Shoplifting? Moral objection, or just scared of being nicked?
- Thread starter britboy4321
- Start date
Why should it make any difference how financially sound the victim is, or in fact who the victim is?
To imply that stealing or pirating from a millioniare is more acceptable than from doing so from the less wealthy is just shifting the focus from what is going on - the same act has been committed, there is no reason why any punishment shuld be different.
Of course, I can appreciate that causing a loss to a wealthy party is far less practically damaging, but it doesn't make it more morally acceptable. Likewise, that way of thinking doesn't really have any application when we are referreing to the theft of pirating of films of music as the money is always (generally) flowing the same way.
Sorry if I have also misunderstood, but you post does read that way.
You seem to be suggesting that piracy is "ok" because it only hurts big publishers and has little effect on the artist that created the work. Surely then using that rationale stealing from a large company is also "ok". If not, why not? What is the difference?
That's the thing though, there is (or has been) no punishment that I have seen/read about for simply downloading music or a movie. There have been punishments in the form of fines for sharing those downloaded items via P2P, recording them at the cinema and distributing them physically etc but none for just downloading them, but you don't hear about people being convicted of just downloading material X.
That's where the problem lies.
But we aren't really talking about punishment but rather the morality of it. I personally see little moral difference between theft and copyright infringement. Hence I am currently debating whether I need to splash out £350 on a student licence of CS4 or if I can get away with just using the University machines. It isn't like I lack the technical skills to get hold of a cracked version!
That is a point yeah, morally there is little difference in that instance.
There should be a best of both worlds camp where the majority of people could fit in to
After all, everyone has pirated (or used something pirated) even if it's a tiny thing, at some point. It would be hard to believe someone who said they have never done that!
There should be a best of both worlds camp where the majority of people could fit in to
After all, everyone has pirated (or used something pirated) even if it's a tiny thing, at some point. It would be hard to believe someone who said they have never done that!
I can just remote in and use it from home if I want to, but there are advantages to having your own version.
I'd argue that's only because pirates don't think through what they're doing, whereas because physical theft is more tangible, it's harder to avoid the moral consideration. They're both wrong for the same reasons, and if one is wrong, both are wrong. They are seen differently by some people, but like I say not because the morality changes, but because the situation changes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
I dont see how you think i am a 'religious fanatic' towards to government?
FYI, i dont vote and i dont pay tax.
So lets say tax is stealing.
Stealing can be justified, except it doesnt make it right. Stealing is wrong, a justification regardless of how good it is, does not turn wrong into right. That is my point, whether or not i believe tax to be stealing is irrelevent.
However, just because something is wrong, and the person agree's that it is wrong, it doesnt automatically stop the person from doing it. I believe stealing is wrong, and i would still do it, i know its wrong, i accept that.
People are deluded when the believe their actions are right when infact it is wrong, regardless of their intentions. However if they agree it is wrong, but they still do it, then thats ok, and not a contradiction. The majority of people delude themselves into thinking something is right, so they can sleep better at night.
An example would be stealing from 'an evil corporation' a charity, and the citizens of a country (you are the prime minister in that example).
Each are equally wrong.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,019
- Location
- Midlands
has anyone ever got a chicken nugget for free?
From another thread:
Since religion is retarded and there is no need to account to oneself for religious, spiritual or "supernatural" reasons, why are you against stealing? Surely given the fact that you only have one life, no accountability to a higher power etc, then you should be clawing away every advantage you can give yourself to better your own life regardless of others?
Or is it just the fact you'd be too scared of such a society meaning others could then likewise steal from you (because you're not strong enough to stop them) that forms the basis of your decision that stealing is 'wrong'? Surely 'morals' and one life/survival of the fittest are almost contrary ideas?
Genuine question.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
My definition of being against stealing means i want nobody to steal. I am not 'against' stealing, i just know that it is wrong in essence.
And yes i would be clawing away every advantage, that is if i am not lazy...
Or is it just the fact you'd be too scared of such a society meaning others could then likewise steal from you (because you're not strong enough to stop them) that forms the basis of your decision that stealing is 'wrong'? Surely 'morals' and one life/survival of the fittest are almost contrary ideas?
Genuine question.
The only difference of such a society is that people wouldnt delude themselves into thinking things can be right or wrong depending on the circumstances, that goes for everything, not just stealing. It doesnt mean people would steal any more or any less.
Why would i be for a society where stealing is not illegal? Does not compute.
And its not so contrary, as it is not morals, but logic.
Last edited:
For a game or a film? nah I'd rather download it if I was to do something illegally.
but on the whole no, I wouldn't shoplift. Unless it was something like toilet roll, and I forgot my wallet, and the house was out, and there was 100% no chance of getting caught.
but on the whole no, I wouldn't shoplift. Unless it was something like toilet roll, and I forgot my wallet, and the house was out, and there was 100% no chance of getting caught.
I was talking about this to my friend and he said a few interesting points.
With theft, you are taking away something tangible from the retailer, thereby doing over the retailer and the manufacturer / producer. With piracy, you are only really acting to the detriment of the manufacturer / producer, if you consider that you might never buy the item from retail in the first place.
Thus it was argued by my friend that theft damages more parties directly and can be distinguished from piracy as being worse.
I don't entirely agree with that. I think that it's still still morally dubious behaviour regardless of how many parties it damages. However, even though my friend held the above opinion, he did admit that piracy was still to extents morally dubious and he couldn't fully justify doing it.
With theft, you are taking away something tangible from the retailer, thereby doing over the retailer and the manufacturer / producer. With piracy, you are only really acting to the detriment of the manufacturer / producer, if you consider that you might never buy the item from retail in the first place.
Thus it was argued by my friend that theft damages more parties directly and can be distinguished from piracy as being worse.
I don't entirely agree with that. I think that it's still still morally dubious behaviour regardless of how many parties it damages. However, even though my friend held the above opinion, he did admit that piracy was still to extents morally dubious and he couldn't fully justify doing it.
How are those not contradictory? If you only have to account to yourself, and you are all for clawing away every advantage, how is stealing 'wrong in essence'? Says who? How and why is it wrong to take what you want and need given that you only have one life, and are accountable to nobody but yourself?
So provide the logic, as I'm not sure where you're coming from. You say that religion is retarded, you have one life, and that if you weren't so lazy you'd be clawing every advantage for yourself to make your single, unaccountable life better... yet stealing is 'wrong in essence'. Since you have no higher power to account to, there is no karma etc, and you can only stand on your own two feet; what makes taking whatever you want/need inherently wrong, if it isn't the fact that mutual agreement in 'society' means you don't then get stolen from yourself?
I don't see how such a society or personal attitude 'does not compute' when you're coming from the viewpoint of "one life, no God, no accountability - you get one crack at it, and you have no consequences". Surely better then, to take everything you fancy and make yourself as comfortable as possible? It's not like you're going to be judged after death for it...
So if it isn't for spiritual reasons, and it isn't because you've entered into a reciprocal agreement to prevent theft from yourself, what exactly is it that forms your logical conclusion?