Stealing: A victimless crime?

Discussion in 'Pandora's Box' started by bahookahjoe18, Nov 25, 2011.


  1. In that case, no you cannot steal from him. That is his property and he has the right to sell it for whatever he wants. The only right you have here and is the best thing you can do is not buy anything from him, which is basically giving your vote in saying his prices are too high and if enough people stop buying from him he will lower the prices. Unless he has the lowest price out of all the competition, you should simply just not buy from him.
     

  2. But in a real life situation you can never know for sure if those eggs are "excess" the person might find out he has a heart condition and this money could have really made a difference.

    Some spoiled brats do deserve stealing although I wouldn't be the one stealing, the world is just in many ways.
     
  3. You guys keep generating additional details in this situation. I'm sure James could know whether those eggs are surplus or not. Go with what I'm giving you.
     
  4. i dont see any wrong morally because no one is at a knowing loss, however i think if i was the guy who stole the eggs i would still have a lil guilt for stealing. but thats just me, i think farmer wasnt really harmed tho, so i agree with ya

    and thanks im an environmental ethics major so i take a ton of philo classes, its interesting to see a well proposed thread. good one.
     
  5. #45 greenterror, Nov 25, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 25, 2011
    Farmer Smith has 10 cannabis plants and he chopped them down to cure this morning, planning to sell them next week. He doesn't need the money, he just doesn't have a use for so much weed, and figures he can gain some revenue. He hasn't taken stock yet, the weed is just hanging, waiting to be dried/weighed. Farmer Smith needs to cut some firewood, so he leaves to do this.

    While he is away, James, a man who is not hungry and has plenty of money, but just happens to want some free weed today, takes 10 nugs of the weed.

    Farmer Smith comes home, weighs the final product, and is very pleased with the fact that he has 5 lbs of weed. He sells all of them the next day and goes home with a big chunk of cash. Five miles away, James has enough weed for months, and it was free.

    Is stealing in this case immoral?
     
  6. ..
    No.
     
  7. If you gotta feed your family and cant get a job for whatever reason, I dont think it would be bad to steal from people who have plenty.
     

  8. What if I think it's immoral? or Farmer Smith? Is it then? Where do we put a limit on what you can steal before it's immoral?
     

  9. There are only two people involved in this act, James and Smith. If Farmer Smith does not and will not know it happened, was a crime committed?
     

  10. Yes, the crime was still committed regardless if he knew or not and he was still the victim in said crime, even if he wasn't consciously aware of it. What if Farmer Smith was paying off a debt that he owed, and somehow his crop didn't produce what he expected and unable to pay off that debt. Farmer Smith is $500 short. Farmer Smith doesn't know 10 nugs were stolen but if he had those 10 nugs he would have enough money to pay his debts. Farmer Smith is now dead. Was it still a victimless crime?
     

  11. Of course this crime isn't victimless, but once again, you've added a circumstance.

    Theft is not a crime if the one being stolen from is unaffected in all knowable ways.
     

  12. That's the point, you never know that your thievery will not impact them in anyway at all. James could thought he was in the right, little did he know Farmer Steve depended on his crop.

    Life has circumstances.
     

  13. James CAN know that he was doing the farmer no harm. Why not? I never said he was a stranger to the farmer. James could even be his friend. All you know is that he DOES know that he is doing no harm.
     
  14. You guys are changing the scenario, of course he could have debt, need it, etc, but thats not the scenario OP posed. In my opinion it's amoral really, not good or bad. In this case it's all about perspective/ reality like someone mentioned earlier. In farmer smiths reality he has NOT been stolen from, or wronged. In reality, he has, but due to his perspective it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on his life, technically it didn't happen. If your mother is making cookies to sell just because she has the dough, and you eat some of the dough while she's out doing something, and then she comes back in and makes say 50 cookies instead of 55, have you stolen from her? Same principle, and I think in a scenario where it is beneficial to one party and neutral to another, it Is amoral. BUT, that doesn't apply to a situation where you steal, say, a wallet and they're unaware. In this case you have physically taken an object from person A to B, but the eggs, in this case technically belong to C while they are not being watched, ONLY because farmer john is unaware how many there are, so his reality doesn't change.
     
  15. Steal from corporations, they steal from you. Leave the mom and pop shops alone
     
  16. How can anybody know that what they are stealing won't hurt or impact the person whom they're stealing it from in any possible way?

    In the real world, stealing is not victimless, there will never be a scenario described by the OP.
     

  17. James is Farmer Smith's brother. Farmer Smith tells James all of his problems, which are few.
     
  18. [quote name='"greenterror"']How can anybody know that what they are stealing won't hurt or impact the person whom they're stealing it from in any possible way?

    In the real world, stealing is not victimless, there will never be a scenario described by the OP.[/quote]

    Rich explorer John hires Sherpa Chung to find gold with him, they find $1million dollars worth (they don't know this) the Sherpa carries it all the way out of the forest, while the explorer is asleep he steals 10 items and hides them. The rich explorer goes on to sell all of it (in his reality) and gets lots of money, fame, and a new life, without being any the wiser. The gold Chung "stole" would benefit him greatly, without ever having harmed, or even affected the explorer.
     
  19. #59 greenterror, Nov 25, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 25, 2011
    And you don't think that Farmer Smith would have used the money made from the one dozen eggs on anything? That could be the difference of Farmer Smith buying an Arizona to drink on the way home, James doesn't know that.

    The more factors like that you add, the less immoral it is and the less likely something unexpected will happen, but it's still immoral, IMO.

    Wasn't Chung hired to find the gold for the explorer? They would likely have an agreement to establish this prior to finding any gold and in which case it would be immoral for Chung to steal the $1m of gold. I don't really get what the explorer stole or why.
     
  20. [quote name='"greenterror"']And you don't think that Farmer Smith would have used the money made from the one dozen eggs on anything? That could be the difference of Farmer Smith buying an Arizona to drink on the way home, James doesn't know that.

    The more factors like that you add, the less immoral it is and the less likely something unexpected will happen, but it's still immoral, IMO.[/quote]

    If I have an inheritance I don't know about, and will never know about, and you steal it, is it immoral? Am I living a life of "if only my inheritance hadn't been stolen (if only I had an arizona) no, I wouldn't care because I would be oblivious.

    Edit: also Chung is just like a packmule in this scenario.

    Is that quote in your sig legit? If so that is damn interesting/ darkly hilarious. And sadly true.
     

Share This Page