If I steal a dollar...

[hansel]

**
And which, exactly, principal do you argue establishes that immorality? Do you think that principal is insufficient to establish the immorality of a petty theft?
**

At no time have I argued that petty theft is not immoral. It is, under the principle that theft itself is immoral; violating that principle is a necessary and sufficient condition for being immoral.

**
Also, do you still argue that Gilligan’s example represents a situation in which no harm is done?
**

Gilligan’s example is a very good for illustrating a situation in which the total harm done is distinctly less than would be the case were the same amount of money directly removed from someone’s bank account. Not knowing that you were to receive the money is not what accounts for there being less harm; it’s that one’s bank account remains the same as without it, rather than being emptied. Analyse it as game theory: if you had to choose, would you rather not receive money owed (say, double the amount you currently have), or have some amount stolen from you (say, half of the amount you currently have)?

Where knowing vs. not knowing that you were harmed matters is that, insofar as harm done to you is unnoticeable because it has no practical impact, that harm is theoretical, at best. Remove a penny from the bowl on my desk when I’m not looking, and even if I notice you do it, I probably wouldn’t say anything. Steal the rent money in the desk drawer while I’m in the bathroom, and I’ll feel very wronged.

**
If you can develop a mathematics to compute the aggregate harm of 1 million small harms and compare it to a single large harm, please let me know. It might, perhaps, help to begin by demonstrating that immoralities are objectively measurable.
**

Rather than provide you with a ready-made straw man, I’ll quit using metaphorical terms like “moral calculus”; in return, you stop trying to trap me with the argument of the heap.

I wouldn’t notice if a dollar disappeared from my bank account, and it would have no practical impact on my life; I’m certain that at least some others are the same. If less than every victim notices the harm (and thus suffers no harm at all, in practical terms), then the total harm done is less than the case where the money is stolen in a lump sum (i.e., the case where the entire disappearance is felt).

If you think that argument depends upon an objective, unit based measurement of harm, remember that the sentence “grey is less dark than black” makes perfect sense without resorting to a light meter.

**
And, finally, please send me a dollar immediately. You will not even notice it is gone.
**

Email me your address, and I’ll write you a cheque.

[Odesio]

**
from every bank account in the U.S., what kind of crime have I committed?
**

You'd be stealing an awfully lot of money from each bank. Banks use the money deposited in their accounts for very real things. The money doesn't just sit there waiting for someone to pick it up. You'd be stealing and at that level it'd be a felony. While you might not hurt the person holding the account you'd hurt the bank.

Marc

[Spiritus_Mundi]

At no time have I argued that petty theft is not immoral. It is, under the principle that theft itself is immoral; violating that principle is a necessary and sufficient condition for being immoral.

I was asking specifically how yo determined that theft absent harm was immoral. I have explained why I take that view, but I thought if I understood how you arrived at that result it might help me understand why you feel that minimization of harm makes a theft “less immoral”.

Analyse it as game theory: if you had to choose, would you rather not receive money owed (say, double the amount you currently have), or have some amount stolen from you (say, half of the amount you currently have)?

You phrase the game incorrectly. The money is “mine” when the sender makes his gift. That I do not know this or receive the money does not change the “pot”. The accurate question is, “would you rather have moneys removed from your winnings or from your bank?” The answer, of course, is that it makes no difference. I lose the same amount of money either way.

If less than every victim notices the harm (and thus suffers no harm at all, in practical terms), then the total harm done is less than the case where the money is stolen in a lump sum (i.e., the case where the entire disappearance is felt).

We are back to “noticing” again. Please return to the “kill you in your sleep” analogy. Is this less immoral than waking you up and shooting you in the head? After all, you will not notice your loss.

If you think that argument depends upon an objective, unit based measurement of harm, remember that the sentence “grey is less dark than black” makes perfect sense without resorting to a light meter.

How? Visual perception is a light meter. For that matter, there are greys which you would be hard pressed to demonstrate are “less dark” than black without resorting to an objective standard of measure.

More to the point, though, is beauty more pleasing than love? Why is immorality more like a hue than like an abstraction?

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Please simply hand the dollar to the next panhandler that you see.

[hansel]

**
I was asking specifically how you determined that theft absent harm was immoral. I have explained why I take that view, but I thought if I understood how you arrived at that result it might help me understand why you feel that minimization of harm makes a theft “less immoral”.
**

Theft simpliciter is immoral because it’s wrong, in principle, to steal. Generally, I hold the Kantian view: moral principles are true in light of the categorical imperative. Theft is wrong in principle because it defeats private property and may cause harm to the victim (which is wrong in principle as well). That doesn’t rule out utilitarian considerations of harm.

**

Analyse it as game theory: if you had to choose, would you rather not receive money owed (say, double the amount you currently have), or have some amount stolen from you (say, half of the amount you currently have)? *

You phrase the game incorrectly. The money is “mine” when the sender makes his gift. That I do not know this or receive the money does not change the “pot”. The accurate question is, “would you rather have moneys removed from your winnings or from your bank?” The answer, of course, is that it makes no difference. I lose the same amount of money either way.
**

If the money is owed to you, it’s yours but not in your possession, just as if someone made a gift and failed to deliver it. I didn’t intend this question to be included in the “knowing it’s gone” part of the debate. In both cases, you know about the money. Is your response really that you don’t care? I would care: I’d rather lose money I don’t actually possess than money I do.

**

If less than every victim notices the harm (and thus suffers no harm at all, in practical terms), then the total harm done is less than the case where the money is stolen in a lump sum (i.e., the case where the entire disappearance is felt). *

We are back to “noticing” again. Please return to the “kill you in your sleep” analogy. Is this less immoral than waking you up and shooting you in the head? After all, you will not notice your loss.
**

Where noticing matters, as I’m trying to present it, is that lack of noticing is indicative of a lack of harm (and not that no harm has occurred because it went unnoticed).

I’m not suggesting that noticing is a necessary or causal condition for harm being done. I’m suggesting that, where harm escapes detection solely because of the scale of the harm, that there is no practical harm done.

Since noticing is not a necessary condition of harm, killing me in my sleep fails as a counterexample. You’ve certainly done me harm; precluding my notice of it by removing my ability to notice doesn’t change that.

**

If you think that argument depends upon an objective, unit based measurement of harm, remember that the sentence “grey is less dark than black” makes perfect sense without resorting to a light meter.*

How? Visual perception is a light meter. For that matter, there are greys which you would be hard pressed to demonstrate are “less dark” than black without resorting to an objective standard of measure.
**

Visual perception is a subjective light meter, without units and susceptible to scepticism. In other words, visual perception covers a spectrum. That two shades of grey may be indistinguishable doesn’t rule out a difference, or suggest that all shades of grey are indistinguishable because some cases are too close to call.

**
More to the point, though, is beauty more pleasing than love? Why is immorality more like a hue than like an abstraction?
**

This is meaningless hyperbole. I’ve been arguing that utilitarian considerations are relevant in moral questions. By holding principle as the sole criterion of the moral quality of an act, you are denying that utilitarianism has any place in our moral vocabulary.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Generally, I hold the Kantian view: moral principles are true in light of the categorical imperative. Theft is wrong in principle because it defeats private property and may cause harm to the victim

I must have skimmed over the part where Kant argued for the basis of morality in property laws . . .it has been a while. If theft does no harm, how do you apply the categorical imperative to declare it immoral?

If the money is owed to you, it’s yours but not in your possession, just as if someone made a gift and failed to deliver it. I didn’t intend this question to be included in the “knowing it’s gone” part of the debate. In both cases, you know about the money. Is your response really that you don’t care?

The money would be in my posession if it had not been stolen. At the moment of delivery, my state is identical whether you have taken the money from my bank or diverted it from my winnings. Yes, I am saying that both of these outcomes would be equivalent to me. If you did not intend this example to consider “knowing it is gone” how do you support the idea that the two outcomes are distinct?

I’m not suggesting that noticing is a necessary or causal condition for harm being done. I’m suggesting that, where harm escapes detection solely because of the scale of the harm, that there is no practical harm done.

You are contradicting yourself. If lack of knowing means there is no harm done, then knowing is a necessary condition for harm. Are you really trying to bridge that contradiction simply by inserting the word “practical”.

If knowing is not a necessary condition for harm, then you have offered no basis for your argument that no harm is done when the crime is below the threshold of notice.

Visual perception is a subjective light meter, without units and susceptible to scepticism. In other words, visual perception covers a spectrum.

Visual perception is a subjective measure of an objective phenomenon. Are you arguing that immorality is an objective phenomenon?

That two shades of grey may be indistinguishable doesn’t rule out a difference

Actually, indistinguishable does rule out difference at whatever context of perception is being discussed. To return to your initial analogy, you do need a light meter now.

me: Why is immorality more like a hue than like an abstraction?

you: This is meaningless hyperbole.

Why? You used subjective perception of an objective reality as a metaphor for immorality. I used subjective perception of an abstraction. Why is it meaningless hyperbole for me to ask you to explain why your metaphor is the more fitting of the two?

By holding principle as the sole criterion of the moral quality of an act, you are denying that utilitarianism has any place in our moral vocabulary.

Yes. Though I find it quite useful as a basis for a legal code. Utilitarianism is concerned only with results. Morality lies in the heart.

I point a gun at your head, knowing the gun is loaded and the safety is off. I want to kill you. I pull the trigger. Is my act more or less immoral depending upon whether the gun misfires?

[betenoir]

what, will no one here question the morality of private property to begin with? Is Marx that dead? ok he probably is.
Nonetheless: What about the loaf of bread stolen to feed the starving child? What about stealing ill gotten gains? What about the morality of having more than you need and letting other starve?

Life has an ultimate, intrisic value to an individual. Therefore murder is evil. Other stuff- money, stereo equipment, etc, does not. What is this realationship called ownership anyway? So, at great personaly risk, I’m gonna say theft is evil only in as much as it accomplishes evil.

[hansel]

**
what, will no one here question the morality of private property to begin with? Is Marx that dead? ok he probably is.**

[adapted from a short film on the David Letterman film festival]

Doctor: I’m sorry, Mr. Betenoir, but marx didn’t make it through surgery.

Betenoir: Oh, God! Oh, God! sobs well… I’m sure you did everything you could, doctor.

Doctor: Well, that’s just it: I didn’t. I couldn’t remember the name of that thing that… you know, that thing that stops bleeding (makes scissors motion with fingers)

Betenoir: What the hell are you saying? A clamp?! You couldn’t remember to ask for a clamp?!

Doctor: That’s it! A clamp. Damnit, if I’d just remembered what it was called, he wouldn’t have bled to death. Everything was going fine up until then…

Betenoir: beats doctor to death with convenient phone receiver

Nonetheless: What about the loaf of bread stolen to feed the starving child? What about stealing ill gotten gains? What about the morality of having more than you need and letting other starve?

On a strictly principle based interpretation of theft, stealing the loaf would be wrong, as would stealing ill gotten gains. Letting others starve may be a different sort of moral wrong, but it’s not theft unless you believe in principle that all goods are essentially common (and thus stolen by removing them from the commons as private property).

So, at great personaly risk, I’m gonna say theft is evil only in as much as it accomplishes evil.
**

Do you think that theft accomplishes no evil, even when it’s theft of non-essentials? Steal my computer and you steal not just means for my entertainment (and thus general mental health), but the labour I put into earning the money for that computer.

As for Spiritus, I’m going to have to wait until I get home, haul Kant off my shelf, and dig out some juicy references. You’re in for it now, you bastard!

[Phobos]

(1) How would you feel if someone stole a dollar from your account?
(2) What if every person did this?

[Mr.Zambezi]

when you stea, you set the price of your honor.

Most of us would not steal a dollar, because it is too small. But if we were given the chance to steal a billion dollars we would.

So, when I steal $20, I set the price of my honor at $20. When I steal a billion, the price of my honor is $1 billion.

I steal $1, that then is the price of my honor.

YOu all know the old Chuchill wheeze: " madam, we have already established what you are, now we are merely negotiating price."