It's not because they're evil or they deserve it, it just because the impact on them tends to be lesser.L. Declis said:
Poll: Do you think stealing from the poor is worst than stealing from the rich?
- Thread starter Lufia Erim
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This is kind of like asking if it's morally better to punch a tough guy over a punching a wimp. They're both morally wrong, but at least the tough guy can take it.
The problem is, most thieves don't target people based on their wealth or social standing or whatever. MOST thieves target... targets. As in, people who are vulnerable. Theft is often a crime of opportunity; the only reason you hear about the big heists stealing millions is because they are very rare and not generally successful. A desperate guy who happens to get access to your bank account probably won't be thinking "Aw man, $400, not worth my time." He'll be thinking "I have my own bills to pay and this chump left their password out in the open, they basically deserve to have their money stolen and it might as well be by me."
The problem is, most thieves don't target people based on their wealth or social standing or whatever. MOST thieves target... targets. As in, people who are vulnerable. Theft is often a crime of opportunity; the only reason you hear about the big heists stealing millions is because they are very rare and not generally successful. A desperate guy who happens to get access to your bank account probably won't be thinking "Aw man, $400, not worth my time." He'll be thinking "I have my own bills to pay and this chump left their password out in the open, they basically deserve to have their money stolen and it might as well be by me."
Please explain how robbing 10 bucks from a guy that has 100 causes the same damage as stealing 100000 that has 1M.inu-kun said:
Stealing from the poor is worse, and not necessarily because they have less money. Those that are filthy rich generally don't even have to worry about money in the same way a poor person does. Money at that point is a number in a bank account that they could not possibly spend in a lifetime unless they were buying the most ridiculous shit. With poor people, they have to budget. Not for their companies, for their own living expenses.
I'm not sure how stealing $10 from Bill Gates and stealing $10 from a homeless man can be considered just as bad.
This discussion actually reminds me a lot of discussions on tax.
I'm not sure how stealing $10 from Bill Gates and stealing $10 from a homeless man can be considered just as bad.
This discussion actually reminds me a lot of discussions on tax.
Legally it's equal. Though stealing from the rich man will end worse for you if you get caught because he will have better lawyers.
Morally stealing from the poor is worse, because the effect it will have on them will be worse. Stealing 10k from a poor man could have him living in street starving. Whilst stealing 10k from a rich man could prevent him from buying a new car or going on holiday.
No idea were the poor man got 10k from ... but fuck it, it's hypothetical.
Morally stealing from the poor is worse, because the effect it will have on them will be worse. Stealing 10k from a poor man could have him living in street starving. Whilst stealing 10k from a rich man could prevent him from buying a new car or going on holiday.
No idea were the poor man got 10k from ... but fuck it, it's hypothetical.
Well it depends.
Stealing heart medication from a rich person is probably worse than stealing a paperclip from a poor person.
Still, my family was quite poor when I was growing up and we still all thought stealing was generally bad (unless you have no other choice etc).
In general, it's probably not as bad to steal from the rich as it is from the poor, due to the thinking that it's better to take from someone with excess than someone who already doesn't have enough.
But stealing still is not very nice.
Stealing heart medication from a rich person is probably worse than stealing a paperclip from a poor person.
Still, my family was quite poor when I was growing up and we still all thought stealing was generally bad (unless you have no other choice etc).
In general, it's probably not as bad to steal from the rich as it is from the poor, due to the thinking that it's better to take from someone with excess than someone who already doesn't have enough.
But stealing still is not very nice.
Are you saying it has to be money that's been stolen? What if you stole an item of sentimental value from a rich and poor person? Would you still say it's less wrong to steal from the rich person?
I'm of the opinion that it's equally bad. Everyone who is answering that it is worse to steal from the poor is already creating a context and situation in their minds to try and push the answer to one end of the scale. The OP didn't ask whether it is worse to steal £100 from person A, who has £100, or person B, who has £1000000. They just asked if it was worse to steal in general.
Edit: I realise that the OP did mention their bank account, so I can see why people would focus on the theft of money.
I'm of the opinion that it's equally bad. Everyone who is answering that it is worse to steal from the poor is already creating a context and situation in their minds to try and push the answer to one end of the scale. The OP didn't ask whether it is worse to steal £100 from person A, who has £100, or person B, who has £1000000. They just asked if it was worse to steal in general.
Edit: I realise that the OP did mention their bank account, so I can see why people would focus on the theft of money.
What if that rich man is an employer who now, because of the robbery, can't afford to pay all his employees? Depending on how much you take, You might have hurt a dozen poor people by robbing that rich man.
Because the guy with 1M isn't paying 10'000x more for everything else.sonofliber said:
I mean, stealing from the first guy leaves him with $90. Stealing from the second guy leaves him with $900'000. Unless the second guy can't find a sandwich that costs less than $5000, there's some flex in that budget.
EDIT: Oh, look at that, I did misread that. My bad, sorry.
That's what insurance or credit is for. Which, incidentally, the rich man is more likely to have access to than the poor man.Fieldy409 said:
I'd say stealing any given amount from the poor is "worse" if only because you could seriously jeopardize their situation, get them thrown out of their home, etc.
If we're talking two people where stealing $20 from them will do nothing more than upset them for a day, then it's not better or worse because one is richer than the other.
If we're talking two people where stealing $20 from them will do nothing more than upset them for a day, then it's not better or worse because one is richer than the other.
I believe the two of you here are actually agreeing on your sentiment given that sonofliber is questioning someone who stated that the two are the same. Admittedly the wording is a little confusing.altnameJag said:
On topic: Worse stealing from the poor, morally at least. Its all down to impact. Stealing from the rich is likely to leave them put out and inconvenienced. Stealing from the poor is likely to destroy their life. If you steal a rich person's car then they go out and buy a new car. If you steal a poor person's car suddenly they don't have a car and can no longer get to work, lose their job and end up on the dole.
Even scaling it doesn't work. If you have a person with ten pounds and a person with a million pounds and take away half of their money the person who had a million pounds is likely to be annoyed but isn't going to starve to death as a result, whereas the person who only had ten might only be able to afford half a week's worth of food instead of a full week.
I see stealing from anyone is bad regardless of their social class. But this begs the question, why and what would a thief steal from the poor since the poor really do not have munch.
Funny how much equality is beaten about these days, and on this board, and yet that poll....
It's equally bad both legally and morally. Simply because someone has more property than someone else doesn't make their possessions somehow less valuable.
To put it another way, being property, would it be less horrible to steal/kill a wealthy persons pet as oppose to a poor ones? Does the wealth disparity make the emotional attachment the owner and pet have for one another less in people's eyes?
To turn this on it's head - it's considered pretty much universally morally excusable for the poor to steal to provide for themselves essential needs like food and water, but if a rich person were thrust into a scenario where they had to do the same thing and their wealth and elevated social status were of no use, would it be inherently worse for them to do the same because they own more?
It's equally bad both legally and morally. Simply because someone has more property than someone else doesn't make their possessions somehow less valuable.
To put it another way, being property, would it be less horrible to steal/kill a wealthy persons pet as oppose to a poor ones? Does the wealth disparity make the emotional attachment the owner and pet have for one another less in people's eyes?
Possibly safer target. Less reward but less risk. If a poor person lives in a community where going to the police is stigmatized or it's viewed that the police simply won't help then they can push harder and be bolder.Timeless Lavender said:
To turn this on it's head - it's considered pretty much universally morally excusable for the poor to steal to provide for themselves essential needs like food and water, but if a rich person were thrust into a scenario where they had to do the same thing and their wealth and elevated social status were of no use, would it be inherently worse for them to do the same because they own more?
In reply to JohnZ117
For some reason, my ability to quote people is broken.
At any rate, according to the religious upbringing I had as a youth, the poor person has donated more.
Mark 12:41-44
Taking a seat opposite the treasury, he observed the crowd putting money into the collection box. Many of the wealthy put in sizable amounts; but one poor widow came and put in two small copper coins worth a few cents. He called his disciples over and told them: "I want you to observe that this poor widow contributed more than all the others who donated to the treasury. They gave from their surplus wealth, but she gave from her want, all that she had to live on."
More directly, it ties back to the same sense of proportion that lies in the idea of theft from the poor or the rich: what portion of the means of the individuals is involved. Donation without real sacrifice is pretty meaningless from my personal point of view.
For some reason, my ability to quote people is broken.
At any rate, according to the religious upbringing I had as a youth, the poor person has donated more.
Mark 12:41-44
Taking a seat opposite the treasury, he observed the crowd putting money into the collection box. Many of the wealthy put in sizable amounts; but one poor widow came and put in two small copper coins worth a few cents. He called his disciples over and told them: "I want you to observe that this poor widow contributed more than all the others who donated to the treasury. They gave from their surplus wealth, but she gave from her want, all that she had to live on."
More directly, it ties back to the same sense of proportion that lies in the idea of theft from the poor or the rich: what portion of the means of the individuals is involved. Donation without real sacrifice is pretty meaningless from my personal point of view.
It's better to steal from the rich because they have so much stuff that they're less likely to notice
You obviously do not understand why the rich remain rich. They are pretty much universally by habit misers that squeeze and keep track of every penny they have.visiblenoise said:
Also, consider if you were rich and you faced this scenario, would you somehow feel less violated and upset over having your things stolen and society looking down their nose at you and saying you're somehow deserving of less because of how much you own?
And that comes down to agency, not coercion.davidmc1158 said:
Were a rich person to give a proportional sacrifice for charity it wouldn't somehow be less of a good because he was rich.