Stealing is, for me, acceptable if the ends justify the means.
I recall in the lecture on this subject, it was suggested that under no circumstances can this be considered ‘ok’. I argue that if a person cannot, by legal or moral means achieve the requirements needed to live, then surely breaking the law is the only solution?
Is the law above human rights? Is it above our right to exist on this earth? I think not.
Another point made, was that such a situation will lead a person to commit more, and indeed worse crimes. For example, stealing chewing gum from a supermarket, may then lead to burglary. Or at least this is the impression I got.
I can’t help but feel that this is something of a ridiculous notion. Committing one criminal act does not in any way mean the offender will increase the severity of crimes in the future, or even that they’ll repeat the offence.
Burglary cannot be compared to petty theft either. Taking a few mass produced items from a corporation cannot be compared to taking the possessions from a family home.
However, when all this is said and done – stealing without valid reason is, in my mind, wrong. Yet, petty theft to me does not qualify a person as a criminal. Maybe technically, but I don’t play by the rules of technicalities.
You make some good points on this subject. Society has a tendency to judge harshly in such situations. I know some people who have shoplifted (not saying it's right) but I wouldn't class them as "bad people" or criminals for that matter. However, that's not to say it's okay. Again I reiterate your thoughts that stealing without a valid reason is wrong but I think the reason why people like to judge all crimes harshly regardless of the severity of the crime is that if there was a let out clause we would be choas.
ReplyDelete