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.

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.

To WISDOMfromPO-MO

This is a purely subjective point of view, isn't it ? 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 ?

I mean there is a finite number of reasons that could dissuade you from stealing when there is an infinite number of reasons that could push you to do so. Once the possible causes of deterrence are eliminated, your theory is no longer available.

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.

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

Economic decision making is not limited to commodities exchanged at prices set by markets.

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

It is conceivable.

But I don't think that it happens.

I think that it is things like how one's social status will change, how one's friends opinions of him/her will change, rebelling against authority, etc., not the good being stolen itself, that makes stealing economically justifiable to people.

This is a purely subjective point of view, isn't it ?... — 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.

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

Kleptomania is defined by Wikipedia as "the inability to refrain from the urge for stealing items".

Just because a person does not have the ability to refrain from something does not mean that he/she does not think refraining has any value.

I mean there is a finite number of reasons that could dissuade you from stealing... — Julian

And I made it easy by zooming in on one: the value of not stealing.

when there is an infinite number of reasons that could push you to do so... — Julian

And I made it easy by zooming in on one: the intrinsic value of the good being stolen.

Once the possible causes of deterrence are eliminated, your theory is no longer available. — Julian

According to thefreedictionary.com, deter means "To prevent or discourage (an action or behavior)".

It does not make any sense to me to think of the value of an alternative to what is being deterred as a deterrent. The value of upholding life deters people from committing murder? No. The value of upholding life encourages people to uphold life.

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

That would be a waste of money, in my opinion, because value is subjective.

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 sounds like Baudrillard's simulacra. There is nothing with value, there are only values arbitrarily being assigned to non-value entities.

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.

That would be a waste of money, in my opinion, because value is subjective. — Terrapin Station

There are two sets of choices:

1.) Stealing.

2.) Alternatives to stealing, such as begging.


I think that it would be a great contribution to psychology and/or sociology to investigate to see if people think that they have something from both sets of choices available to them but choose something from 1.) instead of something from 2.), and why.

G = a good.

No matter if you steal G, beg for G, solicit a donation of G, or use some other method to acquire G, you get G.

Therefore, something other than G must motivate people to choose stealing over non-stealing.

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. The net gain from never in one's life stealing anything would far exceed the net gain from stealing everything this is not rightfully yours measured in the intrinsic value of those things (not any extrinsic value, such as looking cool to your fellow gang members because you successfully pulled off a theft).
--WISDOMfromPO-MO

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.

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

All of this seems to support what I have been saying.

It is not the intrinsic qualities/properties of the good itself, but things other than the good itself--the belief that the good is rightfully yours and you are taking it back; the desire to hurt people; the wish to survive, etc.--that in people's minds economically justify stealing.

The intrinsic qualities/properties of the good itself are probably at most used to decide what to steal, not to decide to steal.

Or are there intrinsic qualities/properties in some good somewhere that make people decide to steal?

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.

It is like they have no concept of there being benefits to choosing not to steal.

It is like they have never heard the notion that if something has to be stolen it is not worth having.

One respondent suggested that none of this has any merit and that a scholarly investigation of it would be a waste of resources. I beg to differ. Here is just one example of research that could be done to learn more about how economic actors weigh the benefits of choosing not to steal against the costs: People in prison for stealing--that's right, people in prison for choosing to steal--choose not to steal while in prison and therefore form networks of trusted friends that help them survive better than prisoners who choose to steal, it might be found. We won't know if we don't investigate it.

People refuse financial assistance and other forms of assistance because it threatens their sense of self-reliance/individualism and therefore their self-image. Similarly, it might be found that people even in the most desperate situations refuse to steal because nothing they can gain, such as a meal, economically justifies what they would lose, such as their honor.

I have rehearsed what I will say the next time I am suspected of shoplifting and stopped by store loss prevention personnel or the police. I will laugh and say, "There is nothing in that store that is worth stealing".

I do not know what it is like outside of the U.S., but I know that Americans buy a lot of junk, watch it sit around their homes or offices and collect dust, and then bury it in landfills. It would not surprise me to find that a large percentage of shoplifted items suffer the same fate: they barely get used and they end up buried in a landfill. That's right, the thief does not pass the stolen item on to his/her great-great-great-grandchildren as a family heirloom. The thief does not sell the item and invest the profit in the stock market and build wealth. Most of the time the item at best is exchanged for drugs, contributes little to anybody's economic life, and ends up buried in a landfill, probably.

Even people who do not steal do not have much invested in a lot of their possessions. They acquire stuff because we have an economic system that requires perpetual economic growth and therefore finds ways to manipulate people into consuming stuff that they do not really need or want.

Yet, apparently we are supposed to believe that utility, aesthetic beauty, workmanship and other intrinsic qualities/properties of, say, an iPhone tempts people to steal it.

I have been saying that I don't believe that. I have said that something besides the value of the intrinsic qualities/properties of a good is worth enough to some people to justify the losses that they sustain by choosing to steal.

Or is the physical product of an iPhone--not the social status that comes with owning it; not the psychological benefit of feeling like you hold in your hands the culmination of centuries of technological progress; or anything else like that; just the physical product--worth the loss of one's honor?

That sounds like Baudrillard's simulacra. There is nothing with value, there are only values arbitrarily being assigned to non-value entities. — 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

All of this seems to support what I have been saying.

It is not the intrinsic qualities/properties of the good itself, but things other than the good itself--the belief that the good is rightfully yours and you are taking it back; the desire to hurt people; the wish to survive, etc.--that in people's minds economically justify stealing.

The intrinsic qualities/properties of the good itself are probably at most used to decide what to steal, not to decide to steal.

Or are there intrinsic qualities/properties in some good somewhere that make people decide to steal?
--WISDOMfromPO-MO

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.

It is like they have no concept of there being benefits to choosing not to steal.
--WISDOMfromPO-MO
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.

"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
I agree with this part of your post since it is more or less the same thing I said in mine, however "if" WISDOMfromPO-MO is acting as if morality is objective (which I believe isn't that uncommon of a view) then it is reasonable that they frame their argument/position the way they have.

"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
I know it is bit to ask or suggest but trying to understand someone's position ,even if it has fallacies, can be preferable than to dismiss them outright or say something like "that's absurd" even if it is absurd. Using such argument the wrong way can become a appeal to ridicule, reductio ad absurdum, and/ or an ad hominem fallacy. As an agnostic/ atheist/ nihilist, I'm often bothered by what theists claim or say but when either a majority or near majority of the population believe something because it is a common belief there is a ..special psychological condition to describe why it isn't as 'crazy' for that person to believe it as it would be for someone not indoctrinated to their culture and/or society.

I'm aware that you are most likely not just dismissing the WISDOMfromPO-MO, I'm just adding my two-cents in the hopes it might be useful to you. :)

I find your thinking quite absurd, and the answers to your questions easy. I don't have to make the all-or-nothing comparison of never having stolen anything to having stolen everything I do or could possess. Why do people steal even one thing? Because they think it's worth it, and sometimes it is. Is anything worth stealing? Yes. What is this item? It could be almost anything. And yes, in numerous cases, this has largely to do with the value of what is stolen. 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 motivation theory is true of cases, as is - not instead of - the value motivation theory, and I think the latter is more widespread and predominant in actual cases of theft.

(You might have noticed that I've not adopted your term "intrinsic value". That's because, like others, I don't think that it makes much sense with regards to what we're talking about).

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

If an economic good does not inherently possess any value, then value is arbitrary.

Furthermore, it would not be an economic good. It would not even enter into economic functioning. It would be irrelevant to this discussion.

And before somebody makes the error again, let's not confuse price with value. Price is just one measure of value used for a certain class of economic goods: commodities. Economic functioning is not limited to things exchanged in formal markets and assigned a number called price.

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

None of this addresses the role of a tangible economic good in the choice to steal.

If certain tangible economic goods, such as an iPhone, cause stealing, then if we eliminate those goods stealing would cease to exist?

Or is stealing an act independent of any tangible economic good that is chosen with other things in mind, such as rebelling against authority?

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.

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

And I said that no matter what anybody's values are the role of tangible economic goods in the choice to steal is not clear.

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

If you've got something specific that needs to be clarified or criticized then point it out.

Otherwise, the above quote contributes absolutely nothing to answering the question at hand.

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

You bring up some good points.

What I am addressing is the folk psychology that basically says that the bottom line is that if somebody steals a tangible economic good, G, it was G that was the underlying cause of the choice to steal.

Not only am I saying that such folk psychology is highly questionable, I am going further and suggesting that G may play absolutely no role in the choice to steal. The only role that G plays, I am suggesting, is in deciding what to steal.

I think that the part that I bolded is important. I do not think that we can take cultural context out of the equation. Economic behavior is a cultural act. There is plenty of evidence from economic anthropology, the way that I understand it, that the behavior in the prisoner's dilemma is simply the way that some cultures socialize people to behave and is not universal.

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

I do not see how objective or subjective morality makes a difference in the role of a tangible economic good in the choice to steal.

A person could objectively or subjectively believe that stealing is wrong, but choose to steal. A person could objectively or subjectively believe that stealing is not wrong, but choose not to steal.

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

Look at the part that I bolded.

Are you saying, like I have been saying, that the good itself is not why people steal?

You say that the good could be almost anything.

And yes, in numerous cases, this has largely to do with the value of what is stolen... — Sapientia

Do you mean the choice to steal or the choice of what to steal?

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

But what role does a tangible economic good, G, play in the choice to steal?

Is it that G causes people to steal and anybody who has never stolen anything simply has not encountered the G that will make him/her do it?

Or is it, as I believe, that G plays absolutely no role in the decision to steal and at the most plays a role in deciding what to steal?

Or something in between?

(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 something possesses no value then it is not an economic good and is outside of the scope of this discussion. Maybe there's a discussion somewhere in Metaphysic & Epistemology about such a thing.

If an economic good does not inherently possess any value, then value is arbitrary. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Okay, well, on that definition, I'm saying it's "arbitrary."

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

Maybe you'd only call inherent/objective value "(an economic) good." I wouldn't agree with that, but <shrugs>

None of this addresses the role of a tangible economic good in the choice to steal. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Why would it address that? That's the first time I've noticed you introducing that language into the discussion. We'd have to get into your definition of what a "tangible economic good" is. If it's something you're defining as being objective, then I'd say there is no such thing.

If certain tangible economic goods, such as an iPhone, cause stealing, then if we eliminate those goods stealing would cease to exist? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

An iPhone isn't going to cause stealing. A person's decision to engage in the action of stealing causes stealing.

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

That could be one reason that some people steal. It's not going to be the reason that everyone steals, and even for the people for whom it's one reason, it's often not going to be the only one.

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

Again, this is going to vary by person. Different people are different.

There are two sets of choices:

1.) Stealing.

2.) Alternatives to stealing, such as begging. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

3. Earning money by working... Wouldn't that be another choice?

BTW, most people are penny ante thieves. The thieves that we should be worrying about are the members of the kleptocracy--a world-wide gang.

"You bring up some good points.

What I am addressing is the folk psychology that basically says that the bottom line is that if somebody steals a tangible economic good, G, it was G that was the underlying cause of the choice to steal.

Not only am I saying that such folk psychology is highly questionable, I am going further and suggesting that G may play absolutely no role in the choice to steal. The only role that G plays, I am suggesting, is in deciding what to steal.

I think that the part that I bolded is important. I do not think that we can take cultural context out of the equation. Economic behavior is a cultural act. There is plenty of evidence from economic anthropology, the way that I understand it, that the behavior in the prisoner's dilemma is simply the way that some cultures socialize people to behave and is not universal."
--WISDOMfromPO-MO

Hedonistic-calculus and game theory are merely simple models to help understand vastly much more complicated real world systems and/or problems. Are they always exact or perfect, probably not but to just point out that in some examples the models may fail doesn't mean that they are ineffective given that there is no other model available that you are suggesting to replace them, or if there is one you haven't mention it yet.

If your not arguing whatever point your trying to make because you view morality is objective, nor does it seem you approaching this from a statistical standpoint I guess I'm kind of lose as to either where you are coming from or where you are trying to go with it.


"I do not see how objective or subjective morality makes a difference in the role of a tangible economic good in the choice to steal.

A person could objectively or subjectively believe that stealing is wrong, but choose to steal. A person could objectively or subjectively believe that stealing is not wrong, but choose not to steal."
--WISDOMfromPO-MO

I think you may be missing something here. If a person believes it is 'good' or 'ok' to steal and WANTS TO STEAL but doesn't then usually there is some barrier in the way preventing them from doing so. For example in video games such as Saint's Row you play the leader of a quirky/psychotic (or "pucky" in the characters own words) leader of a major criminal organization. In the game if you need something in the game most of the time you either steal it from someone or kill someone and then take it from their corpse or whatever is left of them. There are also other fun things to do such as see how many people you can run over at a time before the cops or military tries to stop you but I think you get the general idea.

If you really stop and think about it EVERY HUMAN being technically STEALS in order to LIVE since we have to EAT plants and/or animals, and when you think of it when one get nutrition from another living thing you are STEALING either some or all of it's life in order to replenish your own; and if we didn't do this we wouldn't last long. And even if our culture and society looks the other way while we do this (ie. killing animals isn't murder or even cruelty when done to obtain food), it isn't really that extremely different from the theft and/or theft/murder done on a person to person level.

When it comes to survival (or sometimes just getting something we want) we often just do whatever needs to be done without worrying about morality and/or long term consequences.

(Below are links to two songs by Perry Farrell/Jane's Addition that might help you get some... perspective on the thinking/reasoning as to WHY people steal and or do the other things they do)

Jane's Addiction - Been Caught Stealing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrwjiO1MCVs

Jane's Addiction - Ain't No Right
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx6691i0KDE

Also one small problem with the argument with that there is no reason to steal is the existence of people who make a living doing it and or other activity that is similar to stealing. If there are some people who can profit from being thieves (of one kind or another) it really isn't a surprise that others might think it a path to an easier life than what they already have; even if often it isn't.

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?

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

Too easy. How about stealing US hacking tools for spying and giving them to the rest of the world?

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.

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

Then it is the good cause, not the thing stolen, that the choice to steal is based on.

Or if we eliminate the good cause would the theft of the particular item still occur?

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

We're talking about the marginal choice to steal or not to steal, and the role of the good stolen in that marginal choice.

Unless you are saying that marginal decision making is not part of morally good life, I don't see where any conflict is.

What do you mean by marginal?

Anyway...

When someone steals he must have some reason for doing it - a kind of cost-benefit arithmetic - unless he's a klepto.

Your argument is that the thief got the math wrong.

Note that the thief is looking at it from another perspective, perhaps material gain.

You're looking at it from a more abstract angle BUT you still stand to gain.

Therein lies the problem. Not stealing or not doing wrong is not about gain.