Re: STEALING FROM THE QUEEN?

[Luis Johnstone <luisjohnstone@onetel.net>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


Greetings,

David-

Well, I'm glad I made you laugh (perhaps I should work on stand-up?).
-

To take your example:
First of all, I don't think that qualifies as stealing. It would be 
trespassing on private property. I suppose your thoughts were something 
along the lines of 'time on the courts is normally paid for therefore 
court-time has a monetary value. Therefore, 'taking' court-time without 
paying for its value would be stealing'. But, as far as I know there is 
no law against 'stealing someone's time'. There is, of course, the law 
regarding the wasting of police time but that's not got anything to do 
with monetary value. Now, if someone else had paid money for the use of 
that court and you instead took it over for yourself then you would be 
stealing from that person- since you would be taking possession of 
something temporarily 'owned' (by virtue of a sessional fee) by another 
person.
-

You say:
"What if I need money to get an independent film produced and I steal a 
few thousand pounds from a millionaire businessman who would barely 
notice. He doesn't NEED the money, it will just sit in his bank account, 
whereas I could do something INTERESTING with it, nor does he really 
deserve that much money, so, providing the theft is committed 
painlessly, where is the crime?"
I say:
What if I need subjects to study scientifically and a steal a few 
thousand baby-corpses from a hospital that would barely notice. They 
don't NEED the corpses, they will sit in the morgue freezers, whereas I 
could do something INTERESTING with them, nor does it (the hospital) 
deserve that many corpses, so, providing the theft is committed 
painlessly, where is the crime?
Do you not think that there is something wrong in body snatching? To 
make things easier for your argument I'll suppose that these dead babies 
have no one to claim or miss them. Does this sound OK to you? Perhaps 
you'd also think that someone who digs up the graves of those without 
any living relations is also not doing anything wrong.
Indeed, I can think of several examples which involve the taking of 
human life (living cf. dead people) which would satisfy your description 
of a 'victimless crime'.
The fact is that no one has the right to take your life or your property 
just because they want to. And let's not be silly here: no one NEEDS to 
make an independent film or play tennis on the rich-toff's court. It 
might be something that you want to do but, there is no compulsion which 
is not reasonably mediated by the Will. If you choose to satisfy your 
wants then you must also accept responsibility for that free choice (AND 
accept that these wants might conflict with the wants of others and 
thereby, entail a possible punishment). When a person is starving to 
death they might steal because they NEED to eat. 'Needs' are those 
things that you cannot live without such as eating, breathing air, your 
heart pumping etc etc. 'Wants' are anything in addition to this 
(although there is a subset of instincts). The starving person is just 
trying to stay alive. And unless your independent film-producer's life 
is dependent upon the success of this film, I fail to see the strength 
of your argument.
But returning to the matter of needs vs. wants:
In the case of needs, there are many ways of achieving them. For 
example, the film producer doesn't HAVE to steal money to fund his film. 
You and you friend do not HAVE to trespass on private property in order 
to play tennis at the rich-club. However, in some circumstances it might 
be the case that a starving person HAS to steal in order to live- there 
isn't any choice about it- the choice is steal or die (which is really 
no choice at all). The very fact that the film producer et al CHOOSE to 
achieve their wants by the path of least resistance (i.e. the easiest) 
only shows that they are being weak. They have choices and pretend as if 
they don't. If one acknowledges that one has a choice then one should 
acknowledge that such cases are cases of stealing of the worst kind. 
It's one thing to steal medicine to help your poor dying grandmother- 
it's quite another to steal because it's the easiest way of achieving 
your wants.

Finally, if you think that it shouldn't be a criminal offense to steal 
from bank-accounts then would you also suggest that the owners of the 
accounts ought not retaliate against thieves? On what grounds will you 
plead with them? Surely not on the grounds of 'you don't NEED to punish 
me'. It's clear that you don't NEED to steal but, you do it anyway. 
Indeed, if you're consistent then you'll have to say 'You don't HAVE to 
punish me'. To which they may reply, 'Oh yes. But, nor do you HAVE to 
steal- we are both merely following our wants'.

Respectfully,

Luis Johnstone


David Mitchell wrote:

> To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
>
>
> Hi,
> There's a lot to say on the issue of drugs, and people have raised so many questions it's hard to know where to begin. However...one comment that did make me laugh, was the claim by Louis, that, 'unless you or someone close to you is dying you should not steal'.
>
> This is surely ridiculous, if by stealing you simply mean taking what by law belongs to somebody else. You could argue from a Kantian perspective that certain acts are always wrong regardless of consequences e.g stealing, masturbation etc, but this is not the posistion he seems to be adopting since he acknowledges that certain circumstances make theft acceptable, principally starvation. If that is the case aren't there a whole range of cases then where stealing is justified, but where no one is starving?
>
> To use an example from my own experience: there aren't many tennis courts where I live BUT there is a very expensive [and snobbish] private club which isn't used most of the time. So me and my friend have been going onto the courts when no one's there and playing. Since I was never going to pay for the courts anyway no one is losing out from my theft, and I'm gaining enjoyment, it is quite literally a victimless crime, and as such justified stealing.
>
> That's a stupid example, but my point is that you judge whether an act of stealing is wrong on the particular details of the situation, and on the relative needs and deserts in question. e.g What if I need money to get an independent film produced and I steal a few thousand pounds from a millionaire businessman who would barely notice. He doesn't NEED the money, it will just sit in his bank account, whereas I could do something INTERESTING with it, nor does he really deserve that much money, so, providing the theft is committed painlessly, where is the crime?
> You could cite a whole range of further cases where stealing is justified but where no one is starving. e.g what if someone stole from the queen to get money for an eye operation? They wouldn't die without the operation, just go blind, but surely it's better that they have eyesight than that queeny has an extra few thousand in her already hyper-obese bank account no?
>
> In short then, stealing can be morally justified even when no one is starving.
>
> David.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm
>
>
>  



Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm