"It's OK to steal if nobody knows."

[Captain Booyah]

Stealing, by definiton, is taking something that is not yours, and as of such, a morally indecent act. Whether you get caught or not afterwards is irrelevant. Saying "It's OK to steal if nobody knows" is a bit like saying it was OK when you opened fire on a group of people that one time, because nobody was actually injured. It's kind of besides the point.

And in terms of "nobody being affected", I'd personally still be a little annoyed if somebody "borrowed" something of mine without asking first, even if they put it back later. It's my stuff, not yours. The only exception to this is if someone knows me well enough to know that I won't care, i.e. what's mine is yours. For anybody else: back the fuck off, Charlie.

 

[Guardian of Nekops]

This is something I believe in. If you take something of someone else's, it clearly hasn't affected them.
What do you think?

EDIT: I never said I do steal; I don't need to. For example: Say I have some friends coming over, and we want to watch a film. Maybe my sister, who is out for a few days, has a DVD we all like, and I go into her room and take it, then we watch it, then I put it back before she notices it's missing. She hasn't been looking for it. It's being borrowed hasn't affected her at all. See? Oh, and by nobody knowing, I mean nobody being affected.

Borrowing without permission is different from stealing. It's still not legal, probably, and you'll get in some major trouble if you're caught doing it, and WAY too often "borrowing" turns into theft when you lose the item or money in question and your get-rich-quick scheme doesn't work out, but theoretically if you get the DVD back in time you can get away with it.

Nowadays, the makers of that DVD are likely to accuse you of stealing from THEM, but I think that's just a reflex for them at this point.

However, I have a better example where your rule sort of holds up, and that's "stealing" things that have been abandoned. I'm still a poor college kid, so a fair bit of my furniture was picked up from the curb near the dumpster of my apartment complex. It's made entirely of varnished wood, so it's easy to clean, it isn't even broken, and since someone already expected it to be taken from them (by the garbage truck) I do them no harm by aquiring it before hand.

However, the important bit is that they ceded their rights to have it by putting it on the curb. It's not stealing because it doesn't belong to them any more, it's been discarded. This same principle is often applied online to old intellectual property which, though still technically owned, has not been sold by those who hold the rights for years... called "abandoned software." With information, though, this is at best a gray area, because old intellectual property can indeed be sold again... see Chrono Trigger's newish release on the DS.

As someone who doesn't know the future, you don't know what the consequences of your actions will be. This is why basing your concept of morality on what you think will happen is a bit of a slippery slope... unless you want to be held responsible for completely unforseeable accidents, you should probably base your idea of right and wrong on what you do, rather than rationalizing it with possible consequences.

 

[dvd_72]

EDIT: I never said I do steal; I don't need to. For example: Say I have some friends coming over, and we want to watch a film. Maybe my sister, who is out for a few days, has a DVD we all like, and I go into her room and take it, then we watch it, then I put it back before she notices it's missing. She hasn't been looking for it. It's being borrowed hasn't affected her at all. See? Oh, and by nobody knowing, I mean nobody being affected.

You do realise that was borrowing right? Sure, it's borrowing without express permission, but it's not exactly the same as stealing. You violated your sisters privacy, but that's a whole other topic.

Hence, you've still failed to give me a example where stealing is OK, and therefore I'm going to maintain the thought that stealing is wrong in every situation. Justifiable perhaps, sometimes forgiveable yes, but still always inherently wrong.

Edit: Here's a question for you all. If I "borrow" something without permission from someone (let's call them Charles for now), and then return it in better condition then when I took it, have I wronged Charles, or done him a favor?
I would say I've done something wrong, but that would be in more of a grey area no? Basically taking payment for a service without them agreeing to a service.... which I guess is wrong overall.

 

[imnot]

No, no it is not.
However if it is something cool (like a nuke) and no one notices you stole it, than you deserve a reward just for being that good at stealing!
Then you get arrested. Because you stole a nuke.
And thats terrible.

 

[MrLlamaLlama]

Two things have made me outright lol so far in this thread, and I'm only on page one. The first was 'they may eventually find out' - swing and a miss there considering the thread title. The second was whoever quoted UK legislation / law. Because something is illegal doesn't make it immoral. 98% sure I'd get arrested for riding a pygmy zebra through Basildon shouting 'Mice are the future!' at random passers by. Doesn't make it immoral.

IMO if someone's in the position to have something stolen from them, and they never notice it's missing then they live a pretty sheltered life anyway. Obviously it's relative to your society / living conditions.

 

[robert022614]

I will agree only if you put a basket on their head first.

 

[jboking]

I've said this a few times: I'm talking about if they would never know, and you could guarantee it. Otherwise it's almost worthless as a hypothetical exercise.

They would never know you stole it? That really doesn't matter.

Here is how I view it. Hypothetical situation: The item you are using belongs to someone else, you have no claim to it yet you feel you deserve/need it, so you took it. You think it is okay because they won't know. My response: A) You still stole something, as Kant would say, if you can't will the intent of the action into universal law, it should not be morally acceptable. B) You have the intellect of an entitled child. C) It is impossible to know that someone else would NEVER find out.

Here is a better idea: If you think they would be okay with it, just ask for the item. If they aren't in the vicinity, wait for them to come back. If it is something they truly could live without, chances are they'll oblige. If they wouldn't be okay with it, then get one of your own.

 

[Zen Toombs]

If stealing is something that is morally wrong, it is wrong regardless of the presence of others.
If stealing is not wrong, it is not wrong regardless of the presence of others.
If nothing is forbidden so long as you aren't caught, then it would be okay to steal as long as none know you did it.

So, in short, this:

In Skyrim, yes. In real life, no.

 

[Jakub324]

EDIT: I never said I do steal; I don't need to. For example: Say I have some friends coming over, and we want to watch a film. Maybe my sister, who is out for a few days, has a DVD we all like, and I go into her room and take it, then we watch it, then I put it back before she notices it's missing. She hasn't been looking for it. It's being borrowed hasn't affected her at all. See? Oh, and by nobody knowing, I mean nobody being affected.

You do realise that was borrowing right? Sure, it's borrowing without express permission, but it's not exactly the same as stealing. You violated your sisters privacy, but that's a whole other topic.

Hence, you've still failed to give me a example where stealing is OK, and therefore I'm going to maintain the thought that stealing is wrong in every situation. Justifiable perhaps, sometimes forgiveable yes, but still always inherently wrong.

Edit: Here's a question for you all. If I "borrow" something without permission from someone (let's call them Charles for now), and then return it in better condition then when I took it, have I wronged Charles, or done him a favor?
I would say I've done something wrong, but that would be in more of a grey area no? Basically taking payment for a service without them agreeing to a service.... which I guess is wrong overall.

One day, I'll stop having to explain this... *wistful sigh*. That situation was 100% hypothetical. And as for your example, you did a very small amount of wrong, but more good. The improved condition of whatever you borrowed has, in some small way, improved his life as a whole. No real grey are, no real dilemma.

 

[Emperor Nat]

Regardless of whether they care or notice or not, taking someone's property without their consent is wrong.

The only exceptions are when it is literally the only option available - steal all the bread you want from Tescos if it will feed your family.

But you don't have a right to someone else's property.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

If it was physically there and its loss has to be compensated for, no, probably not.

If it wasn't there to begin with, its quantity is uncountable (and thus has no need to be replaced), or it wouldn't be missed when it's gone, maybe.

As with all things, this is not an open and shut case.

 

[Laser Priest]

This is something I believe in. If you take something of someone else's, it clearly hasn't affected them.
What do you think?

EDIT: I never said I do steal; I don't need to. For example: Say I have some friends coming over, and we want to watch a film. Maybe my sister, who is out for a few days, has a DVD we all like, and I go into her room and take it, then we watch it, then I put it back before she notices it's missing. She hasn't been looking for it. It's being borrowed hasn't affected her at all. See? Oh, and by nobody knowing, I mean nobody being affected.

That's not stealing. That's use without permission. Still risky, though. There's always the potential to fuck something up horribly.

Stealing is when you take without permission and without intent to return. And yeah, that's generally morally objectionable.

 

[Laser Priest]

A crime is a crime only if you get caught.

Keep that in mind when people you know are robbed and/or murdered.

Getting caught or not, you're still doing what is generally frowned upon by anyone capable of humanity.

 

[C2Ultima]

Of course it's ok to steal if nobody knows. It's also ok to torture and murder people as long as no one knows, right?

To expand on my sarcastic comment, just having no one realize that you took something does not excuse it, at least not morally. You may not have a practical problem, but you've still stolen.

 

[dvd_72]

One day, I'll stop having to explain this... *wistful sigh*. That situation was 100% hypothetical. And as for your example, you did a very small amount of wrong, but more good. The improved condition of whatever you borrowed has, in some small way, improved his life as a whole. No real grey are, no real dilemma.

I'm sorry, but the situation being hypothetical doesn't change how relevant my answer is. I gave you a response to a hypothetical situation.

As for there not being a dilemma, you still not only invaded their privacy, but also took away their ability to chose. Unless you also think killing one person to save another is no dilemma because you still saved a life or something. You can't ignore the morally wrong things someone does just because they do some morally right things at the same time. That's when a situation becomes grey, or a mixture of black and white.

 

[JasonKaotic]

Well, no. It doesn't belong to you. And you don't know whether they'll know if you took it.

Using that logic, it's okay to kill someone if no-one realizes they're dead.

 

[General Vengeance]

If you have to ask if it's okay to steal or not. Your parents deserve a good ol' fashioned beating. Then again, most Governments have been doing it since their conceptions.

 

[Jakub324]

One day, I'll stop having to explain this... *wistful sigh*. That situation was 100% hypothetical. And as for your example, you did a very small amount of wrong, but more good. The improved condition of whatever you borrowed has, in some small way, improved his life as a whole. No real grey are, no real dilemma.

I'm sorry, but the situation being hypothetical doesn't change how relevant my answer is. I gave you a response to a hypothetical situation.

As for there not being a dilemma, you still not only invaded their privacy, but also took away their ability to chose. Unless you also think killing one person to save another is no dilemma because you still saved a life or something. You can't ignore the morally wrong things someone does just because they do some morally right things at the same time. That's when a situation becomes grey, or a mixture of black and white.

If you kill two people to save eight, you have done more good than bad, and while you're hardly Jesus, what you did was right. So no, you can't ignore it, but in your example, the good eclipses the bad, and why wouldn't he want his possessions to be better? That's like me curing someone's kid of cancer without their knowledge, and them yelling at me for it.

I believe you have to reduce dilemmas to facts and figures wherever possible or you end up letting eight die to save two, which would be the wrong thing to do. Yes, it's messy and unpleasant, but at least more people survive. It sounds cold and callous, but those are two things I'd rather be than the man who lets people die because he can't make the right choice.

 

[OniaPL]

A crime is a crime only if you get caught.

Keep that in mind when people you know are robbed and/or murdered.

Getting caught or not, you're still doing what is generally frowned upon by anyone capable of humanity.

The strong eat the weak.

 

[dvd_72]

If you kill two people to save eight, you have done more good than bad, and while you're hardly Jesus, what you did was right. So no, you can't ignore it, but in your example, the good eclipses the bad, and why wouldn't he want his possessions to be better? That's like me curing someone's kid of cancer without their knowledge, and them yelling at me for it.

I believe you have to reduce dilemmas to facts and figures wherever possible or you end up letting eight die to save two, which would be the wrong thing to do. Yes, it's messy and unpleasant, but at least more people survive. It sounds cold and callous, but those are two things I'd rather be than the man who lets people die because he can't make the right choice.

Oh sure, saving more lives than you sacrifice is obviously good, but that's because one life has the same value as another. What I said was one life for another, single, life. A completely different scenario.

As for why someone wouldn't want his possessions to be better? Perhaps he'd rather keep them the same and not feel like his privacy has been invaded, and that you don't respect his personal space. Seriously, how often am I going to have to make that point before you respond to it instead of ignoring it (Like you've done to the answer to your hypothetical situation might I add)?