Is Stealing Wrong?

[Beeto]

I was just looking at http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/F...ML/001677.html
and thought that I really don't feel stealing is wrong. I've known lots of people who have descramblers or pirate software or say their kid is younger than they really are to get a free meal. So it seems to me that most people don't think stealing is wrong. What do you think?

[billehunt]

I don't get this. Is this just a pointer to the other thread? Was this a mistake post?

[Keeves]

Beeto, one of my teachers once said that "Humans are experts at self-deception."

I believe that in a plain black-and-white case, most people would claim to be opposed to stealing. The problem is that in your examples, people find it very easy to rationalize and consider the situation to not constitute stealing to begin with.

Examples:

In the software and cable-tv examples, one never actually takes an object out of another's possession. These examples are extremely easy to rationalize in that manner.

The free child's meal does involve taking -- and keeping -- property without paying for it. But given the circumstances, the parents consider their crime to be lying, not stealing. Today's society considers lying to be a much less serious sin than stealing, bordering on acceptable or even commenable in some circumstances. Thus they rationalize and say that the restaurant is willing to give away free children's meals, and so I have not really stolen anything.

I don't condone any of the above, of course. I am just explaining how people can do these things even though they do think that stealing is wrong, in sharp contrast to the conclusions of the OP.

[QuickSilver]

It's wrong. It's absolutely wrong. Especially if you are caught.....

[mrblue92]

The problem is that in your examples, people find it very easy to rationalize and consider the situation to not constitute stealing to begin with.

This is so true.

I once read something in an advice column along the same lines, if you'll bear with me for a sec:

Someone had written into this particular columnist (I forget who) saying something to the effect that her "friend" says all her relationships turned out badly because all men are pigs. The columnist responded that when things go wrong, people look for someone to blame. There are three possible targets: ourselves, others, and fate. If we choose to blame fate, it means we have to accept the corollary that we don't have free-will. And since one thinks one can't possibly be responsible for their situation, they end up blaming others.

And so I think this also applies to most unethical behavior--if we choose not to take responsibility for our actions, we must place the blame on others.

So for software and cable-tv, we look at Ted Turner and the like, and figure they don't need the money. The rationalization could also be, "If they didn't want to be so rich, they wouldn't charge so much for [software/TV] and I'd be able to afford it. Besides they'll never miss my few bucks anyway."

It's the same for the restaurant--the perception is that if you own a business, you must be doing pretty well, even if the truth is often the exact opposite. Once you group yourself with the "have-nots", it easy to justify taking from the "haves" because they're obviously exploiting you.

And there's also a bit of learned behavior that factors into the equation--the "my [parent/brother/second cousin] did it and they're a good person" syndrome.

Finally, as far as the technology portion goes, there is an increasingly muddy line between right and wrong. While philosophers have written and debaters have debated for thousands of years on murder and theft, it's only been about 20 years since the popularity of the VCR. Is it legal to tape a movie off TV if I can't watch it right now? Can I tape it just because I might want to watch it again? Can I tape it because I can't buy it anywhere? How long can I keep it before it's no longer "fair use"?

The common person probably doesn't ever even consider such things unless someone points it out. If it's commonly done, doesn't seem to hurt anybody, benefits him, and he won't get caught, he probably never gives it a second thought.

[Satan]

Well, is Finding wrong?

Check it out... In the apartment I lived in with my wife, we had cable. We hit a stretch where paying other bills became more impportant, so we just let it get turned off. I even unhooked the box and started watching with the antenna on top of the house, which was hooked up in the same slot in the wall that the cable came in from.

Well, the day of the Super Bowl came, and I was getting LOUSY reception. So I went over to the TV and started to mess around with it. I hit a few buttons, and suddenly, I SAW THE ESPN logo. "What the fuck?" I exclaimed. I started messing around some more, and it turned out we were getting cable without the benefit of the cable box, plugged directly into the TV.

Hooking it up to the VCR and using that as the channel changer gave us access to every channel we were paying $30 or so a month for. After returning the box, we waited for the cable to stop. It didn't. We watched free cable for over a year, and since my (now_ ex-wife still lives there, is still getting it for free for all I know.

Obviously, we didn't have an illegal box. We never did anything to avoid paying for cable. It just happened...

So, were we wrong to keep watching it? Should we have called them up and said, "You know what, Time-Warner? We've been getting free cable without a box here. Youi might want to look into it."?

I never once had a guilty pang about this happenstance... Anyone think I should have?

------------------
Yer pal,
Satan

[Audi]

As in the Simpsons, look at it this way...
If there was a starving family and the father stole some bread to feed hjis starving family would that be wrong?

[The Ryan]

But what if the family doesn't like bread?

[Sterra]

Getting free cable is well IMHO fine because they made a mistake. Sometimes you get good mistakes sometimes you get bad ones.

if a father stole his cable to let them watch tv would it be wrong?

[Squee]

In college, my roommates and myself would split the bills evenly (eg: one took the power bill, another would take phone, etc).

Anyhow, I got stuck with the cable and the water bill. Before moving in, I called the cable company to have service installed at the address we were moving into. By doing it in advance, I had hoped that the service would be installed by the time we actually got the keys to the apt.

I get a phone call the day we move in. It was the cable company telling me that they were busy and couldn't get a man there to hook up the cable for another two days. I said fine, as I probably would have no need since I would be in the process of unpacking anyway.

But when we hooked up the TV, we had cable. I called the next day to have the hook-up cancelled. I figured, 'Cool, the landlord already had it taken care of!'.

In a few weeks, I got a letter from the cable company, asking how I was enjoying the service, along with a refund check for the installation fee (which I never paid, because the cable guy never showed the first time around). I cashed the check. Yes, that makes me a thief, and perhaps immoral, but it was stupidity and errors on the side of the cable provider, along with the fact that I was a starving college student that made me do it. I look back on it now and have a tinge of regret, but I think I will survive.



------------------
"Penises don't belong in the mouth, girls and boys. You've got the wrong hole there. Just like you wouldn't shove pizza up your nose."
-From the Brother Jed flyer-

[Squee]

BTW, I never did recieve a cable bill for the entire year. I guess with my phone call, they figured I cancelled the service permanently.

Geez, looking at it like that, I really do feel like a thief.

------------------
"Penises don't belong in the mouth, girls and boys. You've got the wrong hole there. Just like you wouldn't shove pizza up your nose."
-From the Brother Jed flyer-

[Hockey969]

Stealing is only illegal if you get caught

[matt_mcl]

Since ownership is a legally-imposed abstraction, I would argue that theft is only wrong if somebody is injured thereby. If theft injures nobody (e.g. me bumming xeroxes at work, someone stealing cable) theft is unobjectionable.

[Diletante]

1. Stealing cable
2. Pirating software/music
3. Lying about age to get a discount
4. Stretching 15 minute break into a half hour
5. Stealing a co-worker's wallet.

Number 5 doesn't seem to fit, does it? I have done or would do all of the above without feeling very bad about it except the last one, even if I was 100% sure I wouldn't be caught. What's the difference? I think the major difference isn't the fact that what is being stolen isn't tangible, or that the first four parties won't be significantly harmed.

Here's the reason I see: The first four situations often or usually involve someone using me as a means of profitability. I'm not a person, I'm an exploitable resource. I think people feel that if they're being treated as a mere means, they are not responsible to treat the other party as an individual either.

I'm not saying this view isn't problematic, or justifies the first four actions. After all, they're all presumably done with my voluntary, informed consent. But think about this: how many people would buy a bootleg copy of an album that your rockstar neighbor recorded? Or sneak into the theater that your old high school english teacher now runs? When there's a personal connection, I think the "old" morality seems more relevant.

------------------
One became great by expecting the possible, another by expecting the eternal, but he who expected the impossible became greater than all. -Kierkegaard

[CheapBastid]

Of the five examples given, I would say that there is no emotional content to the first 4 and there is to the last one, thus the easy ablility to justify the first four. That is the only difference.

They are all the same, they all cost someone something.

[Freedomx]

Since ownership is a legally-imposed abstraction, I would argue that theft is only wrong if somebody is injured thereby.

????????

Try stealing from me.

You will get hurt and therefore you will admit that it was wrong.

[matt_mcl]

Try stealing from me.

You will get hurt and therefore you will admit that it was wrong.

My point.

Would it be wrong to steal from me? Depends. I'm rather poor, so if you stole something from me that I needed (my computer, the contents of my bank account, a textbook), it would injure me a great deal and would be wrong.

If someone stole $5 from Bill Gates, I have difficulty imagining that he would be hurt thereby and I therefore have difficulty imagining how it would be wrong.

[Gilligan]

Who gets to determine whether the theft hurts or not, the stealer or the victim? I would think the victim.

[SouthernXYL]

It makes me nervous to hair-split, but I do it anyway.

Going out and hooking up cable to my house without paying for it would be stealing. However, if it comes into my house because the previous owner canceled but the field reps couldn't be bothered to come out and disconnect it, tough cookies - it's mine.

Once I was not charged for some brushes at an art store because the trainee clerk simply missed them. It was her first day. I went back and paid for them. Another time I was charged too little for some styrofoam Easter eggs because the clerk was too busy talking to her boyfriend on the phone to pay attention to her job. She was charging me for the little bitty ones but the ones I was buying were several sizes larger. I tried to tell her but she wouldn't even look at me as she rang up my stuff. So the heck with it - I underpaid and didn't feel bad about it.

[David B]

Keeves said:

Beeto, one of my teachers once said that "Humans are experts at self-deception."

I think that sums it up perfectly.

Some examples. I know some very religious Christians. Yet I've caught one cheating in a game. Is it the worst thing in the world? No. But it's lying. That's a sin.

Look at many members of the "religious right." I just finished a book that documents a number of outright lies (among other things) that these supposedly righteous Christians have been caught in. But they all advance their aims. So I guess it's ok to sin in some cases. But I bet they would say it's never ok to lie or steal, etc. Self-deception is the name of the game.

[Gilligan]

Something like that, Freedom. I would say, ask yourself "Is stealing from me wrong?" If you answer yes, then stealing is wrong. If you say, I don't really mind if someone takes it, then the someone isn't stealing from you. If you do mind, then they are stealing from you, which you think is wrong.

[mrblue92]

Nice examples, David. But I suppose Jews, Muslims, Pink Unicorn worshippers, and liberals never are guilty of any form of hypocrisy. Is there any particular reason you seem to single out Christians?

It's a shame that some individuals cast a bad light on an entire group. Fortunately I know you're smart enough not to generalize that all Christians are hypocritical, but some of your audience might think that was implied.

[David B]

Mrblue said:

Nice examples, David. But I suppose Jews, Muslims, Pink Unicorn worshippers, and liberals never are guilty of any form of hypocrisy. Is there any particular reason you seem to single out Christians?

Because I don't have all the time in the world to type in an example for every single possible religion in the world. It was one freaking example, fercryingoutloud. Calm down. I never said anybody else was incapable of hypocrisy.

It's a shame that some individuals cast a bad light on an entire group.

I never said that, either.

Fortunately I know you're smart enough not to generalize that all Christians are hypocritical, but some of your audience might think that was implied.

Only the really stupid ones, and I don't care what the really stupid ones think. Glad to hear you're not in that group.

[CheapBastid]

In the 'Art store' examples, why punish the owners of the store for the clerk's misdeeds?

Both are wrong, both are stealing, both can be justified to the point where one can convince one's self that it is OK.

[Weirddave]

I once got new tires for my car. As I got in to drive away, I noticed the ones they had put on were much better ( and more expensive ) than the ones I had paid for. I thought for a minute, then went and told them. What ticked me off was that they just said thanks, and made me wait another hour while they fixed their mistake. I didn't do it for this reason, but I know damn well most people wouldn't have told, and for them to have demonstrated some real gratitude would not have been out of line. Offering to compensate me for the extra hour ( a free oil change or something?) would seem reasonable too. If it happened again, I'm not sure I wouldn't just drive off.

------------------
Cecil said it. I believe it. That settles it.

[SouthernXYL]

I thought about not punishing the store owners for the bad employee too. (Actually, that one wasn't the art store, it was a huge hobby chain. The art store folks are always attentive.) I concluded that people who would hire someone who turned their back on a customer, which customer by saying "Hey!" and waving a hand couldn't get their attention, just didn't deserve having me take the time to go hunt down a manager or something to give them their money. But you're probably right.

weirddave, that would tick me right off. I'd probably wait 15 minutes, then tell them I'd come back for them to take their tires off when it was convenient for me. Bet they'd get the lead out then.

[mrblue92]

It was one freaking example, fercryingoutloud. Calm down. I never said anybody else was incapable of hypocrisy.

C'mon David, I was being sarcastic... (maybe I needed a )

Let's see, there were actually two examples, both pointing out hypocritical Christians. OK. But if you were to replace the word "Christians" in that post with "Blacks" or "Jews" (removing the reference to the "religious right"), are you telling me you can't see how that might reasonably imply a veiled prejudice against the whole group?

Don't get me wrong, I've read enough of your posts to not misinterpret it as such. I am not at all angry or offended; rather I was simply trying to head off hostile reactions.

[WhiteNight]

Matt_mcl: Since ownership is a legally-imposed abstraction, I would argue that theft is only wrong if somebody is injured thereby. If theft injures nobody (e.g. me bumming xeroxes at work, someone stealing cable) theft is unobjectionable.

I sort of agree. If there's a crime in the books, 'they' can call it whatever they like, but it's only a legal abstraction. If doing that thing was morally wrong before, it still will be. If it wasn't morally wrong, it won't be even though there's now a law against it.

But, you did say making copies... That does shorten the life of the photocopier and take paper and toner... Only pennies, I'm sure, but it still does take something they bought and remove it and make other things they bought less useful.

>1. Stealing cable
>2. Pirating software/music
>3. Lying about age to get a discount
>4. Stretching 15 minute break into a half hour
>5. Stealing a co-worker's wallet.

CheapBastid: They are all the same, they all cost someone something.

Not at all. Copying a CD doesn't cost the company any money at all. If you distribute copied CDs, that might drop the value of their music, but the simple act of copying the CD does not.

On the other hand, having you wallet stolen costs you both time and money.

Freedom: Try stealing from me.

You will get hurt and therefore you will admit that it was wrong.

So anything you decide is wrong is wrong. If you sang a song and I liked it and started humming the tune, that'd be stealing and I'd get hurt?

How about if you broke up with a girlfriend and she started dating me, would you decide that I had stolen her and hurt me?

Sorry if I'm a little reluctant to base my morals off the actions of someone who seems a little trigger happy. (If only with their fists.)

Gilligan: Who gets to determine whether the theft hurts or not, the stealer or the victim? I would think the victim.

I'd say society. The 'victim' is likely going to be overly sensitive, seeing anything anyone does that adversely affects them as stealing. The agressor will likely see things the other way, that the target is evil and thus won't miss something...

Only an impartial observer can do this, imho.

Cheap Bastid: In the 'Art store' examples, why punish the owners of the store for the clerk's misdeeds?

Both are wrong, both are stealing, both can be justified to the point where one can convince one's self that it is OK.

1) If the store employs someone who can't do the job, it's not the customer's fault. He *tried* to get her to listen.

2) You keep stating your opinion like it's fact. You need to say "I think ..." before those statements.

weirddave: I once got new tires for my car. As I got in to drive away, I noticed the ones they had put on were much better [...]

I'd probably go back too, but this is courtesy imho, not stealing if I don't.

If someone makes a mistake, I'm not obligated to fix it.

Many people would say you stole, had you simply drove away. But that's simplistic. And what would happen if you didn't notice then, only a day later. Or how about if you noticed six months later when having the car worked on, and the tires weren't in top shape anymore? Would you still be obligated to go and pay for the difference even though you didn't ask for it?

Their mistaken actions, their problem. A customer who wants to deal with them again should probably tell them, to avoid hard feelings, and because it's polite, but I don't see an obligation there.

[CheapBastid]

I think you are re-attempting justification of your actions.

=)

Copying a CD is stealing. You are depriving the manufacturer of the revenue they would have received had you legally bought the CD.

[CheapBastid]

I see it as a simple situation.

Were the owner (or producer) of the item (or service) to know what you did, would they consider it stealing.

If so - it is, if not - it is not.

I would disagree that ownership is a legally-imposed abstraction, I would argue that ownership is an abstraction to assist in commercial and interpersonal interactions. If theft apparently injures nobody (e.g. bumming Xeroxes at work, stealing cable) it is easily justified, but still theft.

In the case of the Tires. The Tire Store botched their work, they should have taken steps to reimburse the car owner for the time it took to re-do the job correctly.

[WhiteNight]

CheapBastid: Were the owner (or producer) of the item (or service) to know what you did, would they consider it stealing.

This doesn't sit right with me... There are a lot of things that people think are crimes, or should be, that other people don't.

Software companies want you to be bound by a contract you don't see until after you buy the software. If you broke this, they'd see that as contract violation.

Imagine that the company puts a clause into the contract that says they own all graphics files you produce with their program.

So you produce a graphic and distribute it, they say it's theirs and theft. Does that make it theft?


I really think the opinion of the person with the thing is irrelevant. If I took something from someone, it would be theft even if it later turned out that they didn't care. If they wanted me to take it, they'd have given it to me.

But, when you try to expand this away from real property, into the realm of ideas, this gets tough. There is no 'right' to own an idea. If you want to own a physical thing, carry it with you, if someone wants it, they'll have to take it. But with an idea, if you tell someone, how can you expect that they won't use it? Especially if it's something they can see. If you invent something and someone sees you use it, how can it be theft for them to build something similar?

What did they take?

And this is where the opinion again is irrelevant. You can dislike something till you're blue in the face, but that doesn't change it. Just because you think I should ask to do what I saw you doing doesn't mean it's theft if I don't.


Theft is defined as taking with intent to deprive (and no matter how much Manhattan doesn't like this doesn't matter, facts is facts) and as such, you can't steal an idea unless you remove it from the inventor's head.

Copyright violation and IP crimes are crimes. You can feel guilty about them. They *can* hurt people in some instances. But they aren't theft.


And as for feeling guilty... who honestly feels guilty just because they break a law? That's pathetic. Feel guilty because you hurt someone, sure. The laws are there to stop those who never feel guilt. If you feel guilty when hurting people you shouldn't need to live your life by the letter of the law.

If you do live by the law, and only feel guilt when breaking it, then you're a ruthless bastard. There are many things that you can and should feel guilty about that aren't regulated by law.

[Gilligan]

Let society decide? Society has never been an impartial observer of the actions of its members. That is not to say that representatives of society can't sometimes make impartial decisions about things; they do it often. But society as a whole will always be biased one way or the other. The bias changes with time, and the only "impartiality" you'll get is that the average bias over time will be evenly split.

For someone other than you to determine whether a taking harms you or not, assumes that someone other than you knows more about your life and your needs than you do. This would be true for children or mentally incompetent adults. But a competent adult is the only rightful decision-maker of what harms him. Even if he makes a bad decision, clouded by emotion, it is still his decision as to what harms himself.

The degree of harm is something else. Emotion might cause someone who's had a dollar taken from him feel that he deserves a great deal more in return. Here, decisions from neutral parties are relevant, as degree is something measurable.

The examples you used against Freedom are something else again. "If you sang a song and I liked it and started humming the tune, that'd be stealing and I'd get hurt? How about if you broke up with a girlfriend and she started dating me, would you decide that I had stolen her and hurt me?" The questions here are whether or not something was taken, not whether taking something is wrong.

[billehunt]

WhiteNight wrote

But, when you try to expand this away from real property, into the realm of ideas, this gets tough. There is no 'right' to own an idea.

Well, there you go again.

Rights are defined by laws. It's that simple. You can deny it till you're blue in the face, but it's just rambling. You might as well deny the effects of gravity because you think they're unfair. Or because the dictionary says "gravity" can mean "importance". Your words don't keep you from falling off the earth.


There is a right to own an idea. It's called Intellectual Property Law. It doesn't seem to matter to you, but this is a well-accepted concept, with pretty much universal understanding around the world.

And by the way, this may be fuzzy fun for you to debate. And for some this denial is a way to get something cool without paying for it. But I'm from a different world. In my world (software development), we expend a shitload of money to make something that has no edges or form. It's entirely IP. And stealing my work is no different from stealing from any other shop-owner. It's theft, and the laws of the world are crystal-clear on this.

[Sterra]

So white knight according to you... its not theft but its just as bad?

[billehunt]

WhiteNight, let me take another tack on this:

Perhaps your stance is "Yes, Bill, I know it's the law, but dammit, the law is wrong." Is that possible?

Let's start from zero. Let's assume that laws (and dictionaries) don't exist. In a pure world of logical constructs, I believe that things which spring from my head are mine, and I should be able to profit from them. Likewise, I feel you should have that same right. Do you disagree?

In fact, let's go one step further back (and I don't mean to be insulting here). Do you believe that people should be allowed to own physical things? Do you believe that when people manipulate physical things that they should own the new thing and be able to profit from it's invention?