How serious a sin is stealing?


Twisted_Fairytales
 Share

Recommended Posts

I wonder if you can prove that "ownership" exists.  At its most basic level, it does seem odd that a set of atoms could "own" another set of atoms in any sort of scientifically provable sense.  And if you can't prove something as simple as that, why do many people demand scientific proof that God exists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if you can prove that "ownership" exists.  At its most basic level, it does seem odd that a set of atoms could "own" another set of atoms in any sort of scientifically provable sense.  And if you can't prove something as simple as that, why do many people demand scientific proof that God exists?

 

Ownership exists as a social construct, it's quite easy to demonstrate the existence of this social construct (for instance laws). The existence of God as a social construct is also rather easily demonstrated under the same burden of proof. I think you'll be hard pressed to find even the most militant atheist arguing that God doesn't exist as a social construct. If you know of someone arguing for ownership as some sort of objective property of matter (or energy) absent scientific proof who demands scientific proof for the objective existence of God I'll join with you in saying they are being inconsistent.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stealing is kind of a weird philosophical concept with respect to theology and God. Under the utopia of Zion we are all supposed to have all things in common. Like a family, and the idea of Property Rights is the sin. Even though, the kids might snatch the Teddybear from each other, in the end, they all get the chance to snuggle with it. But in our fallen world of "Mine Mine Mine", if we steal either out of need or want, since we don't share with each other, we are depriving each other. And even though the Savior stresses the need to share, I wonder why not sharing didn't make the 10 commandments, and at a place of prominence greater than stealing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stealing is kind of a weird philosophical concept with respect to theology and God. Under the utopia of Zion we are all supposed to have all things in common. Like a family, and the idea of Property Rights is the sin. Even though, the kids might snatch the Teddybear from each other, in the end, they all get the chance to snuggle with it. But in our fallen world of "Mine Mine Mine", if we steal either out of need or want, since we don't share with each other, we are depriving each other. And even though the Savior stresses the need to share, I wonder why not sharing didn't make the 10 commandments, and at a place of prominence greater than stealing.

Did it not? What was the first and greatest commandment? To love God with all your heart, with all your soul, and all your mind. The second? To love thy neighbor as thyself. I think the second one counts in that regard.

Recall the ten commandments was a lesser law. It's not a list of most important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stealing is kind of a weird philosophical concept with respect to theology and God. Under the utopia of Zion we are all supposed to have all things in common. Like a family, and the idea of Property Rights is the sin. 

 

If property rights were eliminated in the utopia of Zion it was replaced with stewardship, which comes with its own bounds and precludes stealing.

Edited by mordorbund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And even though the Savior stresses the need to share, I wonder why not sharing didn't make the 10 commandments, and at a place of prominence greater than stealing.

 

For the same reason "Love the lord thy God with all thy heart, strength and mind" didn't make it in to the 10 commandments and instead was replaced with "Thou shalt not have any other Gods before me".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stealing is kind of a weird philosophical concept with respect to theology and God. Under the utopia of Zion we are all supposed to have all things in common. Like a family, and the idea of Property Rights is the sin. Even though, the kids might snatch the Teddybear from each other, in the end, they all get the chance to snuggle with it. But in our fallen world of "Mine Mine Mine", if we steal either out of need or want, since we don't share with each other, we are depriving each other. And even though the Savior stresses the need to share, I wonder why not sharing didn't make the 10 commandments, and at a place of prominence greater than stealing.

 

I would submit that an ethos of sharing is a recipe for disaster unless it's built on a foundation of respect for the individual.  That's what the last six of the ten commandments really emphasize**--respecting family, respecting life, respecting marriage, respecting property, respecting honor, and finally (through not obsessing about that which is owned or achieved by others) respecting oneself. 

 

Without a pervasive concept of respect for the individual, those who will work become the slaves of those who will not--and economic collapse follows.

 

**The idea being, of course, that the first four can be distilled into the first great commandment and that the last six into the second great commandment.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would I steal food if I were starving with no other recourse? Probably. But I wouldn't pretend it wasn't a sin.

 

Supposing your children were starving, and your only way of keeping them alive was to steal? Would stealing in those circumstances still be a sin?

 

Or to put it another way, supposing another woman allowed her children to die, so that she would not have to commit the sin of theft. Would you applaud her for her virtue, or call her heartless?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This speaks of popular moral riddles. Even in those cases, stealing can't be excused. You might use stealing to fix another sin, but the crime and sin still exists.

 

Crime and sin are not the same thing. Stealing is a crime, yes, because the statute books (which are imperfect) define it as such. But sin is based on a less easily defined standard of what is right and wrong.

 

For example, Oskar Schindler was a criminal. He broke the laws that existed in his country in his time. Do we regard him as "a sinner" because of it?

 

It's no answer to say that the laws of Nazi Germany were themselves criminal; if they were, then it is only the judgment of history which makes them so. Oskar Schindler had no such historical consensus to guide him; he had only had his own sense of right and wrong. He knew he had a duty to uphold the law, but that he had other duties besides.

 

And even "crime" is not absolute; to take an axe to someone's front door and smash it to pieces is in normal circunstances "criminal damage". But if the house is on fire, and people are trapped behind that door who will otherwise burn to death, will the person who breaks the door be prosecuted?

Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supposing your children were starving, and your only way of keeping them alive was to steal? Would stealing in those circumstances still be a sin?

 

Or to put it another way, supposing another woman allowed her children to die, so that she would not have to commit the sin of theft. Would you applaud her for her virtue, or call her heartless?

If she let her children die I might call her stupid for not taking advantage of the many charities and government welfare put into place to keep her from having to break the law in order to prevent starvation.

In other words, what you presented is a false dichotomy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If she let her children die I might call her stupid for not taking advantage of the many charities and government welfare put into place to keep her from having to break the law in order to prevent starvation.

In other words, what you presented is a false dichotomy.

I'm sorry to disappoint you Jerome, but the USA is not the whole world, and the early 21st Century is not the whole of time.

 

There have been periods of history when people were faced with exactly the moral dilemma I proposed - like Valjean was in Les Miserables.

 

And even today there are nations in Asia and Africa and South America where children will starve to death - where charities are overstretched and there is no "government welfare" to pick up the slack.

 

To dismiss the situation I proposed as a "false dichotomy" speaks of a very privileged and parochial outlook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supposing your children were starving, and your only way of keeping them alive was to steal? Would stealing in those circumstances still be a sin?

 

Or to put it another way, supposing another woman allowed her children to die, so that she would not have to commit the sin of theft. Would you applaud her for her virtue, or call her heartless?

In the former, I'm still denying someone the fruits of his labor. Perhaps his own family starves because of my action.

In the latter, why would I call her heartless? I'm just admitting she stole. I'm not pretending her actions have no consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

In the former, I'm still denying someone the fruits of his labor. Perhaps his own family starves because of my action.

In the latter, why would I call her heartless? I'm just admitting she stole. I'm not pretending her actions have no consequences.

 

Both you and Jerome are tweaking the scenario so as to avoid the moral core of the question. It's as if I were to ask "if a man jumps out of a plane without a parachute, will he not die?" and you replied "well perhaps the plane is still on the ground", and then used that to justify that gravity does not exist. 

 

Let me propose a thought experiment:

 

Think back to the worst sin you ever committed. Imagine that you could go back to the point just before you committed that sin, and take a different course of action. What would you do?

 

I would reasonably (I think) assume that if you had truly repented of that sin, you would use that second chance not to commit it.

 

OK - lets now assume that you had (like Valjean) stolen bread to feed some starving children. (And let's assume - just to close your previous loophole - that the person you stole the bread from had plenty to spare, and that the children would otherwise have died.) If you believed that was a sin, then you would need to repent of it - would you not? 

 

But let's say you now have a chance to go back and not steal the bread. If you accepted that your previous choice had been a sin, then to do the same thing again would mean that your repentence had not been genuine. Yet your only other action would be to allow the children to starve.

 

(And before you start proposing loopholes again - like "why not try something else like begging/asking for food?" - let's assume that those possibilities have already been tried and have failed.)

 

It seems to me that if you are correct - that all stealing is necessarily sin - there are conceivable situations in which true repentance is not possible. Would a loving God allow this?

 

P.S. I've just thought of another possible loophole people may use to get out of this - that my proposed mechanism of "going back in time" is imaginary, and therefore the situation is not conceivable as existing in the real world. However, I don't think this changes the nature of the problem, which concerns the repented/unrepented state of the soul. What I have proposed is merely a mechanism for testing that state.

Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both you and Jerome are tweaking the scenario so as to avoid the moral core of the question. It's as if I were to ask "if a man jumps out of a plane without a parachute, will he not die?" and you replied "well perhaps the plane is still on the ground", and then used that to justify that gravity does not exist. 

 

Let me propose a thought experiment:

 

Think back to the worst sin you ever committed. Imagine that you could go back to the point just before you committed that sin, and take a different course of action. What would you do?

 

I would reasonably (I think) assume that if you had truly repented of that sin, you would use that second chance not to commit it.

 

OK - lets now assume that you had (like Valjean) stolen bread to feed some starving children. (And let's assume - just to close your previous loophole - that the person you stole the bread from had plenty to spare, and that the children would otherwise have died.) If you believed that was a sin, then you would need to repent of it - would you not? 

 

But let's say you now have a chance to go back and not steal the bread. If you accepted that your previous choice had been a sin, then to do the same thing again would mean that your repentence had not been genuine. Yet your only other action would be to allow the children to starve.

 

(And before you start proposing loopholes again - like "why not try something else like begging/asking for food?" - let's assume that those possibilities have already been tried and have failed.)

 

It seems to me that if you are correct - that all stealing is necessarily sin - there are conceivable situations in which true repentance is not possible. Would a loving God allow this?

 

 

I'll give you a "loophole" answer and then a direct one.

 

If I have a time machine, I'm not going back in time to the point where I have to choose between dead kids or theft. I'm travelling back to a point where I can make it so I don't have to make that decision (that might mean one less child for me, or treating others differently so I'm not isolated at the later time).

 

If stealing is always a sin, and a penitent person is given a chance to make the same decision again, that person will "do what is right, let the consequence follow". If the right thing is to let your children and yourself die, you do it.

 

And trying to make the bread-owner wealthy and selfish doesn't change the equation. Otherwise you're arguing that you shouldn't sin against another unless the other is wicked, in which case, sin away (because it's not sin anymore). How convoluted. The breadless has a moral obligation to steal bread (for family), but only if there's a village jerk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with mordorbund on this one.

 

Your thought experiment is interesting, but it reads like an algebra problem in which every variable has some fixed, isolated value and the overall solution is a binary true or false.  Yet the conditions of the thought experiment don't describe a single mathematically precise scenario... they cover a huge set of scenarios with all kinds of constraints that can range continuously from one extreme to another.  Would the child die in sixty seconds if the bread it not stolen?  Would more bread then necessary for that day be stolen?  Would the original owner of the bread die of starvation if the bread is stolen? 

 

But still a topic worth discussing, so thanks for throwing another log on the fire. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do pose an interesting dilemma. Be warned my response are my thoughts and may or may not be contradictory.

As I've stated before, I'll do what I must to save myself or my child. If stealing save my child, I'd do it over again. But I also thought I'd do what I could to make restitution both times, when/if I could. If stealing were not a sin against my neighbor in some cases, I doubt I'd feel a need to make restitution.

And with all due respect, You also added loopholes to your proposal with an impossible omniscience of consequences. I don't know, can't know, enough details to say my taking causes no negative consequences for others in all cases. You might say you can only do your best in judgment to help yourself while causing the least harm to others, but what if you're wrong? Should you be willing to accept consequences?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share