do rich people get what they deserve?

[David Mitchell <david.mitchell@new.oxford.ac.uk>]

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


Hi,
I think we're in danger of going round in circles a little bit, but I'll try to answer a few, if not all, of your points. 1. You suggest that what makes theft wrong or immoral is that there is usually a better way to achieve the end in mind than stealing e.g working harder, doing more hours etc. I don't deny that in many cases of theft this is true, although it is monumentally difficult for someone to get say 5,000 pounds for a film in the short run. 

However I don't believe that this initself makes the act of stealing in the example wrong. Since the good of the film outweighs the negative effects of the theft, say the distress to the rich person, this act remains justified. It is indeed true that a BETTER act would be to raise the money myself without stealing, then I get the good of the film without the bad consequences associated with the theft. HOWEVER the fact that act B [no theft+film] is superior to act A [theft+film] does not mean that act A is not superior to act C [no theft, no film] where the film is more important than avoiding theft. Therefore whilst I should ideally commit act B, it is better that I commit act A than act C, where there is no theft. The same reasoning can be applied to the example of the starving friend, it is still better that I steal and save his life than not steal and let him die, even if I could puruse a course which involved not stealing and saving his life.

I accept that perhaps if you regard consequences as insignificant then you might find this line of argument unconvincing, and then we are into a debate about consequentialism. HOWEVER I am not convinced on your answer to the question of why it is acceptable for a starving man to steal, if you reject an appeal to the effects of an action.

I suppose the real issue which needs to be adressed is why we regard stealing as wrong at all. Part of the answer to this seems to be that it is wrong because stealing involves taking what somone deserves. e.g if I decide not to work and mug somone who has, I am taking what ought to belong to them. If this is the case though we are forced then to ask the further political question of whether wealth/income in this society is really distributed according to desert. 

The answer to this for the most part I think is probably 'no'. The distribution of wealth in capitalist societies can mostly be attributed to social/natural advantage and relatively little to individual choice or 'effort' [even if we can detach such a thing from genetic and social factors]. As a consequence, stealing in this society painlessly and from the rich is not in many cases immoral, especially if you are poor through no fault of your own [Although I hasten to add that most theft can not be achieved painlessly, ie.it usually involves physical violence, intimidation etc. therefore I am not condoning most actual theft.]
Nevertheless, if we recognise that the distribution of wealth in the world is on the whole unfair, then theft is to a large degree not inherently wrong [that is the act as oppossed to negative consequences usually associated with it].
Moreover since we live in a society charcterised by property rights we are encouraged to see theft as naturally immoral, this is an attitude we should try and question though and attempt to think for ourselves why theft [or anything] is wrong, rather than just accepting it as fact.

David


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