and intention are just; that isn't the case with pocketing the contents of the local Tescos.

 

[Azrael]

So it's wrong because of its consequences, that the weak and poor suffer more and that labour is exploited (more). I don't understand what it is that you're proposing as an alternative to the consequences of an action that determine its morality or immorality, is it God telling us it's wrong through Moses, or Kant telling us it's wrong as an absolute maxim or something?

God would be handy, but I'm an atheist, so unfortunately He's out. Kant's a better bet, though some of his catagorical imperatives were plain dotty (never lying, for example).

Perhaps I'm just fixating unnecessarily on your use of the word "consequentialist"?

I used it in the strict sense to mean: "the belief that morality derives solely from consequences". Opposing theft partly for this reason isn't consequentialist. (And I wanted a consequentialist argument at hand so I didn't waste a load of posts arguing that we shouldn't have one. )

 

[In Bloom]

Of course you can't divorce morality its consequences, but you can't define it by them either. The personal immorality of theft is wiped-out by the supposed evil of its victim? That's pure ends-justify-means thinking and such thinking is the end of morality.

The whole notion of some nebulous "personal immorality" which may or may not be negated by certain circumstances requires an absolute right and wrong which exists in a vacuum to make any kind of sense, otherwise, it's just more meaningless rhetoric.

The mother stealing for starving children is not only justified by the consequences of her actions, but the absence of greed. Necessity ensures she hasn't crossed the line from survival to unearned profit. Both outcome and intention are just; that isn't the case with pocketing the contents of the local Tescos.

Hang on, why is greed alright when it's the CEO of Tesco's sacking a load of people to improve profit margins, but a mortal sin when perpetrated by the plebs.

One might almost think there was a class element to morality...

 

[rhys gethin]

Land was never invented, it was always there. If I am to read you correctly you are probably referring to property rights. Are you thus trying to tell me that property rights are bad?

The land was just there until somebody with a club, sword, rifle or whatever came and turned it into property, for which people had to work for or pay rent to HIM. That is simply theft, and it is the basis of almost all property not produced by WORK - which latter is stolen in exactly the same way.

 

[NoEgo]

The land was just there until somebody with a club, sword, rifle or whatever came and turned it into property, for which people had to work for or pay rent to HIM. That is simply theft, and it is the basis of almost all property not produced by WORK - which latter is stolen in exactly the same way.

I'm sorry but what is your point and more importantly what do you think the solution is to your problem?

 

[rhys gethin]

I'm sorry but what is your point and more importantly what do you think the solution is to your problem?

I don't have a problem - humanity does. You think wealth is produced by people having clever ideas and taking risks. I was pointing to the obvious fact that land - which is just THERE - is taken over by certain armed people and that act of violence is the basis of most 'hereditary' property and investible wealth. Those who have ideas are mostly robbed of those ideas by capitalists, who got much of their original capital from the expropriation of foreign property (Mexico, Peru, India, etcetera etcetera) and then forced independent workers to slave for them by such manouevres as enclosing the common land. Some of these capitalists may, individually, take risks, but it is often with borrowed money anyway. 'I am sure there is good coal here, boys', said David Davies of Llandinam, 'but I am out of money.' 'How much have you got?' shouted one of his men. 'Half a crown.' 'Let's have it then!' - so he threw it into the crowd, they worked a week for nothing, and they hit the best steam-coal seam in the world. But who was really taking the risk? Not David Davies - the banks would see him right - but the families of the men who, at that date, would starve.

If you begin to analyse where wealth comes from, I think you find that property is quite genuinely THEFT. The solution, since you ask, is the expropriation of the expropriators - in other words, WE TAKE IT BACK AND SHARE IT.

 

[Azrael]

The whole notion of some nebulous "personal immorality" which may or may not be negated by certain circumstances requires an absolute right and wrong which exists in a vacuum to make any kind of sense, otherwise, it's just more meaningless rhetoric.

Yep, sure does, and I see no reason why secular morality can't engage moral absolutes. It just can't rely on "Because God said so" as an excuse.

Hang on, why is greed alright when it's the CEO of Tesco's sacking a load of people to improve profit margins, but a mortal sin when perpetrated by the plebs.

Greed alone isn't the issue: it's the combination of greed (and deception) with certain actions (attacking someone else's material security).

If I kill someone in the genuine belief they're about to kill me, it's self-defence; if I kill them because I think they're an evil bastard who deserves to die, it's murder. (And I'm not comparing theft to murder before anyone accuses me of it, I'm simply making a point about the vital role of intentions.)

One might almost think there was a class element to morality...

It one is a Marxist, one might almost think there's a class element to having a dump, but that doesn't make it so.

 

[weltweit]

If you begin to analyse where wealth comes from, I think you find that property is quite genuinely THEFT. The solution, since you ask, is the expropriation of the expropriators - in other words, WE TAKE IT BACK AND SHARE IT.

A 100% inheritance tax would help in that aim.

Anyone for it ?

 

[In Bloom]

A 100% inheritance tax would help in that aim.

Anyone for it ?

Never happen.

Even if you could get somebody who advocated this into office, which would be near impossible, for a variety of reasons, the bourgeoisie would never allow it, and they're the ones with the wealth and the power.

 

[In Bloom]

Yep, sure does, and I see no reason why secular morality can't engage moral absolutes. It just can't rely on "Because God said so" as an excuse.

Let's here an argument for it then.

Greed alone isn't the issue: it's the combination of greed (and deception) with certain actions (attacking someone else's material security).

If I kill someone in the genuine belief they're about to kill me, it's self-defence; if I kill them because I think they're an evil bastard who deserves to die, it's murder. (And I'm not comparing theft to murder before anyone accuses me of it, I'm simply making a point about the vital role of intentions.)

So what you're saying is that morality is relative to the situation in which it occurs?

It one is a Marxist, one might almost think there's a class element to having a dump, but that doesn't make it so.

Clever stuff

 

[NoEgo]

I don't have a problem - humanity does. You think wealth is produced by people having clever ideas and taking risks. I was pointing to the obvious fact that land - which is just THERE - is taken over by certain armed people and that act of violence is the basis of most 'hereditary' property and investible wealth. Those who have ideas are mostly robbed of those ideas by capitalists, who got much of their original capital from the expropriation of foreign property (Mexico, Peru, India, etcetera etcetera) and then forced independent workers to slave for them by such manouevres as enclosing the common land. Some of these capitalists may, individually, take risks, but it is often with borrowed money anyway. 'I am sure there is good coal here, boys', said David Davies of Llandinam, 'but I am out of money.' 'How much have you got?' shouted one of his men. 'Half a crown.' 'Let's have it then!' - so he threw it into the crowd, they worked a week for nothing, and they hit the best steam-coal seam in the world. But who was really taking the risk? Not David Davies - the banks would see him right - but the families of the men who, at that date, would starve.

If you begin to analyse where wealth comes from, I think you find that property is quite genuinely THEFT. The solution, since you ask, is the expropriation of the expropriators - in other words, WE TAKE IT BACK AND SHARE IT.

So it's "humanity" that has the problem and not you?? Who does "we" refer to? More importantly who's going to be in charge of sharing it all out? And once it's shared out who get to be in charge of the re-allocation when it has to be shared out again?

 

[rhys gethin]

So it's "humanity" that has the problem and not you?? Who does "we" refer to? More importantly who's going to be in charge of sharing it all out? And once it's shared out who get to be in charge of the re-allocation when it has to be shared out again?

'Share it' in the sense of 'own it collectively' - so it won't need re-allocation. Without the text in front of me I suppose 'we' is humanity or the working class - can't remember. Hwyl.

 

[rhys gethin]

'Share it' in the sense of 'own it collectively' - so it won't need re-allocation. Without the text in front of me I suppose 'we' is humanity or the working class - can't remember. Hwyl.

Yup - have checked. I mean the working class acting for humanity.

 

[NoEgo]

'Share it' in the sense of 'own it collectively' - so it won't need re-allocation. Without the text in front of me I suppose 'we' is humanity or the working class - can't remember. Hwyl.

OK so basically you're a communist. Nice one.

 

[Azrael]

Let's here an argument for it then.

Without dragging in Kantian morality, the following could be adduced: a slippery-slope argument; an argument that historical precedent produces certain absolutes; or an argument that deontology demands immovable moral boundaries to function. Doubtless so can many more. But this thread isn't moral absolutism v moral relativism, it's about theft.

So within that narrow focus, I say theft is absolutely wrong because personal security demands inviolable property rights (consequentialist argument), and because theft combines greed and deception (mens rea) with assault (actus reus) in a way that can never be excused. (The starving mother isn't really justified in her thieving; she hasn't thieved at all due to an absence of mens rea.)

Why is theft acceptable in certain circumstances? (Excluding necessity, for the sake of argument.) Reasons that don't rely on wealth redistribution would be especially helpful. (As David Nicholls wrote in Starter for Ten: "Marx wanted the proletariat to seize the means of production; he didn't suggest they pocket the contents of the till in an all-night petrol station.")

So what you're saying is that morality is relative to the situation in which it occurs?

No, I'm saying the application of morality is decided by a given situation: that's entirely different to saying moral concepts are themselves relative and defined by the situation.

Clever stuff

Equal to the original comment in that regard.

 

[Negativland]

So within that narrow focus, I say theft is absolutely wrong because personal security demands inviolable property rights (consequentialist argument), and because theft combines greed and deception (mens rea) with assault (actus reus) in a way that can never be excused. (The starving mother isn't really justified in her thieving; she hasn't thieved at all due to an absence of mens rea.)

This is contradictory. Property rights must be 'inviolable', yet you say there is justified theft (where a person takes their basic needs) - this violates property rights no less than 'greedy' theft. So in fact you don't think property is an absolute right. Property holders have a duty to give up their right in certain circumstances. The ethical test is 'greed'.

So is greed an absolute wrong, or only when combined with 'deception' and 'assault'? How do you define a greedy act?

 

[Azrael]

This is contradictory. Property rights must be 'inviolable', yet you say there is justified theft (where a person takes their basic needs) - this violates property rights no less than 'greedy' theft. So in fact you don't think property is an absolute right. Property holders have a duty to give up their right in certain circumstances. The ethical test is 'greed'.

I should clarify something the original post perhaps did not make clear: those were separate, not complimentary, arguments. As I said at the beginning, I personally don't hold consiquentialist views, but will provide consiquentialist arguments to avoid pointless tangents. Apologies for any confusion.

If I go with inviolable property, the starving mother would have to be convicted of theft, but her extenuating circumstances might grant her an absolute discharge or else the most minor punishment (such as paying back the cost of the stolen property when she has the means).

Alternatively, if I define theft as acquisition without payment combined with two moral failings, she's not guilty; not because she hasn't attacked property (she has) or deceived its owner (again guilty) but because it wasn't combined with greed. Theft is still absolutely wrong but, thanks to the definition, property isn't absolutely protected. (Although as good as, I'd like to know the last time the mythical starving mother genuinely stole for her children.)

Premise number one is, to my knowledge, the actual legal position (although the ridiculous Human Rights Act may have changed it) but premise two would seem more in the spirit of the law. (Necessity can be grounds, amongst other things, to justify the possession of dangerous drugs.) This is one of the reasons I don't like consequentialism: it fits very badly with the absolute morality I feel is essential to an ordered and just society.

So is greed an absolute wrong, or only when combined with 'deception' and 'assault'? How do you define a greedy act?

An emotion can't be absolutely wrong in isolation; neither can it be wrong to exercise a "bad" emotion in a way that affects only yourself. (I'm not getting into moral judgements about emotions: it's the combination of circumstances that make greed the crucial component in this circumstance.) So yes, it must be combined with deception and assault (on property integrity).

I'm using "greed" a strictly technical sense, so stripping away religiose value judgements, I take it simply to mean excessive desire. If you are not going to starve (or freeze to death, etc) then your desire is excessive (to your survival needs) and thus your action is no longer self-defence.