If an individual commits theft, yet s/he gives it to the poor, is it still theft
YES
Side Score: 25
|
 |
NO
Side Score: 4
|
|
|
|
|
3
points
1
point
Well, the government has been committing theft for 30 years, yet the only difference between the government and any individual is government just gives itself legal authority. No group has any right to act as if any individual member of the group would not have. If two people form a group, they have no more rights than either one has separately. The rights of an group are simply the union of the rights of all individuals in the group; therefore, the group has no more rights than the individuals in the group. Furthermore, if your neighbor has no right to simply take from you whatever s/he wants, then neither can soceity, which means government playing as its agent. Side: yes
1
point
If someone steals, they stole irregardless of what they did with the property afterwords. The government defines stealing, since they decide the laws and theft is the unlawful taking of property. A group may have greater rights then the individuals, for example two people may come together and decide they will only do something as a group, and never individually. Or the collective individual rights of the many may outweigh the individual rights of the few. Side: yes
1
point
1
point
yes, even if a person steals money from a person and gives it to the poor, it is still theft. although a person does good, he is actually stealing money in the first place. this case is something like Robin Hood's, where stealing from rich and giving to the poor is robin hoods main aim. but robin hood is still a thief in the eyes of the rich. Side: yes
1
point
This is a really easy answer. The principle of identity is a=a. Theft is theft. Your questions addresses whether the intentions of an act can erase the act. The answer is no. The intentions are subject to a value assessment (good/bad), but the act of taking someone else's property cannot be overridden by any intention. A nation cannot intervene militarily in another country, and after having removed a violent dictator, conclude that they didn't intervene. Side: yes
1
point
Depends on the intent and circumstances. If the boss is stingy and doesn’t pay or treat his employees well then within reason a small amount of payback can be forgiven. In fact revolutions and wars are the result of unjust thefts. However, if it’s simply to fulfil yourself then it’s wrong. Look at it like this. If a guy comes in and cleans out your house and accounts but decides to give you back your mementos if you let him have the rest of your stuff would you agree to it as your now officially poor? Side: yes
1
point
It is wrong for any one individual to commit theft even if intentions are good, yet when a group of people can agree that theft is the means of helping the poor, these people hire their agent, the government. Social programs create dependency, and this is what you have, people stay in poor because of these programs. Side: No
1
point
|
You're attached "theft" to the concept of "bad" and "giving to the poor" to the concept of "good", therefore have weighed the acts against each other and have come to a neutral end. The problem is that morality is subjective where as the event of theft and donation are objective occurrences. They don't ever actually meet up, so take morality out of the equation and you're left with only the acts. Since present acts don't influence past acts, the fact that theft occurred remains true regardless of what is done with the stolen provisions. Do you see what I mean? Reality doesn't weigh acts as "good" or "bad" and erases past acts in order to reach some moral equilibrium. Look at the world through the eyes of acceptance rather than the eyes of dichotomy and everything becomes clear. Side: yes
The tale of Robin Hood and the way he is portrayed as a hero in today's society is ridiculous. You demonize the rich, simply because they are rich and you glorify the poor because they are poor. You will hate another man because of his success and all of his positive attributes yet you love the poor because of their failures and faults. What kind of sense does that make? The only way society has made the story even somewhat acceptable by making the rich appear so evil and villainous that the theft is morally justifiable. Even if that is truly what happened, people don't remember it as a story of self-defense or justice, they remember it as the "guy who stole from the rich and gave to the poor". And on that premise, the story and the main character, are evil. Side: No
|
