Is This Right?
#1
A pacticually wealthy land lord keeps stores of Gold around the place in secrete stores, which he never uses and rearly checks on. One day a person, whom is needy, but by no means in poverty, works out how to break into the gold stores and steals the gold. The Land Lord has no real need or use for the Gold and dosn't notice. Is this Right or Wrong?
Reply
#2
Wrong...taking something that doesn't belong to you is stealing. Smile
Reply
#3
The man is needy. But he shouldn't steal but then again they weren't using it so it might have been ok but I reckon its wrong but I think its right that the Land Lord let it go
Shorey for England!
Reading fans


RoCk On SnOw PaTrOl

- Kwik Silva 44
Reply
#4
O DeamonBleed, you know it is wrong.
There are absolute truths.
If there are not absolute truths, then whatever to whomever whenever is okay and you don't need get your undies in an uproar!
Anybody ask the owner of the gold his opinion?
Does anybody care?
inked
"Aslan is not a tame lion. Safe?
No, he's not safe, but he's good."
CSL/LWW
Reply
#5
I'm not sure if there's such thing as absolute truth, but to answer this question, yes it's wrong. Taking what isn't yours is wrong.

However, would I feel bad for the wealthy guy? No. If he's not suffering, and not missing it, what's the problem.

Would I chastise the guy that stole it? No. It may be wrong, be he took something from someone that wouldn't miss it, and got away with it. Well done. :bg:

It's sort of a Robin Hood scenario. The "victimless crime," I suppose is another way of saying it.
Reply
#6
Let me, DeamonBleed, let me!!!!!

Why is it wrong?

What is a victimless crime?
inked
"Aslan is not a tame lion. Safe?
No, he's not safe, but he's good."
CSL/LWW
Reply
#7
Quote:Originally posted by inked
What is a victimless crime?


A victimless crime is a crime where no one is hurt in any manner, be it psycally, financially, etc.
Reply
#8
There is no such thing as a victimless crime. Things often placed in this category include prostitution, drug use, sexual deviance (I am not referring to the gender of one's sex partner, but to such things as sex w/minors, bestiality, extreme sado-masochism, etc.). But such actions do affect the acting agent in psychological, spiritual, physical ways he/she may not even be conscious of.

It is always wrong to steal. The question is not, is it wrong - it is - but is there a greater wrong that needs to be addressed, i.e. economic injustice?

Sometimes people commit wrong acts for what they conclude are justifiable reasons, to serve a greater good. Their motive doesn't purge or purify the original act of its wrongness.

It is never right to commit murder......to kill. But many people see the necessity for self-defense as an acceptable motive to justify such an act. Their justification of it doesn't change the fact that murder was committed. It merely makes it socially acceptable in the eyes of a majority, thereby lessening or removing the need for a penalty.
When I die, I will know that I was alive, and that I loved and was loved. (moif)
Reply
#9
Quote:Originally posted by Eldanuumea
There is no such thing as a victimless crime. Things often placed in this category include prostitution, drug use, sexual deviance (I am not referring to the gender of one's sex partner, but to such things as sex w/minors, bestiality, extreme sado-masochism, etc.). But such actions do affect the acting agent in psychological, spiritual, physical ways he/she may not even be conscious of.

Well, then it's not a victimless crime. My definition was that it wasn't harmful to anyone in any way. I agree that there are very few true victimless crimes, but I wouldn't say they don't exist altogether.

Quote:
Sometimes people commit wrong acts for what they conclude are justifiable reasons, to serve a greater good. Their motive doesn't purge or purify the original act of its wrongness.

Which is why it's still called a crime. It's not right, it's just not harmful.
Reply
#10
Quote:Originally posted by inked
Let me, DeamonBleed, let me!!!!!

Why is it wrong?

What is a victimless crime?


I have no power to stop you beyond moral persuation, and given that morals are not any useful means of enforce ment because people can simply restructure moral codes there is not means by which I can practically stop you.

In order to argue whether or not there is victimless crime we must first define what a victim is. A victim seems to be someone who has lost something, property, life, etc. Even Rape and assult tends to be expressed as a loss. However someone does not seem to be the victim for losing their ability to, say kill someone else.
Reply
#11
I would be a victim (if I took the gold even though the owner didn't realize or even care) becuase my guilty conscience would bother me! :tongue:
Reply
#12
Quote:Originally posted by DeamondBleed
In order to argue whether or not there is victimless crime we must first define what a victim is. A victim seems to be someone who has lost something, property, life, etc. Even Rape and assult tends to be expressed as a loss.

Rape and assault are massive offenses, DeamondBleed, I don't believe there's anyway to spin them as victimless crimes, or even consider that they might be.

Quote:
However someone does not seem to be the victim for losing their ability to, say kill someone else.


I'm totally at a loss for understanding this statement. Could you explain it a bit? Thanks!
Reply
#13
Quote:Originally posted by Liriodendron
I would be a victim (if I took the gold even though the owner didn't realize or even care) becuase my guilty conscience would bother me! :tongue:


I don't know, people with a lot of money don't seem to have a conscience.....Wink
Reply
#14
Quote:Originally posted by Boomstick
Rape and assault are massive offenses, DeamondBleed, I don't believe there's anyway to spin them as victimless crimes, or even consider that they might be.


Are you infering that I'm claiming rape and murder to be victimless crimes? I was looking at how two crimes that have definate victims are rationalised.

Quote:Originally posted by Boomstick
I'm totally at a loss for understanding this statement. Could you explain it a bit? Thanks!


Just an unfinished though. Just that the loss of some rights aren't concidered a crime.
Reply
#15
Yes it is wrong and yes he should be punished. If you do not have rules then you have chaos. And if you let one person get away with something because you feel bad for them then where do you draw the line with the next person? The lines get blurred and you end up being blamed for being unfair.
Everyone knows that 90% of all statistics are made up! :wicked: :crazy: :halo:
Reply
#16
it's wrong.

but if the man needed the money and the rich man didnt really care about it, why couldnt the other man just ask for money?

and besides, he was needy, but not poor. so he wouldnt necesarilly need it.
my god, what a world you love.
Reply
#17
I suppose this is an element of the larger question of the justification and motailty of property, which we have discussed before.

Some time ago I was talking to a friend of mine who is a very religious moslem.

He was telling me, it is against his religion to receive or pay interest on loans.

I asked him, how he managed to keep a bank account then.

He said, he accepted the interest, becuase he had no choice, but that did not signify approval. He had to work to feed his family. His employer was not prepared to pay him cash so he needed a bank account. He got interest on that account but did not use that money.

I asked him, how can you not use the money, at some point you will surely use it, or if you die somebody else will use it. And for you, that would be immoral.

He answered, well I give it away. I give it to the mosque.

I answered, then it benefits them and they are doing things with it which otherwise they wouldn't be doing and therefore the interest money is making a difference. Immoral money is being used to serve your God.

He said, no, they use it to buy cleaning fluids and toilet tissue and such things. They would never use interest money for religious work or teaching.

I said, but if they didn't do that, they would still need to buy those cleaning fluids and woukld take the money from somewhere else. So you are saving them that money.

So after some thought he agreed with me that the interest money was being used for God.

But what could he have done? Maybe made sure there was never anything on the bank account to make sure he never got interest? Or could he have burnt the money? Even the latter would have had some macro-economic affect because less money is anti-inflationary.

So the moral is, there are some affects you cannot escape from, no matter how hard you try. You may condemn the immoral sides of propertty but you cannot create a society that makes do without it. At least not without making other injustices.
Reply
#18
But to answer DB's question.

It would be immoral to steal that gold because stealing is immoral.

But would it be wrong?

Can things be immoral and yet right?

If you kill somebody in self-defence, that is immoral because you killed him, but it is right because you have the rigfht to defend yourself.

I think this exasmple should be viewed in similar light.

If a man has the choice between starving and stealing then stealing may be justified (if there is no other alternative), but it still remains immoral and should therefore cease as soon as another alternative is opened
Reply
#19
Quote:Originally posted by inked
O DeamonBleed, you know it is wrong.
There are absolute truths.
If there are not absolute truths, then whatever to whomever whenever is okay and you don't need get your undies in an uproar!
Anybody ask the owner of the gold his opinion?
Does anybody care?


Arhh, an absoluist eh Inked? I agree.
Save a tree! (eat a beaver)
Reply
#20
Quote:Originally posted by inked
O DeamonBleed, you know it is wrong.
Anybody ask the owner of the gold his opinion?
Does anybody care?


Inked, not all stakes are equal.

For example, if the governemnt wants to build an airport that would regenerate an entire area and bring in new businesses creating thousands of jobs, and on the other hand there is a farmer who doesn't want to sell his field although the price is fair, what do you do?

The government can probably issue a compulsory purchase order forcing the farmer to sell. You see, the courts value the interest of some people over the interests of others. The farmer is defending only his own interests wheras the government that of many thousands of people.

So its not a case of not asking the farmer (he is heard at court) but of deciding whose stake is the greatest and of placing the common interest over that of individuals, no matter how justified the interest of the individual may be.

Maybe the same principle goes for property. The fact that the rich man owns the gold does not maybe make him immune from having to share some part of it with others if the public interest would so be served (this is the principle of taxation). In this case it is considered to be in the public interest to save a poor man from starving and give him the means of starting over. In this case the value of saving a life is rated over that of protecting property.

The issue where I disagree with DB however, is that it is not in the poor man's rights to help himself by stealing. It is the reponsibility of the society in which he lives to provide for him and save him for starving. Whether that provision is by charity or by taxation is a matter of secondary importance.

However, if that society fails to provide for him although he has exhausted all available channels to ask for help, then in my opinion I don't object to him stealing providing he doesn't take more than he needs. The responsibility for the damage to the rich man's interests lies with the system that allowed this to come about and not with the poor man who stole to save his own life.
Reply

MYCode Guide

Forum Jump: