Stealing why is it bad

If stealing from a sole trader, this issue would not arise. However, it is far more complex in the modern context of large supermarkets. Working through specific instances of stealing, perhaps with real case studies, and seeing if those examples could escape falling foul of the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, would be useful for you to consider for yourselves. Utilitarian theories — Act, Rule, and Preference — are linked by their commitment to the view that it is consequence that determines the morality of actions, although the three theories have slightly different views on how this central claim should be interpreted in practice.

Rule Utilitarianism and the ideas of John Stuart Mill will be discussed in section five of this chapter; for now our attention is focused upon the ideas of Jeremy Bentham and Peter Singer as defenders of Act Utilitarianism and Preference Utilitarianism respectively.

This is because all that needs to be the case for an example of stealing to be morally right is for the good consequences to outweigh the bad consequences. Indeed, this very much seems to be the case in the example of a person stealing bread from a multinational supermarket chain in order to survive. We are better off being disposed not to steal, for example, because we cannot be sure of the consequences. Indeed, in the real world, thieves often have no idea what pain their victims suffer as stolen items can often have hidden sentimental value beyond any that a thief could recognise in the abstract this seems most relevant to cases four and five.

The thief who stole an iPad in Colorado Springs, for example, probably did not factor in the pain of an eight-year-old boy losing photos of himself with his recently deceased father. There is good reason for thinking that Utilitarianism does not offer enough in respect of cautioning against stealing in general. Although stealing may be viewed as undesirable in some of the previous situations and similar such cases for the reason alluded to in the previous paragraph pertaining to rules of thumb, there are plenty of situations where the consequences obviously point to stealing if total pleasure or preference satisfaction is all that determines morality.

We are sure that you can imagine many such situations yourselves where consequences are relatively easy to predict.

There may be a difference between wanting to be less than absolutist about the wrongness of stealing, and being so liberal that stealing turns out to be morally required in a potentially enormous number of situations.

The pain of a victim will not be fully accounted for if we only think of immediate pains to do with finance and anger. In addition, we must recognise the psychological pain often resulting from the fear of having property stolen or a house burgled. 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. I think that Vincent would not have had to break the rules if they did not discriminate against him, therefore they did not leave him with very many options.

Lennie didn't understand Crooks was setting an example so Lennoe got defensive "Who hurt George? The symptoms that isolation can cause aren't good. They cause more problems then to just give the outcasted a chance to show that they're different, kind, that they also have dreams and life.

Keeping controversial topics out of the spotlight causes people to be uneducated about specific topics, which also leads to judgement and stereotyping of certain groups or people. How does banning books cause more harm than good? Well, banning books destructs the general well being of people;from someone not being able to have control over what they want to read, to keeping people from the best overall learning experience, and to not discussing real topics that need to be talked about.

Many people of the city chose to leave the city, because they didn't believe in the act of hurting that child. Only pain is intellectual, only evil interesting. This is the treason of the artist; a refusal to admit the banality of evil and the terrible boredom of pain.

Stealing is wrong. When you steal it makes you a bad person. It can cause you to go to jail. When people steal they make it a habit and keep doing it until they get caught by the police. The person you stole from now has to buy the same thing you stole and will be very furious. Depending on who is effected, and the type of harm that is being caused.

Taking a candy bar from a store without paying for it should be a crime, but not as serve crime. When you do take a candy bar from a store, it cuts into the profits of the store. It may seem that if one candy bar is taken it will not be noticed.

But if more and more candy bar are stolen, then it will have a great affect to the store. In addition, stealing also affects the consumers negatively when the cost of the goods lost through theft is passed on to them. Conversely, measures taken to minimize costs due to theft are also very costly to an organization. To make matters worse, most of the products stolen are not used because of the guilt felt by the thief. Therefore, there is no need to steal as it only leads to the emotional suffering of the victims.

The fastest and the most accurate essay writing provider on the Internet! I admire your quality and speed writing! Thank you! Essay on Why Stealing Is Wrong Stealing is one of the main problems affecting businesses around the world. Type of assignment. Title of your paper.

Single spaced Double spaced. Total price. Talk to an operator NOW! Order Now!