Basically, I assert that the value of never in one's life stealing anything would far exceed the collective intrinsic value of everything that is not rightfully yours. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
You are weighing things with monetary value (gold bullion, art work, buildings, luxury cars, airplanes, ships, land, etc.) against things that do not have monetary value
We can determine the intrinsic value of objects (gold is about $19,422.4 a pound, a Boeing 777 goes for about $320 million, a loaf of good bread is about $4.90). Just how much is your compromised conscience, compromised moral value (whatever that is), compromised integrity, destroyed reputation, freedom being in jeopardy, and so on worth? I couldn't find a listing for the dollar value of your integrity--or anybody else's. If there is a dollar value for integrity, it probably varies from person to person... — Bitter Crank
IF one does not value the "moral goods" that you value, THEN it is entirely conceivable that whatever one could steal would be worth it -- including the loss of freedom for a period of time. Perhaps a year or two in prison balances favorably with stealing an assortment of high value goods--provided one could liquidate the undiscovered objects later. — Bitter Crank
This is a purely subjective point of view, isn't it ?... — Julian
If you were in front of a fierce kleptoman who feels absolutely nothing, let alone guilt, and who in addition to all this would not be at all affected by the possibility of making prison, would you say the same thing ?... — Julian
I mean there is a finite number of reasons that could dissuade you from stealing... — Julian
when there is an infinite number of reasons that could push you to do so... — Julian
Once the possible causes of deterrence are eliminated, your theory is no longer available. — Julian
No.
It is objective. If I had the credentials and the funding I might investigate it and publish the results, so it is something objectively verifiable/falsifiable. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Here's the problem I have with your argument: in my view there is no intrinsic value. There is no real, objective value. Value is subjective. It's simply a matter of how much an individual cares about the thing at hand. How important it is to the individual. — Terrapin Station
That would be a waste of money, in my opinion, because value is subjective. — Terrapin Station
That may be what you and some (or perhaps even most) people believe, BUT there have been acts of larceny since probably before recorded history, there has been acts of larceny nearly in every country and nearly every point in time in human history, and even today there are acts of larceny being committed every day in countries around the world. Perhaps it is because some people don't have enough resources to survive and steal because they need to and others think it is easier to get what they want by stealing it. Also it is possible that the only way to get some item is to steal it if it is one of a kind; such as OJ tried to do when he was trying to..um..'liberate' one of his trophies from someone who bought it and didn't want to give it back.
To take this even one step further, there are people out there with enough money that they can use their money in order to cause other people to lose money one way or another and or ruin their lives. Obviously this is not done for profit but for purely for personal reasons. The reasons I mention this is that such a person might be willing to pay someone else to steal something of value from some other person or group, just to make things more difficult for them.
On top of that you have corporate and government espionage which is more or less the activity of countries and organizations in the business of stealing each others information. For me it seems if there was absolutely no rational for it than nobody would do either larceny, espionage, etc but because so many do it I would think there is some kind of logic/rational/mentality for so many getting involved in such things; although I could be wrong. — dclements
That sounds like Baudrillard's simulacra. There is nothing with value, there are only values arbitrarily being assigned to non-value entities. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
The point is that whatever value the intrinsic qualities of a good have, it is unimaginable that that value could ever be thought of in economic terms by anybody as being greater than whatever value the choice of not stealing has. Something extrinsic, such as the social status that will come with possessing the stolen good, must be what people thinks justifies missing an opportunity to choose not to steal. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
It is like almost none of the respondents in this thread have any concept of acquiring goods without stealing them being honorable, enhancing one's self-esteem, creating healthy lifelong relationships built on trust, etc., etc. . . . — WISDOMfromPO-MO
I wouldn't phrase it that way, at least. I'm not denying value or saying that it's arbitrary. I'm just denying the category error of seeing value as something objective rather than something that we do as individual persons. — Terrapin Station
Realizing the subjectivity of value, though, it's easy to imagine this. Someone could simply (a) not put much if any value on not stealing, and/or they could have views whereby their conscience, moral value, integrity, etc. aren't compromised by stealing, and they have no worries about their reputation being destroyed or getting caught, while (b) they put a lot of value on possessing whatever it is they're going to steal, or possessing the money they'll acquire from selling it. — Terrapin Station
No one said that no one has those views. What I and others have pointed out is that not everyone has those views, not everyone values things the same way, and there is no objective value.
The reason we've pointed that out is that you're acting as if there is objective value, and that everyone does or at least should value everything the same way... — Terrapin Station
In addition, the post I'm responding to here makes a ton of completely unsupported--and frankly rather absurd--empirical claims. In my opinion, there's no place in philosophy for garbage like that. — Terrapin Station
You might be partly right in your analysis, in that it is that which is PERCEIVE in the value of what one steals is more important than any ACTUAL value of the thing stolen; but this is the same with things acquired by either making something or buying it as well which would make it a moot issue in figuring out why people steal.
I think if you break it down it kind of looks like something out of game theory, such as the prisoner's dilemma, where they either decide to remain silent, or rat their partner out. In such a game/simulation there is no "right"/"wrong" beyond the sentence that one will get with either action. Although in game theory the actual values assigned to the choices are considered the same as how a prisoner PERCEIVES them to be, since game theory would become a lot more complicate if we didn't, it is accepted that in the real world the "actual value of a thing" (if there is even such a thing) and the "perceived value" are not always the same.
As far as I can tell, when you take away social indoctrination, taboos, etc., lying, cheating, AND STEALING are all actions that we either choose to do or choose not to do and moral matrix provided by either hedonistic calculus and/or some kind of game theory helps us to decide which to do much like we decide to perform any other action. — dclements
I think the heart of your problem and the issue of this thread is that you tend to favor OBJECTIVE MORALITY where as many of us on this thread and forum likely favor SUBJECTIVE MORALITY.
As a person partial to nihilism, As far as I know neither I nor anyone else has access to OBJECTIVE MORALITY even if they pretend sometimes that they do. I really don't want to turn this into a objective verses subjective discussion, but unfortunately that seems to be where you are trying to split hairs with other people. — dclements
Why do people steal even one thing? Because they think it's worth it, and sometimes it is. What is this item? It could be almost anything... — Sapientia
And yes, in numerous cases, this has largely to do with the value of what is stolen... — Sapientia
Often, the obvious answer is the right answer. Compromised conscience? Nope, not necessarily, and not in some cases. Racked with guilt? Nope, not necessarily, and not in some cases. Great risk of being caught? No, not necessarily, and not in some cases. A lot of your downsides are merely possibilities or subjective projections attempting futilely to be something more than what they are.
The thrill theory is true of cases, as is - not instead of - the value theory, and I think the latter is more widespread and predominant in actual cases of theft... — Sapientia
(You might have noticed that I've not adopted your term "intrinsic value". That's because, like others, I don't think that that makes much sense with regards to what we're talking about). — Sapientia
If an economic good does not inherently possess any value, then value is arbitrary. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Furthermore, it would not be an economic good. It would not even enter into economic functioning. It would be irrelevant to this discussion. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
None of this addresses the role of a tangible economic good in the choice to steal. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
If certain tangible economic goods, such as an iPhone, cause stealing, then if we eliminate those goods stealing would cease to exist? — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Or is stealing an act independent of any tangible economic good that is chosen with other things in mind, such as rebelling against authority? — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Again, it looks like the role of tangible economic goods in stealing is that they are considered when deciding what to steal, not when deciding to steal. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
There are two sets of choices:
1.) Stealing.
2.) Alternatives to stealing, such as begging. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Maybe this falls outside of your 'economical' theme, but what about stealing for a good cause? For example, stealing plans from the nazis to stop their next attack — Samuel Lacrampe
Maybe this falls outside of your 'economical' theme, but what about stealing for a good cause?
For example, stealing plans from the nazis to stop their next attack? — Samuel Lacrampe
A cost-benefit analysis of theft seems to me an immoral approach to the problem.
By your logic, we stand to gain by not stealing and I think being a good person is more about eliminating the self and personal gain from the equation. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.