Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is stealing moral or immoral, and why?

Rate this topic


FredAnyman

Recommended Posts

****Topic title changed from, "Why is something moral or immoral?" to, "Is stealing moral or immoral, and why?"  -- JASKN

 

 

Based on the discussion here: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=27428 and additional reading, I have a more specific question regarding morality.

 

For clarity and ease, I will use the example of stealing (although it could probably apply to all moral questions). The answers to the question of ‘is stealing moral or immoral and why?’ seem to come back in one of two ways. Some answers seem to imply that if you steal there is a list of negative things that will happen to you so it is immoral to steal. Some answers seem to imply that stealing is immoral therefore it is immoral to steal. So which is it (or is there another answer)?

Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CriticalThinker2000,

 

I did not fully understand your previous explanation. Nor did I read where you wrote “…stealing is immoral because it destroys your capacity to value in a fundamental sense.” (of course, I might have missed it).

 

But if your answer is that stealing is immoral because it destroys your capacity to value in a fundamental sense (similar to the statement in the original post of stealing is immoral because negative things will happen to you), then would stealing become moral, or at least not immoral, if stealing did not destroy your capacity to value in a fundamental sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CriticalThinker2000,

 

I did not fully understand your previous explanation. Nor did I read where you wrote “…stealing is immoral because it destroys your capacity to value in a fundamental sense.” (of course, I might have missed it).

 

But if your answer is that stealing is immoral because it destroys your capacity to value in a fundamental sense (similar to the statement in the original post of stealing is immoral because negative things will happen to you), then would stealing become moral, or at least not immoral, if stealing did not destroy your capacity to value in a fundamental sense?

 

It may be morally imperative to steal in some circumstances. Asking the question in the manner that you have is "context dropping". That is the trouble with answering your not-so-well-formed question. 

 

In a general sense, using the common understanding of what you might mean by "stealing", to steal is to take another's value without consent. In this way, you have taken the product of the other person's productive efforts and hence have appropriated their values without implementing the productive cause for the existence of those values, compensating the victim, or appealing to the mind of the victim. To steal is an attempt to cheat the Law of Causality. It takes a portion of another person's life without anything given in return. It treats the victim as less than human by by-passing any attempt at persuasion or trade. It is an act that if extrapolated to all men at all times would lead to the destruction of the entire human race in the course of a few days. As such, it is an act based on the principle of death and not of life. However, all of this must be interpreted within a context to be valid. Contextual exceptions will exist. One cannot say that as an absolute rule, "stealing is wrong". One can only state, as a general principle, that stealing is wrong in the most commonly observed circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aleph_1,

 

Can you provide an example of when (or where, or how) “It may be morally imperative to steal…”? If it may be morally imperative to steal, then how does one know, or how does one determine, if the circumstances are such that it is morally imperative to steal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the discussion here: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=27428 and additional reading, I have a more specific question regarding morality.

 

 

This is a duplicate thread -- The title is the same as your last, and the question of theft was asked in your last. Since you've decided to focus on theft specifically, I've changed the title of this thread from:

"Why is something moral or immoral?"

to:

"Is stealing moral or immoral, and why?"

which was the question as posed by yourself.

 

Here are some prior threads which deal with the same topic:

Is there evidence that stealing makes one less happy?

The Prudent Predator Argument

Why is Lying, Stealing, and the Initiation of Force Wrong?

Why are you anti-theft?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aleph_1,

Can you provide an example of when (or where, or how) “It may be morally imperative to steal…”? If it may be morally imperative to steal, then how does one know, or how does one determine, if the circumstances are such that it is morally imperative to steal?

I suggest that the production of hypotheticals concerning moral imperatives is not what is important. ( I can easily conjure up a half dozen such.) What is important is the recognition that morality is contextually related to one's dedication to existence, along with its requirements. Why don't you construct the ecample as a homework assignment, and then report your example along with your conclusions as a report?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aleph_1,

 

How does your response relate to CriticalThinker2000’s response that stealing is immoral because it destroys your capacity to value in a fundamental sense? If you can easily conjure up a half dozen examples of situations where stealing is immoral, it implies that stealing does not destroy ones capacity to value in a fundamental sense. Is CriticalThinker2000’s response incorrect?

 

Furthermore, if morality is contextually related to one’s dedication to existence, along with its requirements, then would your response to the original post be something like: something is moral if continues your existence and something is immoral in it does not continue your existence? Or would you describe it in some other way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

****Topic title changed from, "Why is something moral or immoral?" to, "Is stealing moral or immoral, and why?"  -- JASKN

 

 

Based on the discussion here: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=27428 and additional reading, I have a more specific question regarding morality.

 

For clarity and ease, I will use the example of stealing (although it could probably apply to all moral questions). The answers to the question of ‘is stealing moral or immoral and why?’ seem to come back in one of two ways. Some answers seem to imply that if you steal there is a list of negative things that will happen to you so it is immoral to steal. Some answers seem to imply that stealing is immoral therefore it is immoral to steal. So which is it (or is there another answer)?

 

You have identified that "some answers seem to imply" that "stealing is immoral therefore it is immoral to steal".

 

What does that even mean?  If someone states "stealing is immoral" he is thereby claiming "it is immoral to steal".  The former does not constitute the logical premise upon which the latter is based.

 

What do you mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CriticalThinker2000,

 

I did not fully understand your previous explanation. Nor did I read where you wrote “…stealing is immoral because it destroys your capacity to value in a fundamental sense.” (of course, I might have missed it).

 

But if your answer is that stealing is immoral because it destroys your capacity to value in a fundamental sense (similar to the statement in the original post of stealing is immoral because negative things will happen to you), then would stealing become moral, or at least not immoral, if stealing did not destroy your capacity to value in a fundamental sense?

 

I posted this in the previous thread:

 

 

Man has a specific nature and acquires values in a specific fashion, just like every kind of animal. The source of man's ability to create and retain values is the rational faculty. Theft is the initiation of force and is in fundamental contradiction with your nature as a human being. In the above video Mr. Schwartz explains how theft necessarily inverts what you need to do to retain your stolen value- from uncompromising adherence to reality to an evasion of facts and reality.

 

Have you read through other threads? If so you should have a question more specific than, 'explain it to me'. If not, well I'm not going to re-hash what's already available from many sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CriticalThinker2000,

 

Above you stated, “…stealing is immoral because it destroys your capacity to value in a fundamental sense.”

 

You also stated above, “Theft is the initiation of force and is in fundamental contradiction with your nature as a human being.”

 

This is a source of confusion for me. You appear to be stating two different things. On the one hand, you state that stealing destroys your capacity to value, implying that stealing is immoral because if you steal negative things will happen to you. On the other hand, you state that stealing is in fundamental contradiction with your nature as a human being, implying that stealing is immoral, not because of the negative things that will happen to you but, because stealing contradicts your nature and something that contradicts your nature is immoral.

 

So, either stealing is immoral because of the negative things that will happen to you (therefore, stealing would be moral if no negative things happen to you), or stealing is immoral because it contradicts your nature and therefore stealing is always immoral. Which is it, or have I misunderstood you and there is a different answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

StrictlyLogical,

 

I will attempt to rephrase for you. Some answers seem to hint at or suggest that there is some universal principal, or natural law, or something that exists that dictates that stealing is immoral therefore stealing is immoral, while other answers seem to suggest that the reason stealing is immoral is because of the negative things that will happen to you if you steal.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CriticalThinker2000,

 

Above you stated, “…stealing is immoral because it destroys your capacity to value in a fundamental sense.”

 

You also stated above, “Theft is the initiation of force and is in fundamental contradiction with your nature as a human being.”

 

This is a source of confusion for me. You appear to be stating two different things. On the one hand, you state that stealing destroys your capacity to value, implying that stealing is immoral because if you steal negative things will happen to you. On the other hand, you state that stealing is in fundamental contradiction with your nature as a human being, implying that stealing is immoral, not because of the negative things that will happen to you but, because stealing contradicts your nature and something that contradicts your nature is immoral.

 

Why are they exclusive? If you act in contradiction to your method of survival, there are negative consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aleph_1,

 

How does your response relate to CriticalThinker2000’s response that stealing is immoral because it destroys your capacity to value in a fundamental sense? If you can easily conjure up a half dozen examples of situations where stealing is immoral, it implies that stealing does not destroy ones capacity to value in a fundamental sense. Is CriticalThinker2000’s response incorrect?

 

Furthermore, if morality is contextually related to one’s dedication to existence, along with its requirements, then would your response to the original post be something like: something is moral if continues your existence and something is immoral in it does not continue your existence? Or would you describe it in some other way?

 

CriticalThinker2000 may have been responding to your question within a particular context. (Remember, we must not drop context.) I cannot answer for another person.

 

Morality pertains not only to the continuation of existence but also to a thriving existence according to one's nature. Choices outside of this context are morally irrelevant. For example, whether I eat a vegeburger tonight or have spaghetti are morally irrelevant. However, it is important that I eat, and it is also important that I enjoy what I eat. My actions that acquire food that I enjoy are morally virtuous.

 

However, one cannot morally pursue existence at arbitrary costs to oneself and others. To sustain myself by eating my neighbors pets would not, in the long run, serve my interests. To steal a nuclear detonator from a terrorist, given the opportunity, would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CriticalThinker2000,

 

They are exclusive because, if I understand you correctly, if stealing is immoral because of the negative things that will happen to you, then stealing is moral if no negative things happen to you; therefore, stealing, when moral, is not in fundamental contradiction with your nature as a human being.

 

But if stealing, regardless of anything positive or negative that happens to you as a result of stealing, contradicts your nature as a human being and something that contradicts your nature as a human being is immoral, then stealing could not be moral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CriticalThinker2000,

 

They are exclusive because, if I understand you correctly, if stealing is immoral because of the negative things that will happen to you, then stealing is moral if no negative things happen to you; therefore, stealing, when moral, is not in fundamental contradiction with your nature as a human being.

 

But if stealing, regardless of anything positive or negative that happens to you as a result of stealing, contradicts your nature as a human being and something that contradicts your nature as a human being is immoral, then stealing could not be moral.

 

If you read the example that I gave above, you would know that stealing may be good in some contexts. You should interpret CT2000's statement within the context of how stealing is normally experienced. This means that CT2000 may have been thinking of stealing within a particular context. To overgeneralize as you have done is not fair to CT2000's point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aleph_1,

 

When you state that morality pertains not only to the continuation of existence but also to a thriving existence according to one’s nature and then you state that one cannot morally pursue existence at arbitrary costs to oneself and others, it implies that there is a standard, or universal definition (or the like) for “a thriving existence” that applies to everyone due to the nature of humans and one’s actions cannot be arbitrary because they must meet this standard. Is this what you mean? Or do you mean that everyone must decide for themselves what “a thriving existence” means and act accordingly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aleph_1,

...it implies that there is a standard, or universal definition (or the like) for “a thriving existence” that applies to everyone due to the nature of humans and one’s actions cannot be arbitrary because they must meet this standard. Is this what you mean? Or do you mean that everyone must decide for themselves what “a thriving existence” means and act accordingly?

For whom does morality exist? Morality is of no use to you if it acts against you. A proper morality cannot be imposed arbitrarily upon and against you. Just as it is not possible for a panel of experts to decide what ice cream I should eat, so no panel of experts can determine my values and consequently my virtues.

My values are a matter of choice. The virtues I choose to employ to attain those values are also mine to determine. Just as each person has an individual physiology, so each person must have an individual value system. This allows each person to express their individual virtues. That's the sort of world I want to live in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aleph_1,

 

When you state that, “My values are a matter of choice” you seem to reject the idea that there is one standard that applies to everyone. Therefore, the definition of “a thriving existence” is the choice of each individual. Correct?

 

So to tie this back to the issue of stealing from the original post; when you stated “To steal a nuclear detonator from a terrorist, given the opportunity, would [serve my interests]” you imply that because it is in your interests to steal a nuclear detonator from a terrorist it is moral. Is this correct? Would stealing in this context would be moral even though by stealing the nuclear detonator you are taking “…another's value without consent. In this way, you have taken the product of the other person's productive efforts and hence have appropriated their values without implementing the productive cause for the existence of those values, compensating the victim, or appealing to the mind of the victim. To steal is an attempt to cheat the Law of Causality. It takes a portion of another person's life without anything given in return. It treats the victim as less than human by by-passing any attempt at persuasion or trade.” ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aleph_1,

 

When you state that, “My values are a matter of choice” you seem to reject the idea that there is one standard that applies to everyone. Therefore, the definition of “a thriving existence” is the choice of each individual. Correct?

 

So to tie this back to the issue of stealing from the original post; when you stated “To steal a nuclear detonator from a terrorist, given the opportunity, would [serve my interests]” you imply that because it is in your interests to steal a nuclear detonator from a terrorist it is moral. Is this correct? Would stealing in this context would be moral even though ... ?

 

Yes, and yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CriticalThinker2000,

 

They are exclusive because, if I understand you correctly, if stealing is immoral because of the negative things that will happen to you, then stealing is moral if no negative things happen to you; therefore, stealing, when moral, is not in fundamental contradiction with your nature as a human being.

 

But if stealing, regardless of anything positive or negative that happens to you as a result of stealing, contradicts your nature as a human being and something that contradicts your nature as a human being is immoral, then stealing could not be moral.

 

:huh: You're really trying to separate the principle from practice. The fundamental cause of the immorality is the fact that theft requires force (just a restatement of: it is in contradiction to your method of creating/sustaining values). It's not a valid method of achieving values and is therefore immoral. Also, because it's not a valid method of achieving value, there are negative consequences when you attempt to gain/sustain a value obtained via theft.

 

As Aleph mentioned, there are contexts under which the principle is invalid but I wouldn't worry about that until you understand why theft is wrong in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aleph_1,

 

Now let us change the context slightly. If you are a business owner who manufactures widgets and your competitor who also manufactures widgets has developed a device that will allow him to manufacture higher quality and lower priced widgets than you and will therefore drive you out of business, would it be moral for you to steal this device? Since you will not have “a thriving existence” if your competitor uses this device and it is in your interest to steal the device, it would be moral to steal it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CriticalThinker2000,

 

This is not making it any more clear to me. You state that there is a “fundamental cause” that determines that stealing is immoral but then “there are contexts under which the principle is invalid but I wouldn't worry about that until you understand why theft is wrong in the first place.” The fact that the principal can be invalid implies that it is not fundamental. How can stealing be “wrong in the first place” and then not be wrong? How can stealing (or the use of force) be in contradiction to your method of creating/sustaining values and then not be in contradiction to your method of creating/sustaining values?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that the principal can be invalid implies that it is not fundamental.

 

What are you saying here? The fact that a principle is contextual means that it's not fundamental? Do you mean to say that the fact that a principle is contextual means that it's not absolute? I think you're getting you might be getting your terminology mixed up.

 

 

How can stealing be “wrong in the first place” and then not be wrong?

 

Principles are formed under certain contexts and they are absolute within the context. Under other contexts the principle is not necessarily valid.

 

 

How can stealing (or the use of force) be in contradiction to your method of creating/sustaining values and then not be in contradiction to your method of creating/sustaining values?

 

It is always in fundamental contradiction with your nature but suppose you are in a situation where the very existence of values at all requires you to use force (as in a situation with a terrorist holding a detonator, or war, or when a criminal breaks into your house, or whatever situation you can conjure up). In such a situation, it's impossible to live according to your nature. The non-initiation of force principle presupposes a world in which achieving and sustaining values in accordance with your nature is possible.

 

But my question to you is, why would you bother focusing on these situations before you have an understanding why stealing is wrong in the context of daily life?

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...