A common philosophical problem that has raised many questions is the issue of whether it is justifiable or not to steal. For an object to be considered stolen it must be worth value to another person, taken without consent, and taken without anything in return. From a merely legal perspective, theft is crime that is punishable because it is a criminal offense and is against the civic and natural law. From a moral perspective, Aristotle and Locke would both argue stealing is not permissible because it is not generous, virtuous or good. A thief is driven to provide for himself from other sources, which makes him wasteful. Thus, theft should not be permitted nor be considered an acceptable action, only with the exception of severe starvation. …show more content…
If one were to live life as a virtuous person would, Aristotle would argue it is immoral to steal, even if it is for a good reason. This is because theft does not achieve happiness, generosity or fulfill the human good. According to Aristotle, the human good comes to be disclosed as a being-at-work of the soul in accordance with virtue (Aristotle, 1098a16). In other words, one must work hard and practice what they intend to achieve in order to be successful. Theft skips the step of working hard. Thus, stealing is a form of laziness that someone may resort to who does not want to put in the work to rightfully obtain something with value. Once success has been achieved, one can fulfill happiness. By stealing, one is not in a state of being-at-work because they are participating in an action that is morally wrong. If doing good is virtuous and stealing is wrong, stealing therefore, cannot be virtuous and a happy person does not steal. Additionally, Aristotle’s discussion of generosity makes a thief less virtuous and good. The person who will use wealth best is the one who has the virtue that is connected with money, and this is a generous person (Aristotle, 1120a10). A thief does not use wealth best because he chooses to not pay for what he steals, thus a thief is not a generous person. It is more characteristic of virtue to act well than to be acted upon well, and to do beautiful things rather than shameful ones (Aristotle, 1120a15). Therefore, stealing is a shameful act because Aristotle says it is not a beautiful thing. So a thief is not virtuous, not good and not generous. A thief is a wasteful person who takes from where they ought not to (Aristotle, 1120a30). This is important because people who are generous, do good and are virtuous, can provide for themselves and not depend on others’ labor. Aristotle’s claim about the ultimate good and happiness support that stealing is not acceptable, even if it is for a good reason, because stealing is an action through which a human is not exercising his fullest potential to gain something, thus theft is an intolerable behavior. John Locke had similar ideas to Aristotle regarding the state of being at work with oneself.
Locke proposed a theory about property and labor that stated when an individual adds his own labor, to a good or object, that good becomes his property because it was acquired with his labor (Locke, Chapter V, Section 28). This theory is justified as a natural right. With that said, Locke would not approve of stealing. For example, when a man puts in labor to grow apples, he owns the apples; they are his property. Locke would say it is up to the man, “the owner” of the apples, to decide whether he can sell his apples for something in return such as money. But, if someone were to steal an apple and place nothing in return, Locke would say it is unacceptable to steal a good that was the labor and property of someone else without paying for it. The stolen good would not belong to the thief because they did not put labor into producing it. Thus, there is no justified reason to steal the property that belongs to someone else. Locke and Aristotle’s theories together strengthen the philosophical problem at hand: it is not permissible to steal, even if it is for a good …show more content…
reason. Aside from the moral perspective of Aristotle and Locke, stealing is not okay or justified from a legal perspective as well.
First of all, it is against both the civic and natural law. In civic law, theft is a criminal offense that goes against the set of laws that the citizens of the nation have agreed to live by in a democracy. Although it may be self-evident, in natural law it is wrong to steal because it disturbs personal and community relations. In this sense, stealing is not just wrong; it is against custom, statutory law and divine command. Stealing is against custom because through tradition it has been taught from parent to child as wrongdoing. With regard to divine command, in Catholicism, for example, theft is against the Ten Commandments. While an individual may not always get caught when they steal, it should be obvious enough that if there is a law and possible long-term punishment at stake, one should not risk it all just to steal. It is justifiable to punish someone who steals because they are in essence going against Locke’s principle by taking property that does not belong to them without compensation, and of course going against the civic law. The Social Contract also supports this argument, which is defined as “the mutual transferring of right” in which one gives up some individual liberty in exchange for some common security (Locke). Under the Social Contract everyone gives up the right to steal: I give up my natural right to steal because you
give up the right to steal. Take the apple example, that if a man stole an apple and the owner noticed it is acceptable for the owner to accuse the thief and send him to jail. This is justified under the Social Contract because the thief chose to steal and the farmer didn’t. The thief deserves to be punished because he took advantage of someone else’s property. Therefore, he deserves to get his common security taken away and to be sent to jail. No matter what the case, according to the civic and natural law, stealing is unacceptable and should always be looked down upon by society. However, under the circumstance of dire starvation, it is acceptable to steal food if one’s life is threatened because it is the only justifiable reason. It is justified because the value of an individual’s life is worth more than the value of just a few apples. This exception does not mean poor people are permitted to steal because they cannot afford food to survive, and it also does not permit a hungry individual to steal excessively and often. In both cases, one must look toward bettering oneself before resorting to stealing. In any regard, this exception does not exempt an individual from punishment if he is caught. “Oh, but I was starving to death!” is no excuse to get someone out of punishment. A person who commits the crime should be aware of and understand the possible consequences and punishments that can result from illegal actions. Legally, there is no condition under any circumstance where an individual can steal and not get punished. The law is the law and as a citizen everyone accepts and abides by the laws in exchange for receiving rights and liberties. However, in Aristotle’s discussion about equity (Aristotle, 1137b10), meaning decency, his claim is that the law does not make exceptions, but sometimes equity is better than the law. Whenever the law speaks universally, what turns out in this case lies outside the thing said universally, then it is right, insofar as the lawmaker leaves something out and errs by speaking simply, to set straight the thing left out, which ever the lawmaker himself would say if he were there, and which, if he had known, he would have put in the law (Aristotle, 1137b20). A mouthful I know! Aristotle is basically saying that there are certain cases where the error does not lie in the law or lawmaker, but in the circumstance of a certain situation. For example, starving to death is not outlined in the law, but equity replaces the law in this case because if a lawmaker were in the situation, he would most likely be lenient and agree not to press charges if a man were to steal such a thing as an apple. There will always be reparations for illegal actions, but it is permissible to steal under the life-or-death situation to save oneself from death because it is equitable. Ultimately, stealing is not acceptable under both a moral and legal standpoint. Should it be the case that an individual is starving and has to resort to steal food for survival, then stealing is justified under equity, but that individual still deserves proper punishment if decided that his actions were too harsh. For the sake of agreeing with Aristotle and Locke, it is not permissible to steal because it is not generous, virtuous, and it does not exercise being-at-work with oneself nor is it outlined under the Social Contract, civic or natural law. Theft is an excuse for laziness and a thief is a wasteful person. In order to obtain what one desires, one must do so in a legal manner, one must put effort into rightfully acquiring a good and one must never resort to stealing.
Historically, theft has been addressed by cultures since biblical times. Theft, a type of fraud, is the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another without violence. Theft differs from robbery and burglary. Robbery is a crime committed involving theft and violence. Burglary is entry into a building illegally with the intent of committing a crime. A thief that plays an important role in The Inferno is Vanni Fucci. Vanni Fucci is known for stealing holy objects from the church in Tuscany. During the time period of Dante’s Inferno, taking objects from the church was a costly sin. His punishment entails him being bit by a snake, turned into ashes, and restoring his human form. His crime is classified under a theft, as it did not involve violence.
John Locke is a seventeenth century philosopher who believed that government should be based around the people rather than the power of one person. Equality and property were two factors that Locke considered to be the key to a great society. Locke begins his writings with a discussion on individual property and how each man body is his own property. This leads Locke into the argument that man can obtain property only by using his own labor. an example Locke gives is the picking of an apple. The apple is the property of the man who used his labor to pick it. He goes on to say “A person may only acquire as many things in this way as he or she can reasonably use to their advantage”. With the discussion of property Locke leads into the discussion of trade and monetary value stating that it is natural of man to w...
Consequently, Saroyan’s action of taking pears could be viewed as moral or immoral given certain circumstances. At the age of six, Saroyan was categorized as a thief for taking five pears from a tree. His argument, although a spiked fence protected the pear tree, is “some branches grew beyond the fence.'; This, to Saroyan, makes whatever is on the exposed branches public property. With Didion’s argument of morality, Saroyan is only guilty of immorality if his action hurt another individual/individuals. Thus, two seemingly obvious circumstances will be examined being as impartial as possible.
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
According to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, theft is, "The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same" (Webster's 2). Before the advent of moveable type, no one had cause to apply this concept to information rather than physical property. If one were to steal a book, the act was easily recognized as of the same moral color as stealing a horse, a nugget of gold, or any other physical object. The thief?s possession of the stolen item constituted the rightful owner?s lack of it, a loss both real and measurable. Today, theft seems a hazier concept, due to the popularization and codification of Intellectual Property (IP) rights. IP rights differ from standard property rights in that they signify an individual's right of ownership over "intangible things" (Kinsella 3). Arguably, the most important such things are patents and copyrights. Patents protect inventions, and copyrights protect "original forms of expression" (Fisher 1). In both cases, the right to ownership amounts to ownership of an idea, not a physical object.
In many ways Hobbes and Locke’s conclusions on man and society create a polarizing argument when held in comparison to each other. For instance the two make wildly conflicting assertions concerning mankind’s capacity to foster and achieve organized society. Hobbes asserts humans cannot be trusted to govern themselves lest they fall into war and chaos; Locke, on the other hand concludes almost the exact opposite. Despite the polarity in each man’s train of thought, both philosophies share a common ancestor: a state defined by total equality where no human is superior or holds dominance over another. Although this is the base of both theories, it is the only similarity between the two. This commonality can be illustrated when tracing each argument deductively from their conclusions, the comparison reveals that the heaviest and most base opposition in each mans philosophy is his assertions regarding the nature of human beings.
For individual property to exist, there must be a means for individuals to appropriate the things around them. Locke starts out with the idea of the property of person; each person owns his or her own body, and all the labor that they perform with the body. When an individual adds their own labor, their own property, to a foreign object or good, that object becomes their own because they have added their labor. This appropriation of goods does not demand the consent of humankind in general, each person has license to appropriate things in this way by individual initiative.
It is stated by John Locke that in the state of nature no man may take more then he can consume. “…make use of any advantage of life before it spoils…whatever is beyond this is more than his share and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy. (Locke 14)” Locke then goes on to say, “God gave the world to man … for their benefit and the greatest conveniences of life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use of the industrious and rational- and labor was to be his title… (Lock 15)”
First, Locke believes that everyone has the opportunity to cultivate the land that they own, which ideally is a proportionate share of the surrounding environment, and nothing more (Locke, Sec. 36). Locke’s theory of property is not just relative to physical entities, it can be an intellectual entity as well. An individual may have certain experiences and knowledge, develop theories and come to their own conclusions. Publishing said works are seen as property in the eyes of Locke as well. Another strength would be the logic of Locke’s argument, if you input your labour, that commodity becomes your own. Truth of this can be seen in section 33 of Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government, when Locke suggests that labour increases the value of land exponentially because when people own land themselves, they are more likely to increase the productivity of that land. According to Locke, the true value of land does not stem from the land, rather the labour invested in it. Locke’s theory however, does not take into account the processes in which someone becomes an owner. One of the main stances Locke outlines in his theory of property is that he equates property to being a natural right. Locke deems the right to private property to be equally important as life and liberty, however they cannot be
John Locke's, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), was first criticized by the philosopher and theologian, John Norris of Bemerton, in his "Cursory Reflections upon a Book Call'd, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding," and appended to his Christian Blessedness or Discourses upon the Beatitudes (1690). Norris's criticisms of Locke prompted three replies, which were only posthumously published. Locke has been viewed, historically, as the winner of this debate; however, new evidence has emerged which suggests that Norris's argument against the foundation of knowledge in sense-perception that the Essay advocated was a valid and worthy critique, which Locke did, in fact, take rather seriously. Charlotte Johnston's "Locke's Examination of Malebranche and John Norris" (1958), has been widely accepted as conclusively showing that Locke's replies were not philosophical, but rather personal in origin; her essay, however, overlooks critical facts that undermine her subjective analysis of Locke's stance in relation to Norris's criticisms of the Essay. This paper provides those facts, revealing the philosophical—not personal—impetus for Locke's replies.
offender. Our past has left us thinking that if someone steals from us, we should steal from
Act-utilitarianism is a theory suggesting that actions are right if their utility or product is at least as great as anything else that could be done in the situation or circumstance. Despite Mill's conviction that act-utilitarianism is an acceptable and satisfying moral theory there are recognized problems. The main objection to act-utilitarianism is that it seems to be too permissive, capable of justifying any crime, and even making it morally obligatory to do so. This theory gives rise to the i...
Locke theorizeds extensively on property, privatization, and the means an individual can use for increasing his property. Initially, in the state of nature, man did not own property in the form of resources or land. All fruits of the earth were for the use of all men,“and nobody has originally a private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state” (Locke 353). In this state, people could appropriate only what they could make use of. It was unfair for one person to take more than he could use because some of that natural commodity would go to waste unless another man might have made use of it for his own benefit (360). Locke felt that God gave the bounties of nature to the people of earth and they, by default, should treat these bounties rationally. This rationalistic theory discourages waste.
Shoplifting is a major problem in today. The temptation of not paying for something, just hiding it away and saving your own money is a large factor for some people. The culprit just thinks he's getting a product for free and doesn't know what he's actually doing to himself and the community. Shoplifting effects everyone, yourself and the everyone in the local neighborhood.In this essay I'm going to explain some of the circumstances of stealing from local stores, or any store. After I've been caught stealing I found out how wrong it is and how it is a disadvantage to everyone.
... there are four that fall into this category: burglary, breaking and entering with the intent to steal, arson, the burning of someone’s property, larceny-theft, taking property from another, and motor vehicle theft, the stealing of a land vehicle. Thieves and burglars sometimes use other people as a way to turn stolen goods into profit, an example of this is fences, who are people that distribute stolen goods.