Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is stealing moral or immoral, and why?

Rate this topic


FredAnyman

Recommended Posts

Life and flourishing life are fundamentally the same thing. Life is itself a process of attaining values. The concept of 'flourishing life' is created to distinguish between people who are really succeeding at life (creating, pursuing, maintaining values) and people who are merely fulfilling the bare minimum requirement to sustain the process of life. Contrary to Fred's assertion in this thread (which mirrors his conclusion in his first thread), concepts are not merely a matter of opinion but follow from objective facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Buddha,

 

I agree with you that you cannot force anyone to believe anything. I also agree with your statement, “If you chose to believe that rape, pillaging and murder are in your best interest, then have at it.  I can't force you to believe otherwise.  But it's not going to get you very far in life -- because there are many others who believe otherwise, and will do their darnedest to stop you.”

 

This goes back to the question is the original post. Your response seems to indicate that the method for determining if something is moral or immoral is based on the consequences that will happen to you. If you believe that pillaging (stealing) is moral, that can be your belief but you better not act on it because other people will cause negative things to happen to you if you do act on your belief. Because of the negative consequences, the action should be considered immoral. Is this correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CriticalThinker2000,

 

You wrote, “The concept of 'flourishing life' is created to distinguish between people who are really succeeding at life (creating, pursuing, maintaining values) and people who are merely fulfilling the bare minimum requirement to sustain the process of life.”

 

I am confused. If “really succeeding at life” means creating, pursuing, and maintaining values, why would some who is “merely fulfilling the bare minimum requirement to sustain the process of life” not be “really succeeding at life”? Doesn’t a person have to create, pursue, and maintain the values to fulfill the bare minimum requirement to sustain the process of life?

 

Here again you seem to be implying that in order to live a “flourishing life” or to be someone “really succeeding at life” then you have to do something beyond merely staying physically alive. My argument, as I stated earlier, is that once you move past the physical requirements of staying alive due to your nature of being human, then the definition of a “flourishing life” is a matter of opinion.

 

To tie this back to the original post, you seem to indicate that stealing is immoral because it prevents you from leading a “flourishing life”. Yet, the act of stealing does not kill you (unlike eating nothing but sand, to cite your example). I would agree with you that if your definition of a “flourishing life” includes a prohibition against stealing, then stealing would be wrong because you could not lead a “flourishing life” if you steal. However, if your definition of a “flourishing life” did not include a prohibition against stealing, then stealing would not be wrong because you could lead a “flourishing life” if you steal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am confused. If “really succeeding at life” means creating, pursuing, and maintaining values, why would some who is “merely fulfilling the bare minimum requirement to sustain the process of life” not be “really succeeding at life”? 

 

Because they're not exercising their life to the fullest extent.

 

 

Doesn’t a person have to create, pursue, and maintain the values to fulfill the bare minimum requirement to sustain the process of life?

 

Again life is a process and a process can be well functioning (creating many values) or not well functioning (barely subsisting).

 

 

Here again you seem to be implying that in order to live a “flourishing life” or to be someone “really succeeding at life” then you have to do something beyond merely staying physically alive. My argument, as I stated earlier, is that once you move past the physical requirements of staying alive due to your nature of being human, then the definition of a “flourishing life” is a matter of opinion.

 

It is NOT a matter of opinion!! Life is a process. Which means that whether or not that process is flourishing is not a matter of opinion but of fact. Suppose you opened an auto shop, FredAnyrepairman's Cars. I bring in my broken down El Camino for an engine repair. I get a call from you a week later and you tell me, the engine is running really well! I get to the shop and see that it's just sputtering, barely completing the necessary steps to continue the cycle.

 

Wait, I tell you. This isn't running well- it's barely running at all. And you say, well, it's turning over and even though it's sputtering and spewing oil, it is running so any judgments beyond this fact are merely your opinion. Wait, I say, the running of the engine is a process. Even though a sputtering engine completes the necessary process, it is not running well. It is not flourishing because it is not completing the process to its fullest potential. No, you say, beyond turning over, there is no definition of what it means for an engine to run except for 'it turns over'. Therefore, it's only a matter of opinion.

 

Of course, it is not merely a matter of opinion. A sputtering engine is not running well and a person merely subsisting is not living well. In both instances, neither the engine (running) nor the person (life) are flourishing.

 

 

To tie this back to the original post, you seem to indicate that stealing is immoral because it prevents you from leading a “flourishing life”. Yet, the act of stealing does not kill you (unlike eating nothing but sand, to cite your example).

 

There is no difference between stealing and eating sand. Both lead to your destruction as I've explained. Sand leads to destruction faster although I'm sure you could survive quite some time off of sand (mixing in some food). It's not right to draw a line between these two examples. Neither stealing nor eating sand are compatible with your nature. Although you can do both and subsist for a while.

 

 

However, if your definition of a “flourishing life” did not include a prohibition against stealing, then stealing would not be wrong because you could lead a “flourishing life” if you steal.

 

What does or does not constitute a flourishing life is not a matter of opinion but is an objective recognition of what life is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CriticalThinker2000,

 

You are attempting to demonstrate that “It is NOT a matter of opinion!!” by providing more opinions.  To wit:

 

1) “Because they're not exercising their life to the fullest extent.” What does “exercising their life to the fullest extent” mean? Is there a standard, other than life or death, by which we can compare someone’s life to determine whether or not they are exercising their life to the fullest extent?

 

2) “Again life is a process and a process can be well functioning (creating many values) or not well functioning (barely subsisting).” How many values does one have to create to be “well functioning”? Is there some standard that states one must create X number of values in order to be well functioning? If I create more values than you does that mean you are not well functioning? What if I create different values than you, does that mean one of us is not well functioning?

 

As for your auto shop example, it perfectly demonstrates the fact that two people can assign different meanings to the same concept. In your example, when I said that the engine was running really well, what I told you was true based on my concept of “running really well”. When you heard me say that the engine was “running really well” you assigned your own meaning to the concept of “running really well”. Just because you and I have different concepts of “running really well” and you feel that my concept is not as good as your concept (or something like that) it does not mean one concept is more correct that the other. It just means that they are different.

 

Now, if you and I agreed that the concept of “running really well” meant something specific and measurable, such as “running really well means that the engine will run exactly the way a new El Camino engine runs” then we would have a standard to measure against and we could determine who’s concept of “running really well” is closer to the standard.  Without a standard, however, it is just opinion.

 

To your last point, there is a big difference between eating nothing but sand and stealing. If I (or any human) eats nothing but sand, I (or any human) will die. If I steal from you, I will not die. I may suffer some consequences if you, or others, choose to and are able to act, or I may not suffer any consequences at all.

 

As for your ascertain that even though you eat sand and steal you can “subsist for a while”, how long is “a while”?  For eating nothing but sand, due to the nature of human beings, “a while” can be measured in days maybe weeks depending on the individual but probably not months, and certainly not years. For stealing, how long is “a while”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just because you and I have different concepts of “running really well” and you feel that my concept is not as good as your concept (or something like that) it does not mean one concept is more correct that the other. It just means that they are different.

 

Yeah, a sputtering engine is running well. I just have to FEEEEEL your concept correctly.  :fool: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does “exercising their life to the fullest extent” mean? Is there a standard, other than life or death, by which we can compare someone’s life to determine whether or not they are exercising their life to the fullest extent?

 

The standard is the process. Is the process doing what it's supposed to be doing well? In the context of life, is the person creating and maintaining a multitude of fulfilling values.

 

 

How many values does one have to create to be “well functioning”? Is there some standard that states one must create X number of values in order to be well functioning? If I create more values than you does that mean you are not well functioning? What if I create different values than you, does that mean one of us is not well functioning?

 

There is no set number because it's open ended. But the context that defines it would be, I think, what is/should be possible to achieve.

 

 

As for your auto shop example, it perfectly demonstrates the fact that two people can assign different meanings to the same concept. In your example, when I said that the engine was running really well, what I told you was true based on my concept of “running really well”

 

Look man, I don't care how you define 'running really well' because whether a process is being completed to the fullest extent possible is not dependent on your opinion or whatever you call it. Your conceptual subjectivity is a dead end. Just like every time I try to explain something to you.

 

 

Now, if you and I agreed that the concept of “running really well” meant something specific and measurable, such as “running really well means that the engine will run exactly the way a new El Camino engine runs” then we would have a standard to measure against and we could determine who’s concept of “running really well” is closer to the standard.  Without a standard, however, it is just opinion.

 

The standard for the motor that determines whether it is running well is whether it fulfills its task. Life, on the other hand, is an end in itself. Life is itself the standard by which you evaluate whether a life is good. Life is the standard of morality. The question is, is this process occurring to the fullest extent possible within a specific context.

 

 

To your last point, there is a big difference between eating nothing but sand and stealing. If I (or any human) eats nothing but sand, I (or any human) will die. If I steal from you, I will not die.

 

The standard is not, 'I won't die'. It's, 'I will thrive.' In which case neither stealing nor eating sand is a method of achieving that. Furthermore, I think that destruction IS inevitable if you live only by theft. You're a parasite which necessarily means that your life exists only by virtue of others. You want to chain your life to others via theft and then claim, nothing bad HAS to happen to me while blanking out the fact that you've given your life up to luck- to the whims/thoughts/desires/existence of others. Not to mention the fact that you won't gain self-esteem, pride is out the window, reason no longer becomes your means of dealing with the world, any principle of justice you held is kaput. I regard the decay brought about by theft (no matter the time horizon) as dying even if it doesn't mean your heart immediately stops beating because it contradicts your human capacity to create values and leads to destruction.

 

 

As for your ascertain that even though you eat sand and steal you can “subsist for a while”, how long is “a while”?  For eating nothing but sand, due to the nature of human beings, “a while” can be measured in days maybe weeks depending on the individual but probably not months, and certainly not years. For stealing, how long is “a while”?

 

I don't know. You're the one that's trying to define these things in terms of immediate death. You tell me. If I eat some sand and a lot of bacon for the next 20 years is that not anti-life because my heart kept beating? Is the only thing that's anti-life a bullet to the brain? I've stated my opinion a trillion times: life is a process- it's more than a beating heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CriticalThinker2000,

 

I understand that you are claiming that life is the standard of morality and that by “life” you mean a process and not just living.

 

I think that your method for determining morality is perfectly sound. You have a concept of life and any action that destroys or takes away from that life (e.g. stealing) is immoral. All you have to do is compare the consequences of the action to your standard of life and you can determine whether the consequences of the action further or hinder your life and are therefore moral or immoral.  I have no problem with this.

 

But this does not completely answer the question from the original post. You claim that there are many negative consequences that come from stealing therefore stealing is immoral (by which I think you mean that there are many consequences that negatively affect your concept of life). But this only works if you have a standard to which to compare the consequences.

 

So you attempt establish that standard and seem to be claiming that “life” or a “thriving life” or the “process of life” or a “flourishing life” is some kind of universal principal that can be discovered and known by everyone and therefore everyone will have the same concept of “life” or a “thriving life” or the “process of life” or a “flourishing life” and therefore everyone will know that stealing has many negative consequences that negatively affect the concept of life and is therefore immoral.

 

But every time I ask about your concept of “life” and what it means I get undefined answers that lead to more questions. To wit:

 

1) “In the context of life, is the person creating and maintaining a multitude of fulfilling values.” What is the objective definition of “a multitude”? What is the objective definition of “fulfilling”?

 

2) “Look man, I don't care how you define 'running really well' because whether a process is being completed to the fullest extent possible is not dependent on your opinion or whatever you call it.” What is the objective definition of “completed to the fullest extent possible”?

 

3) “The standard for the motor that determines whether it is running well is whether it fulfills its task. Life, on the other hand, is an end in itself. Life is itself the standard by which you evaluate whether a life is good. Life is the standard of morality. The question is, is this process occurring to the fullest extent possible within a specific context.” What is the objective definition of “fulfills its task”? What is the objective definition of “life is good”? What is the definition of “occurring to the fullest extent possible within a specific context”?

 

Can you provide an objective definition of “Life” or does it just come down to a matter of opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you attempt establish that standard and seem to be claiming that “life” or a “thriving life” or the “process of life” or a “flourishing life” is some kind of universal principal that can be discovered and known by everyone and therefore everyone will have the same concept of “life” or a “thriving life” or the “process of life” or a “flourishing life” and therefore everyone will know that stealing has many negative consequences that negatively affect the concept of life and is therefore immoral.

 

This is not my position! I don't think everyone will therefore know such and such. I think that 'life' has a specific nature which Objectivism identifies and everyone is capable of understanding. And by the nature of life, stealing is immoral and consequently leads to negative outcomes (negative by the standard of life).

 

 

But every time I ask about your concept of “life” and what it means I get undefined answers that lead to more questions.

?????? No, every time you ask I give you an answer and you go around in a circle ending with the subjectivity of concepts.

 

 

1) “In the context of life, is the person creating and maintaining a multitude of fulfilling values.” What is the objective definition of “a multitude”? What is the objective definition of “fulfilling”?

 

Do you want me to define every word or something? Multitude is a synonym of many. Fulfilling is a synonym of satisfying. I gave you what I believe is the standard- what can be achieved in a given context. In fact, you quote that next but do not connect the dots.

 

 

2) “Look man, I don't care how you define 'running really well' because whether a process is being completed to the fullest extent possible is not dependent on your opinion or whatever you call it.” What is the objective definition of “completed to the fullest extent possible”?

 

Again, I don't know what you want? A definition of every word? Completed to the fullest extent possible means that within a given context there is a limit to what values can be created/maintained. Creating/maintaining those values would be achieving them to the fullest extent possible.... :confused:

 

 

3) “The standard for the motor that determines whether it is running well is whether it fulfills its task. Life, on the other hand, is an end in itself. Life is itself the standard by which you evaluate whether a life is good. Life is the standard of morality. The question is, is this process occurring to the fullest extent possible within a specific context.” What is the objective definition of “fulfills its task”? What is the objective definition of “life is good”? What is the definition of “occurring to the fullest extent possible within a specific context”?

 

Do you really want me to define each word in 'fulfills its task'? I can't understand why you need a definition of 'the fullest extent possible within a specific context'. You speak English...

 

 

Can you provide an objective definition of “Life” or does it just come down to a matter of opinion?

 

Sure, from Google: "The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CriticalThinker2000,

 

I asked you to define your terms because the terms you use can mean different things to different people. Without a definition, different people can come to different conclusions and it can create confusion. For example, to some people “multiple” or “many” can mean five or more. To other people “multiple” or “many” can mean twenty or more. In a previous post I asked you “How many values does one have to create to be “well functioning”?” in response to your statement, “Again life is a process and a process can be well functioning (creating many values) or not well functioning (barely subsisting).”  You did not answer so how is anyone supposed to know what you mean? For “fulfilling” or “satisfying”, terms which it is difficult to assign a numerical value, the problem is even worse.

 

It appears that you are trying to argue your point by relying on the reader to provide the definitions and attach meaning to the phrases you use. And then you appear to get upset when someone questions what you mean instead of just attaching the meaning that you think they should attach.

 

For example, you wrote “I think that 'life' has a specific nature which Objectivism identifies and everyone is capable of understanding. And by the nature of life, stealing is immoral and consequently leads to negative outcomes (negative by the standard of life).” But you also claim “The standard is not, 'I won't die'. It's, 'I will thrive.'”

 

So either I attach the same meaning to “I will thrive” that you do, or I attach a different meaning. If I attach the same meaning as you, everything is good. If I attach a different meaning, then we can never agree. And unless you can somehow objectively demonstrate that your meaning of “I will thrive” is the correct meaning, then to me, and anyone else who attaches a different meaning, your meaning is a matter of your opinion and no different than anyone else’s opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And unless you can somehow objectively demonstrate that your meaning of “I will thrive” is the correct meaning, then to me, and anyone else who attaches a different meaning, your meaning is a matter of your opinion and no different than anyone else’s opinion.

It looks as though you don't believe in objective definitions at all. So, here is a link I got using the search bar at the bottom of the forum, for "objective definitions."

http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009798510551829454103:6v8ldauhc54&q=Objective%20definitions&oq=Objective%20definitions&gs_l=partner.3...16866.24251.0.24698.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0.gsnos%2Cn%3D13...0.7828j2846262j30j4..1ac.1.25.partner..0.0.0.#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=Objective%20definitions&gsc.page=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To other people “multiple” or “many” can mean twenty or more. In a previous post I asked you “How many values does one have to create to be “well functioning”?” in response to your statement, “Again life is a process and a process can be well functioning (creating many values) or not well functioning (barely subsisting).”  You did not answer so how is anyone supposed to know what you mean? For “fulfilling” or “satisfying”, terms which it is difficult to assign a numerical value, the problem is even worse.

 

I've literally answered this several times. Well functioning is defined by what ought to be possible per the individuals context.

 

 

It appears that you are trying to argue your point by relying on the reader to provide the definitions and attach meaning to the phrases you use.

 

I did not think it appropriate to define every single word I used. I thought we were communicating in English.

 

 

So either I attach the same meaning to “I will thrive” that you do, or I attach a different meaning. If I attach the same meaning as you, everything is good. If I attach a different meaning, then we can never agree.

 

I've gone over what thriving means and why its derived from the nature of life but you continue to claim that you can simply 'attach a different meaning' and collapse into subjectivist garbage. You're right in that I am a little upset because in my very first post to you I named your error:

 

 

Do you see why your issue is not really about morality but about all knowledge in general? This would be an example of Ayn Rand's point about checking your premises. We can discuss morality all day but the root cause with your question is a deeper epistemologic premise. Your question, in essence, seems to me to be: Isn't omniscience necessary for certainty? No, certainty is contextual. It is a result of being able to define the relevant context under which the evidence in favor of something is conclusive.

 

Now we've gone through nine pages of discussion and guess what? We come back to your same fundamental error. You've wasted my time and your own.

 

You claim that 'thriving' is but a matter of opinion. I have shown that it is a concept derived from the fact that life is a process and processes are evaluated based upon the achievement of a goal. You ignore this and claim that it's all a matter of choice and if you just choose 'thriving' to mean something other than what it does, morality is out the window.

 

Not once have you challenged what life actually is. You claim that anything beyond the definition of life is merely an opinion. Is it a mere opinion that man experiences emotions even though the definition of man is, 'the animal that is rational'? I told you PAGES ago that a definition is not interchangeable with a concept. Yet you continue to replace concepts with definitions.

 

 

And unless you can somehow objectively demonstrate that your meaning of “I will thrive” is the correct meaning, then to me, and anyone else who attaches a different meaning, your meaning is a matter of your opinion and no different than anyone else’s opinion.

 

I have repeatedly shown this over the last nine pages. And every time I do you respond with: someone can define the terms differently. I'm done with this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

You claim that there are many negative consequences that come from stealing therefore stealing is immoral (by which I think you mean that there are many consequences that negatively affect your concept of life). But this only works if you have a standard to which to compare the consequences.

I think that better terms for "life as man qua man" or "flourishing" are fulfillment or rational pride.

 

Someday, I am going to die.  When I do, as I reflect on the entire course of my life, if I am satisfied that I have lived up to my fullest potential then I will have "flourished".

And every individual is different.  Some people may feel satisfied with less than others, and that's alright.  The important thing is that, while every individual has a different idea of what "flourishing" is, these differences are only differences of degree; not of type.

 

There are many people in the world who will say that self-destruction is good and self-interest is evil.  Are you aware of any who have truly and sincerely meant it, without reservation?  Or, when such assertions are made, are they muttered in a way that resembles a lying (and guilt-ridden) child?

 

In short, it seems likely that while an individual may feel any degree of guilt for acts of self-destruction, they must feel some degree of it- and some degree of pride for virtue.

---

 

As for stealing, there are many logistical reasons not to steal, which stem from the fact that most people don't seem to be open-minded about their ownership of their own property (for some reason).  The most important reason not to steal, however, is to retain the capacity to look at yourself in the mirror.

 

I committed petty theft a few times, when I was a teenager, and I'm not terribly upset about it; it was years ago and even then it wasn't very much.  But I know that if I were to go out and steal a few grand, for example, I would have a very difficult time spending it. . .

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...