Ok everyone, let's have a bit of a morality check up:
1- Stealing, is it right or wrong?
I'm assuming most of you reading would say wrong. A few would probably think it's fine, and some might even enjoy it, although deep down you probably all know that it's wrong.
2- Let's say someone was making money from an immoral activity; selling drugs to children, ripping off an old woman from her retirement money, or anything else.
Now, is stealing the money from this person right or wrong?
Here, i'm assuming some would be divided, let's hear your ideas and thoughts on why you think it's right or wrong.
3- Now, if you thought stealing money from those people is WRONG, let's say you use it for some random good purpose; ie, helping the homeless, building a childrens hospital (musta been a lot of money!) or anything else good.
Is it right or wrong now?
PS. Don't worry guys, i'm not stealing, or planning to steal, anything from anyone. Just a weird dilemma I thought up in my head full of twisted ideas, and I think it would make for very interesting discussion! So let's hear your thoughts; drop a comment below and tell us what you think.
11 June 2008
Justified Stealing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
If gambling (lottery) isn't wrong then neither is stealing 'black' money and making it 'white'. Robin Hood was far too evolved for his time :P
Putting "bad" money to good use isn't wrong in my moral code. I wouldn't be a Robin Wood myself (way too lazy) but I would rather see robbers financing orphanage than drug habit for example.
It would of course depends who the person is stealing from.
What is wrong, is wrong, period. Trying to justify a wrong by its accentuating circumstances is even more wrong.
As a professional thief myself I think it is wrong and that is why we try to redeem ourselves by putting it into good use.
Joking aside, to answer your question - stealing is 7aram and it is known that even if you put the money into good use it won't be accepted.
Religion aside, stealing in order to make something good defeats the purpose of you doing the good act to begin with. For example, you are stealing money to buy food for poor people which means you are setting an example that it is also OK for them to steal if their purpose is good (buying food for their families so they don't die off)
Read more psychology books.
Fact is: a wrong deed is just that. in math, a minus added to a minus is still a minus.
However, people might feel that the first bad guy deserves bad deeds to happen to him / her. Which makes it OK to the non objective and emotional masses.
We all know a minus by a minus is a plus. It depends on which way you look at it.
By stealing from the dealer-to-kids, you are just obliging him to go and sell more drugs to kids. The right thing to do is to kill him to utterly dead death, and then disperse his property to good causes.
The act of stealing is already wrong so I cannot justify it by saying that I stealit from the bad guys.
maya; err... gambling is pretty much wrong! well again, depends on who u ask.
zhu; so again, it 'depends'. meaning there could be certain justifications to a bad act, correct?
Q; can you say that no matter what happens, if an action is wrong, it always stays wrong? no matter WHAT the circumstances? even extreme ones?
KJ; so an action that is 7aram is plain black and white 7aram. there is no grey area? and how about if your good deed far surpasses your bad deed? does that still make it bad?
redbelt; actually it should be a minus added to a plus, because it's one bad deed, one good deed, correct? so again, if the good deed had much greater implications than your bad deed... isn't that good? ie, -2 + 3 = 1. therefore, good?
shale; true, but now you're being a government.
shionge; even when giving it to people who need it? lets say you've got starving kids who would die if you couldn't get them any food, and the only way to provide for them is by stealing money from someone who got his money immorally?
As society evolved thru time, a moral and legal framework has been laid down with its roots in practical experience, which defines basically what is right and wrong. Trying to redefine what is morally wrong, because of its accentuating circumstances would lead to chaos and anarchy with every immoral act open to a sympathetic interpretation. Therefore I stand by what I originally said.
Stealing is stealing no matter what, but we always justify things if its needed. Its a cruel person who steals right? However, everyone does that nowadays and it has been something .."cool".
Trying to be Robin Hood works too, it may makes you feel better because you're stealing that black money to make it white ..keep in mind that sooner or later that's going to bring worse circumistances for sure.. jail, more poor people, crimes ..etc.
first, we have to define what is wrong and what is right. If stealing is only wrong when stealing from good people, then what or who defines who is good or bad?
There are people split on this issue, so the people can't decide who is good and who is bad, you'd have everyone stealing from everyone else, which would negate the "ONLY steal from bad people" concept..
In the end, stealing is wrong, doesn't matter who from.
Stealing is stealing! Its wrong how ever u slice it. Even if u wanted to do sumthing gud with stolen money--it doesnt matter cuz a sin had to be commited first so its just wrong ....BAD, BAD, BAD!!!!!
But I am sure everyone has stolen sumthing in their life....have u?
I stole a piece of gum from a bakala once...yeah Iknow I am a real fugitive, huh? :) LOOL
as a utalitarianist, it's still wrong...the ends don't justify the means!
gambling is wrong? dude.. sounds like you've been screwed- literally.
WRONG ! stealing from the innocent is just as wrong as stealing from the peddler... thats why they say " two wrongs dont make a right"
well at least i guess stealing a kiss is legal :D
i agree with grey: just because you do something good with stolen money, this doesn't mean it's morally alright - two wrongs don't make a right.
i like the islamic definition and the exceptions to the rule: for example if a man is so poor and has never been supported by the state (an islamic state) he steals in order to keep himself alive, it's not considered stealing because he wouldn't have done this if the state hadn't marginalized his rights..
Post a Comment