Why stealing is morally wrong

This psychological distress may be so severe that it outweighs even large-scale pleasures resulting from the theft. In addition, it might be the case that engaging in an act of stealing in one potentially morally justifiable situation would make someone more prone to stealing in a second, or third or fourth situation where moral legitimacy is either more questionable or obviously not present. As a reminder, the rule utilitarian suggests that moral action is action that would be recommended by the set of rules that, if followed, would promote the greatest good for the greatest number.

On initial viewing, it might seem that a rule banning stealing would be a good candidate to be included in the set of rules that would produce the greatest good for the greatest number, especially given the potential psychological costs associated with stealing as described above.

Such provision would not be free, of course, but the best set of rules would very likely include provision for collecting adequate taxation, given that a pound spent on someone in distress is likely to facilitate greater future happiness than a pound spent by someone economically comfortable though we encourage you to consider this idea in more depth, perhaps with your own examples.

Here, it will be worth revisiting the distinction between Strong Rule Utilitarianism and Weak Ruse Utilitarianism as discussed in Chapter 1. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. A useful example to have in mind would be of jewels stored in a safety deposit box in perpetuity, when those jewels could be used in ways that would promote greater levels of happiness if stolen and sold.

At the very least, in would need a particularly interesting interpretation of the notion of preventing harm to others. It might be useful to return to cases 1—5 as outlined in section four and ask yourself what the rule utilitarian would suggest in those cases — does the answer of the rule utilitarian put them in a more or less attractive position than the answers of the act and preference utilitarians?

Using reason to work out the virtuous Golden Mean in the different spheres of life, Aristotle suggested the following as virtuous and non-virtuous vice character traits. This reveals something interesting about the application of Virtue Ethics to stealing.

According to Virtue Ethics, the very same act, performed by two different people, can be viewed differently from a moral perspective. If a person commits this act out of self-serving flattery, then they act in accordance with a vice of excess. Yet, if someone else commits the very same act of stealing, but does so on the basis of righteousness and generosity, then they act in a virtuous way.

This example is over-simplified, but the point is hopefully clear. After all, how are we to determine if our stealing a loaf of bread would be based on righteous and generous character dispositions, or reflect rashness and self-serving flattery? How can we ascertain what the virtuous course of action would be in a specific situation?

For example, if I view St. Augustine as virtuous, then I may view his complete aversion to stealing as representative of the Golden Mean. Bertrand Russell — says of Augustine that:. He continued throughout his life to consider this an act of almost incredible wickedness. It would not have been so bad if he had been hungry, or had no other means of getting pears; but, as it was, the act was one of pure mischief, inspired by the love of wickedness for its own sake. However, if I view the fictional character Robin Hood as the paradigm of a virtuous person because of his willingness to steal from the rich in order to give to the poor, then I may have a different view as to which actions the virtuous character trait of generosity would give rise to.

Or, more extremely, if I view a famous fictional pirate of the high seas as representing a virtuous individual, my views would once more be different; how do we decide which of these people are the right people to seek virtuous guidance from when it comes to stealing?

Aristotle can refer to practical reason phronesis and human flourishing, but this may be a serious weakness. An act of stealing might seem to be both courageous and self-serving, or both brave and rash. Resolving how to act requires use of practical reason, but again this language might be thought unhelpful by the critic of Virtue Ethics as it is still being unhelpfully vague. Below, assuming some grasp of the theories from Chapter 7, we offer guidance as to how metaethical theories might relate to this issue.

Much of the guidance below is easily applicable to the other applied ethical issues also discussed in the remaining three chapters. For the utilitarian, moral claims regarding the ethical acceptability of individual actions will be made true by natural properties such as pleasure, happiness or preference satisfaction. For the intuitionist, the non-natural property of goodness will make some of our moral claims regarding stealing true. The moral error theorist may have a non-moral reason for opposing stealing on many occasions, or indeed supporting stealing on other occasions.

Moral error theorists who care about the property rights of others, for example, may well strongly oppose stealing. However, if we adopt Prescriptivism, we might at least be able to criticise the thief for inconsistency if she speaks of the general wrongness of stealing whilst defending the rightness of stealing in her case.

Sign in. Essay Sample Check Writing Quality. Show More. Related Documents Why Is Jean Valjean Morally Wrong Within this paper, I will argue that the decision that Jean Valjean decided on, stealing the loaf of bread for his nieces and nephews, was morally wrong. Read More. Words: - Pages: 6. Recently viewed 0 Save Search. Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Green Abstract The picture of crime that dominates the popular imagination is one of unambiguous wrong-doing — manifestly harmful acts that are clearly worthy of condemnation. More The picture of crime that dominates the popular imagination is one of unambiguous wrong-doing — manifestly harmful acts that are clearly worthy of condemnation.

Authors Affiliations are at time of print publication. Your current browser may not support copying via this button. Show Summary Details. Subscriber Login Email Address. Password Please enter your Password. If someone is purely stealing to benefit themselves out of greed rather than necessity then it is wrong but if someone is forced into that situation what other option do they have? Therefore we can conclude that under teleological framework stealing in circumstances of necessity is ethical as the loss to the possessor is dwarfed in comparison to the thief.

Using of natural moral code the victim of the theft would have different feelings towards someone stealing because it may save their life, to one stealing out of greed or jealousy. Get Full Access Now. See related essays. In the case of this dilemma could we be fair to this client. Would it be appropriate to counsel this client Justice? We as counsellors need to help the client realise their own potential and empower them to move forward without imposing our own thoughts and views Autonomy.

Utilitarianism would attempt to maximise pleasure in this situation as in any. There is a week in which to make the calculation to maximise pleasure and minimise suffering, and so your calculation is likely to be more accurate than if you were required to act in a shorter amount of time. It is very hard to equivocate the benefits of receiving a kidney to receiving money for the donation of.

Ethics in accountancy profession are invaluable to accounting professionals and to those who rely on their services. He then concluded that an external agent must have imposed order on the universe as a whole and this agent is God.

Another aspect of the teleological argument is Design Qua Purpose, which is put forward by Paley in the first part of his book. Hargrove founded the journal Environmental Ethics. The name of the journal became the name of the field. Employee selection is the process of interviewing, testing and doing background checks on the individual to determine that individual's ethical standing. This process is used to eliminate ethically undesired applicants Robbins et al.

The next step is to establish codes of ethics. This reinforces the street saying? People are not convicted based on their nature or violent behavior but rather on how much money they both have and are willing to spend on their trial.

Want to read the rest? Sign up to view the whole essay and download the PDF for anytime access on your computer, tablet or smartphone. Get Full Access Now or Learn more. Don't have an account yet? Create one now!

Already have an account?