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

[peruvianskys]

There's a difference between borrowing something and stealing it. I think the situation you described isn't exactly morally wrong, although there are certainly better ways of doing so. But really stealing something is wrong whether someone notices it or not. If I were to break into a rich man's house and make off with some plates, he may never notice, but that doesn't mean it isn't unethical.

Stealing something is wrong because it deprives another of their property, but it's also dangerous because it definitely gives rise to greed and disrespect in the mind. Although "right" and "wrong" are definitely vague terms, I would say that any moral system should have as its highest goal reducing harm and generating positive mental states such as respect and patience and non-greed and all those other things that an act of stealing destroys. In a strictly secular sense, it's wrong, but even in a purely moral sense, it's equally wrong because it leads to destructive mindstates.

 

[Jakub324]

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)?

Yes, it gets a bit more complicated if one person turns out to be a doctor, and another a mother of three or whatever, but you can't honestly say what you'd do in that situation unless you're in it, so it pays not to think about it.
All this time, I've been assuming this possession of Charles' was in plain view and easy reach, like on his desk at work or school, but I get the feeling you've been thinking it's on his bed or in his drawers? Obviously it gets much greyer if that's the case.
I'm going to ignore your accusation that I haven't answered my own question because I don't see how I haven't. If you'd like to elaborate, I'll be happy to do likewise.

 

[dvd_72]

Yes, it gets a bit more complicated if one person turns out to be a doctor, and another a mother of three or whatever, but you can't honestly say what you'd do in that situation unless you're in it, so it pays not to think about it.
All this time, I've been assuming this possession of Charles' was in plain view and easy reach, like on his desk at work or school, but I get the feeling you've been thinking it's on his bed or in his drawers? Obviously it gets much greyer if that's the case.
I'm going to ignore your accusation that I haven't answered my own question because I don't see how I haven't. If you'd like to elaborate, I'll be happy to do likewise.

I'm not of the belief that you should avoid thinking about things just because you can't be certain if the answer you come up with is what you will, in fact, do. At the least you'll get a better understanding of the ideals you would mean to uphold, or the way in which you think.

And now I see you addressing the issue of personal space. As for the question you haven't answered, I was reffering to the comment you brushed off earlier with "I'm talking about a hypothetical situation", which ticked me off a bit and may be why I might have come off as a little hostile. I apologise.

Even if Charles' possession was on his desk at work or school, it is still his desk and his personal space. If I leave something on my table at work or in my room, I'm going to expect people to respect my personal space and not touch my stuff. Naturally this may not hold true depending on the object in question and the person who means to borrow it or the situation (a friend borrowing a pencil, or a co-worker desperately needing to borrow a document to finish his own work etc), but generally ones personal space needs to be respected. Ease of reach has little to no bearing on that as I see it.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

Last time I checked this isn't Skyrim where I couldn't give a shit if I stole something and get called on it.

No, stealing is not ok. It doesn't matter if anyone notices you doing it or not, you still took something that wasn't yours. And that DVD example, doesn't matter. You should ask first, it's polite and she would be more willing to let you borrow more if you do that.

Personally, I'd be mad as hell if you did that to me.

EDIT: Your example isn't stealing, it's borrowing without permission. While it still isn't cool, it's not stealing, and that isn't cool.

 

[Jakub324]

Yes, it gets a bit more complicated if one person turns out to be a doctor, and another a mother of three or whatever, but you can't honestly say what you'd do in that situation unless you're in it, so it pays not to think about it.
All this time, I've been assuming this possession of Charles' was in plain view and easy reach, like on his desk at work or school, but I get the feeling you've been thinking it's on his bed or in his drawers? Obviously it gets much greyer if that's the case.
I'm going to ignore your accusation that I haven't answered my own question because I don't see how I haven't. If you'd like to elaborate, I'll be happy to do likewise.

I'm not of the belief that you should avoid thinking about things just because you can't be certain if the answer you come up with is what you will, in fact, do. At the least you'll get a better understanding of the ideals you would mean to uphold, or the way in which you think.

And now I see you addressing the issue of personal space. As for the question you haven't answered, I was reffering to the comment you brushed off earlier with "I'm talking about a hypothetical situation", which ticked me off a bit and may be why I might have come off as a little hostile. I apologise.

Even if Charles' possession was on his desk at work or school, it is still his desk and his personal space. If I leave something on my table at work or in my room, I'm going to expect people to respect my personal space and not touch my stuff. Naturally this may not hold true depending on the object in question and the person who means to borrow it or the situation (a friend borrowing a pencil, or a co-worker desperately needing to borrow a document to finish his own work etc), but generally ones personal space needs to be respected. Ease of reach has little to no bearing on that as I see it.

And therein the problem lies (Also, apology accepted. Please accept mine for arousing your anger in the first place).

In my opinion, ease of reach has everything to do with it, as I wouldn't need to go upstairs and rifle his underpants drawer to get what I wanted. If I left my desk unattended, and I came back and the person next to me had taken a dump on my keyboard, yeah, I'd be pretty angry, but if they were just borrowing my pencil sharpener? I'd wait for them to finish and then ask that it be passed back to me. If left my friend in my room and he started looking at what's on my bookshelf, I wouldn't mind. If, on the other hand, he was going through my drawers, looking through my photo albums and used tissues, I'd feel kind of violated. But there's a big difference between those examples. My personal space hasn't been violated unless he's actively searched things that aren't on display.

Oh, BOLLOCKS! The question I haven't answered! I waded through all three pages and couldn't find the offending post, so I'll answer as best I can. As I've said, I don't need to steal, (and, Mr dvd 72, I'm telling everybody this, not just you) so stop being angry and think rationally. Please, I'm getting really fucking sick of repeating myself to half a million people.

 

[TomLikesGuitar]

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.

Step 1: Get a real job... like a 9-5. (Don't lie and say you have one because I can tell that you don't. I thought the same way about stealing before I had a real job.)

Step 2: Acquire a large amount of savings and/or goods.

Step 3: Consider the amount of work you put in to acquiring said goods and ask yourself, "Would I be mad if someone just took some of this stuff I've worked my ass off for?"

 

[Jakub324]

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.

Step 1: Get a real job... like a 9-5. (Don't lie and say you have one because I can tell that you don't. I thought the same way about stealing before I had a real job.)

Step 2: Acquire a large amount of savings and/or goods.

Step 3: Consider the amount of work you put in to acquiring said goods and ask yourself, "Would I be mad if someone just took some of this stuff I've worked my ass off for?"

I think you've misunderstood: I'm not saying I'm willing to steal someone's mobile or PS3 or whatever, I'm talking about pencils and erasers, and even then with intention of putting it back before they know it's gone.

 

[dvd_72]

And therein the problem lies (Also, apology accepted. Please accept mine for arousing your anger in the first place).

In my opinion, ease of reach has everything to do with it, as I wouldn't need to go upstairs and rifle his underpants drawer to get what I wanted. If I left my desk unattended, and I came back and the person next to me had taken a dump on my keyboard, yeah, I'd be pretty angry, but if they were just borrowing my pencil sharpener? I'd wait for them to finish and then ask that it be passed back to me. If left my friend in my room and he started looking at what's on my bookshelf, I wouldn't mind. If, on the other hand, he was going through my drawers, looking through my photo albums and used tissues, I'd feel kind of violated. But there's a big difference between those examples. My personal space hasn't been violated unless he's actively searched things that aren't on display.

(Forget apologies. Misunderstandings and miscommunications are inevitable. As long as we've cleared that up, there's nothing to worry about )

What I'm seeing here is a difference in what we reffer to as personal space. This is inherently going to be different for each person, and for the people it concerns. The boundaries of your personal space are different for friends than strangers, for close friends and aquaintences, and friends and family. This is a place where we in all likelyness will never come to an agreement, and we already have a good understanding of our boundaries (or we should. if not, you need to do some thinking )

The point I'm making in reference to theft is that, no matter what, theft is wrong because it is an invasion of a persons privacy, or personal space, allong with the taking of an item you have little to no legitimate ownership of, without the intent of returning said object. these things are allways wrong weather or not the act of doing so is discovered. The way I see it, right and wrong are inherent values. Where these values lie is personal to some degree, and cultural to others, but they do not depend on if someone sees the act or not. Therefore, I conclude that, from where I stand, stealing is wrong even if nobody knows.

 

[Flailing Escapist]

But... you would know

 

[TomLikesGuitar]

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.

Step 1: Get a real job... like a 9-5. (Don't lie and say you have one because I can tell that you don't. I thought the same way about stealing before I had a real job.)

Step 2: Acquire a large amount of savings and/or goods.

Step 3: Consider the amount of work you put in to acquiring said goods and ask yourself, "Would I be mad if someone just took some of this stuff I've worked my ass off for?"

I think you've misunderstood: I'm not saying I'm willing to steal someone's mobile or PS3 or whatever, I'm talking about pencils and erasers, and even then with intention of putting it back before they know it's gone.

Oh.

Well then it is as others have said, it is just borrowing, not theft.

Pardon my language, but it really just sounds like an unnecessarily dick move in that case. If there is absolutely no way you can contact the owner and need and/or really want whatever it is, then sure, borrow it so long as you can afford to replace it if it breaks. But if there is anyway you can ask them, you probably should just do that. I doubt anyone will say "No, you can't use my eraser." but if they do, it's really their choice and you should just get your own damn eraser.

 

[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.

The strong eat the weak.

The meek shall inherit the earth.

See, I can quote nonsensical drivel too. And mine means the exact opposite.

And amorality isn't strength. Hell, it is anything but strength. It is a true display of how pathetic one really is.

If you're going to be evil, at least have the class to be lawful evil.

 

[Berlioz]

Ever since I was a child, when, for example, I was absolutely addicted to Magic the Gathering cards, every time I walked into a store, I wanted to just grab every pack and leave with them. What went on in my mind was "I can't, because I'll be punished in some way, hurt, humiliated, etc." I was never able to create the thought of "it's morally wrong," and I still don't know why.

To this day, I remain the same. I do realize the possible monstrosity of this mindset, but how can I explain how innocent and OBVIOUS it feels? It's like explaining the feeling of looking at a word as someone who can't read to someone who already can.

I have realized how awful it may sound to everyone around me, but I have to be honest with myself. I've realized that the only thing that stops me from committing illegalities is the repercussion, or the possibility of one.

Now, why am I not some shady creep doing all sorts of crimes? Well... I have thought about that too, and I realized that another serious defect in me might exist to stop this one from having negative consequences: I don't trust anyone completely.

Since I cannot trust human beings completely, and since so far no supernatural or super-human entity has appeared in front of me, I am unable to believe any promise of impunity over a criminal act. It's not some "I'll be there at 11 sharp" promise. It's a serious promise that would guarantee that if I did act X, I would be completely out of harm's way. There's no way I can believe that, for I am too paranoid. Someone else could have been listening, or would just find out later and bring suffering on me, or the person themselves can be trying to set me up.

If some incredibly superior being that would be able to captivate my entire trust would somehow appear and promise me that I would escape with impunity from an illegal act I would feel the desire to commit, I would accept.

Flame on...

 

[KiloFox]

i quote an unknown source on this... i have no idea who said it first but... "it's only illegal if you get caught

 

[OniaPL]

And amorality isn't strength. Hell, it is anything but strength. It is a true display of how pathetic one really is.

Is amorality a strength? No, it's more like an advantage when majority of the population have been convinced to follow arbitrary definitions of good and evil. There is no "good" or "evil". These things are taught to us by society, and used to control us. If I would be offered the opportunity to get 100 dollars or save hundred lives of people I do not know, I'd instantly take the cash. According to our society, that would be evil or amoral. Where's the sense in that? Those people mean nothing tó me, when 100 dollars can buy me something.

 

[Laser Priest]

And amorality isn't strength. Hell, it is anything but strength. It is a true display of how pathetic one really is.

Is amorality a strength? No, it's more like an advantage when majority of the population have been convinced to follow arbitrary definitions of good and evil. There is no "good" or "evil". These things are taught to us by society, and used to control us. If I would be offered the opportunity to get 100 dollars or save hundred lives of people I do not know, I'd instantly take the cash. According to our society, that would be evil or amoral. Where's the sense in that? Those people mean nothing tó me, when 100 dollars can buy me something.

I really couldn't care less about what you'd do. Please don't talk to me, you disturbing creature.

 

[Auron225]

No it isn't. Unless you know they aren't going to miss it at all, then why not just ask them if you can borrow it or even keep it? And its not ok to take something even if you intend to eventually give it back. Its at the very least being a royal prick to nick something from someone and give it back later saying "Thanks for letting me borrow that!". The response is always "I didn't lend it to you, you stole it". To borrow something, you need the consent of the individual it belongs to.

What, 20 minutes counts as eventually now? And they won't miss it in that time, or I wouldn't do it. I'm not some amoral tosser, I just believe that if it only affects one person, and nobody else would ever know, it's not a bad thing. Anyway, at least I have the decency to make sure it finds it's way back before it's owner notices it's absence. My sister has spent significant portions of her life borrowing my stuff for days, or even weeks at a time, or even until I ask to have it back.

It counts as eventually if they dont know when they'll have it back. 20 minutes itself is ok but if it was law that its fine to take something for a short period of time, the definition of "a short period of time" would get abused. And yes it is decent of you to give it back before the owner notices its gone but how can you guantee you'll always succeed at doing that? Im saying its annoying when you notice something of yours is gone and only find out later that someone borrowed it without permission. If everyone did this, people would fail at getting stuff they borrowed back the owners before they notice everyday.

And in my opinion its not right that she does that. It doesn't annoy you at all that she borrows your stuff and you'll only get it back when you have to ask her for it back?

Also, Im not calling you an amoral tosser - Im stretching the rules of what you call ok because no matter what rules are made in life, people will push them. Im pointing out what many people will do if it was deemed ok to do this.

I see you still don't understand: assume they never knew it was taken. The example assumes the owner is not around to be asked, and so as long as it was put back where it had been before it was used, there would be no reason to suspect anything. And yes, I can guarantee that I can get it back before it's absence is noted. Why? It never leaves the room.

You're missing the point. This particular case (a DVD from your sister) is fine - if you posted a thread saying "I borrowed a DVD from my sister", you wouldnt be getting opposition, just messages asking why you posted a thread about it. But you are saying your general opinion about this is "If they don't notice it's gone, then it's not wrong of me to take it" which is what everyone here is disagreeing with. You can apply that to your sister and a DVD of hers that isnt even leaving the room, thats ok. But you cant apply that to your neighbour and his car thats going to Canada. Your logic only works if its family or friends you're very close to, and you're certain its something they wont be needing in the immediate future. Outside these conditions, I wholeheartedly disagree with you that its ok to take something and try to put it back before they notice its gone.

 

[The Funslinger]

I'm going to go for the Kantian explanation here. Imagine you stole something.

Now imagine if everyone was stealing, all the time, the concept of private property would no longer exist and it would break down.

As for "borrowing", let's imagine you take something from someone else and plan to just put it back later. Now imagine everyone did that all the time. Reasonably, the thing you "borrowed" could be "borrowed" by someone else, leaving you unable to put it back where it was originally.

Not that I believe in Kantian ethics, but it's just relevant.

 

[Gralian]

Trying to work out if the OP is just being sensationalist or deliberately contentious.

...

Anyway, it's all a matter of personal morality. For some people, they don't have particularly strong morals. Not just about stealing, but about things in general. For them morality only stretches as far as "how far can i get away with something without getting caught" rather than "how will this affect another individual and is what i am doing morally wrong in the grand scheme of things". There is often a stereotype that religion is used to 'scare' people into morality, whereas atheists may be more willing to shrug off that feeling that whatever they're doing is wrong even if no-one sees it because there isn't some Big Brother-esque eye on them all the time. But the fact of the matter is that it's all just down to how comfortable someone is with doing something morally reprehensible. It's not about people finding out about it, it's about whether they can live with themselves with the knowledge of what they've done. For some people they won't even bat an eyelash. For others it'll knaw at them like the guilty heart beating under the floorboards. Personally? I can't do something morally and objectively wrong because i have too much of a guilty conscience, so no, it's not ok to steal if nobody knows. Even if it's just "borrowing" as you so kindly put it. The law is the law, and the law is that you must never deprive someone of their possessions even if you return it and they are ignorant of the fact.