h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Is it ever acceptable to steal? Are there any other laws that can be ignored on occasion?

Call me an anti-social menace if you will, but if I'm to answer that honestly, there are very few laws which I'd say should always be obeyed, regardless of the circumstances.

I would say that stealing is never right of itself

But the circumstances can make it better than the alternative e.g. preventing a murder

The same applies with most laws, though it becomes difficult with say murder - because by its title murder is an unjust killing - rather than just a killing

I've heard that in Texas there's a law that permits murder if the victim deserved to die.

If I thought about it, I might start to distinguish between stealing something that a person has bought for themselves with hard-earned money, and something that they really didn't do a lot to earn.

For example, if I have an apple tree and the branches can be reached from outside, I can't complain if a passer-by takes an apple. I didn't really grow the apple by the sweat of my brow, I am just lucky to have such a tree, and I will probably have too many apples for my own use come autumn anyway.

However, if I had saved for a month and bought myself a lovely pair of shoes, or a scarf or coat, and someone took them/it from a coatstand or a locker, I would be far more miffed.

However, I haven't thought this through entirely yet. I can't think of any grey areas for murder.

The bomb plot to kill Hitler?

concerning the stealing post

You are very likely to let that go - but what if each person comes by and takes one - they are doing no more wrong than the first person surely? But would you be annoyed that many apples were now missing?

You could say that each person is taking a higher fraction, getting worse and worse - someone should know that if there was one apple and they took it that is wrong - perhaps
But what if there was a scenario where you couldn't see the loss of goods until the final total was tallied - same big loss, identical "crime" by each person
Concerning the murder bit - many people would consider it a just killing, even if not judicial (and so maybe not murder)
You do of course then start to suffer with problems of lynching - but its more like a lynching where there is no removal of a judicial problem (its not like judges were about to act upon Hitler)
There is no doubt of his guilt as an evil person (by standard definitions of evil at least)
There was no level of torture about it, which could never have been justified as improving the world

I think it's perhaps being a bit intellectually dishonest to say if it isn't unjust, it isn't murder. It was a premeditated, and illegal, attempt to kill. And it would have been illegal under most legal codes that have ever existed, not just the warped one in existence in Nazi Germany. The question is whether that can be justified. I'd say in some circumstances it could be.

But we're verging on the "no true Scotsman" fallacy if we say "murder is always morally wrong, because when it's ok, or morally ambiguous, then it isn't murder".

Depends on what people steal. Nobody dies from having their flatscreen TV stolen.

When i was in my phil proctorial (read argument) we came to conclusion that all these actions are evil (or at least bad, depending on what's being discussed) but they are immoral or not depending on circumstances (that's the justified bit)
So yes a killing, by standard ethics, will almost always be unjust, but the death of those who can't be stopped any other way, euthanasia etc are justified
The problem we were finding was that murder has connotations about it, whereas killing doesn't - so it was proving a pain to decide what to do with it


One example of where a killing isn't unjust at all (at least by the persons' involved ethics) is that of human sacrifice where both the community and the person both think it is good
- I might disagree with it dramatically but for them it is perfectly just

Still say i'm a contextulist though, which makes it hard for me to disagree with people...though i try frequently

if you were stealing food because you had no other way to eat
if you were stealing clothes because your children were otherwise naked
if you stole money to pay for urgent medical care...

I can think of many reasons that theft would be acceptable but how do you judge if the thief was worthy of stealing (if they truly needed it) and then you have to consider the person who got stolen from a big company might not notice the loss but a person could be relying on the item that was stolen themselves...

Is it ok to leave someone in a situation where they might have to resort to stealing? No

Indeed - the acts are bad can be generally agreed upon
But the justification can be hard for one person to decide by themselves, with everyone running off different normaltive ethics it is hard to decide

I believe that in Law, the only justifiable homicide is
self defense. Which, in the nature of 'legal precedents',
makes it an uphill battle to 'legitimise' euthenasia.


"It aint dark yet,
but it's getting there."
- Bob Dylan


~jwf~

The question isn't about things considered justifiable by law, though: rather about things we might consider justifiable even though they are *against* the law...

Indeed

And with a functioning and generally fair judicial system self-defence (and euthanasia, but that's a whole new ball game of ethics) is the only necessary use needed

Some of the UK drug laws seem pretty arbatory as to what is, and what isn't illegal, and the majority of criminality and dammage surrounding a lot of them, seems mainly as a consequence of drug dealers, and associated organised chrime gangs

So you can say that it is ok to break the laws, because they are unjust (at least by your views, and possibly by the majority of societies views)
The law might be unjust, indeed it might be doing more harm - but you have to weight that against having a precedant that any law considered unjust can be freely broken - rather than pushing for it to be altered - certainly every person can't break a law they consider unjust, and even with society as a whole doing it, it is a tricky area to consider

>> ..certainly every person can't break a law they consider unjust,
even with society as a whole doing it, it is a tricky area... <<

Yeah... the last few posts seem to reveal a consistent attitude
that 'public morality' (as a commonly agreed attitude) is different
from The Law (which is considered an externally imposed set of Rules
that have lost touch with the needs and wants of The People.)

This is indeed a tricky area. And I'm glad we've gotten to this
point in the discussion because we may be able to shed some light
on this rather modern attitude that Law is an inconsiderate and
arbitrary imposition contrary to the true feelings and beliefs and
actual behaviour of real human beings.

Put that way, it comes as a bit of a shock to someone my age.
Even if in part (re: marijuana laws) I have been a life-long
contributor to this new Us vs THE LAW philosophy.

The whole notion of the modern Outlaw and Gangsta comes out of
the ongoing seeming hypocrisy of the media culture that celebrates
individual self-indulgence with a permissive wink-wink nudge-nudge
in regards to certain 'minor' offenses.

This also applies to traffic violations, tax evasion, petty-theft
from large corporations and government agencies, profanity, libel,
and an assortment of many other 'petty' crimes.

How have we come to this?

We seem to have one 'agreed' morality among our peers and an
antipathy for the established Rule of Law as a whole.

The American experiment with alcohol Prohibition in the early 20th
century seems to have had a large part in establishing our current
attitudes.

To this we must add the 2oth century struggles of the Civil Rights
Movement, Women's Liberation and Gay Rights. All these were
examples of a need to change old Laws and attitudes through
assorted forms of civil disobedience and an ongoing 'combative'
front against what we now consider to be cruel, ignorant and
out-of-date statutes.

But I wonder if the overall result has been a loss of respect for
the Rule of Law in general and a reflexive, defensive hostility
toward those whose job it is to enforce the Laws.

Above, we have seen people say that murder and killing are likely
also in need of review so that criminal intent ought to be judged
by a popular consensus that will have precedence over the Law
(derived from Moses Ten Commandments) which says there is a
quintessential wrongness in causing a death.
(Philistines notwithstanding.)


~jwf~

Is it really a loss of respect though?... Wouldn't we have had to have had respect, in the first instant, in order to then 'lose' it
I'm sure people tried to drink booze, whilst prohibition was in place, just as homosexuality may have just occasionally occured, even wehn the lore said otherwise and simularly, with a lot of the drug laws, surely at some point, there was no lore, and people smoked/took/whatever the stuff was, as and when they saw fit, and then found one day, it was apparently illegal... A bit like, I guess, has now happened with smoking in the workplace etc, and indeed, the change in the UK on the legal age to purchase tobacco

It is a strange situation, regarding illecit drugs, whereby although they are illegal, it would be easier to get hold of them, near where I live, late at night/early hours, than it would be, to be able to buy something legal, like a packet of cigarettes or bottle of beer/spirit.... for although they're legal, they are seemingly more restrictive in their sale, in some ways, than that which is not legal

Heck I know people who just phone up for a 'home delivery' of their 'smoke', and I've yet to find a service doing that for beer or fags

"Are there any other laws that can be ignored on occasion?"

Define "can".

As in - do you mean "possible"? The answer is "duh".

Do you mean "justifiable". The answer is "yes", along with a list of justifications for various examples.

Do you mean "usable as mitigation that would get you off in court", again, that's a yes, but a much shorter list.

Example:

If you stole a handgun from someone, and handed it in to the police, you'd be unlikely to be prosecuted for the theft, I think.