Stealing from a thief

[yasic]

Lets say that you find out that some person stole a large sum of cash, lets just say $5,000. For whatever reason, he covered his tracks and there is nothing that can be legally done about this.

You have a chance to steal the money from him, and likewise you can cover your tracks so no legal action can be taken against you.

Would it be immoral to steal the money from him and give it back to the proper owner?

If the original owner cannot be found or is otherwise inaccessible, would it be immoral to steal the money and give it to a charitable cause?

If the original owner cannot be found or is otherwise inaccessible, would it be immoral to steal the money and keep it yourself?

Would it be immoral to steal the money and give it to a charitable cause, even if you could give it to the original owner?

Would it be immoral to steal the money and keep it yourself, even if you could give it to the original owner?

 

[Wedjat]

Without much thought my answers would be...

• no
• no, but slightly less on the less moral side
• neutral, slightly on the amoral side
• yes, but slightly more moral than the next one
• yes, the least moral option of the lot.

respectively

 

[nolongerhome]

Are property rights moral? That is a can of worms.

Let's assume that it is moral to have a claim to property over an object (money is an object too) and that that claim entitles me to do with that object whatever I see fit (so long as that doesn't break other laws, endanger people, etc.).

Would it be immoral to steal the money from him and give it back to the proper owner?

I don't think that you could consider this "stealing" - you are returning it to the proper owner. So I don't think that this is immoral, it is the most moral course of action to take, really.

If the original owner cannot be found or is otherwise inaccessible, would it be immoral to steal the money and give it to a charitable cause?

This is the trickiest one of them all. My gut feeling is that this isn't immoral because the person who stole it does not have a legitimate claim to the money, and it is impossible to return the money to the person that does have a legitimate claim - donating the money to charity seems a reasonable compromise to the ideal solution of taking the money away from the person who has no right to it and returning it to the person that does, which this particular scenario makes impossible to satisfy.

If the original owner cannot be found or is otherwise inaccessible, would it be immoral to steal the money and keep it yourself?

It would be equally as moral as the actions of the first guy that stole the money for their own gain, so I say yes, this is immoral. I have as much right to the money as the original thief (i.e. none).

Would it be immoral to steal the money and give it to a charitable cause, even if you could give it to the original owner?

I think that this is immoral - if something which has been stolen can be returned to its rightful owner, it should be returned. I am not the one with the legitimate claim to this money, the original owner is, so they ought to decide how it is used.

Would it be immoral to steal the money and keep it yourself, even if you could give it to the original owner?

Again, this makes you no better than the original thief, so it is immoral.

If we aren't going to assume that property rights are moral, it is forseeable that possibly all of these answers would change, depending on how the issue of property was considered.

 

[yasic]

It would be equally as moral as the actions of the first guy that stole the money for their own gain, so I say yes, this is immoral. I have as much right to the money as the original thief (i.e. none).

Well, if both the thief and you have the same right to the money, why is it immoral to give it to yourself? From your actions nobody is losing what belongs to them, your not taking away anything that belongs to the person. Would it not be just neutral?

 

[nolongerhome]

Well, if both the thief and you have the same right to the money, why is it immoral to give it to yourself? From your actions nobody is losing what belongs to them, your not taking away anything that belongs to the person. Would it not be just neutral?

Because I would not consider that I (a person with no right to the money) am stealing from the thief (a person with no right to the money), rather I am stealing from the rightful owner. While that particular scenario meant that the money couldn't be returned to the rightful owner, I don't believe that that makes my claim or the original thiefs claim to the money any stronger, and I don't think it has any impact on the legitimate claim that the rightful owner has to it.

(Again, assuming the morality of property rights)

 

[underpressure]

If it was my money they had stolen and I had the chance to steal it back I'd steal it back in a heartbeat, obviously.

If it was someone else's money, it really would depend on the circumstances, how well I knew the victim, if they needed the money back etc. If it was my best friends last 5k, of course I'd steal it back for them, if it was some acquaintance that I didn't know that well who was very wealthy, and the thief really needed the cash, I'd let it go.

And if the victim can't be traced, again I'd probably let it go.

 

[Wildcat48]

Or you could just beat the crap out of him in retribution.

 

[nolongerhome]

Or you could just beat the crap out of him in retribution.

Why didn't I think of that? Would have saved me the time deliberating.

 

[Wildcat48]

Why didn't I think of that? Would have saved me the time deliberating.

See? Life's not so complicated.

 

[yasic]

My position is a bit unorthodox on this matter.

I certainly think that the higher the question I put, the more moral it is (as did all of you), however I do not consider any of the possibilities I mentioned to be immoral.

Even in the one where you steal from the thief, and keep for yourself while the owner can be found. In this case you, yourself, are not causing any more harm. You are taking the money away from someone who has no right to have it, and giving it to yourself, another person who has no right to have it. There is no change of property values. You are not taking it from the original owner who is not harmed by your actions in any way.


I myself, under most circumstances, will give it back, but I cannot hold it against someone who would not.

 

[Skaloop]

My position is a bit unorthodox on this matter.

I certainly think that the higher the question I put, the more moral it is (as did all of you), however I do not consider any of the possibilities I mentioned to be immoral.

Even in the one where you steal from the thief, and keep for yourself while the owner can be found. In this case you, yourself, are not causing any more harm. You are taking the money away from someone who has no right to have it, and giving it to yourself, another person who has no right to have it. There is no change of property values. You are not taking it from the original owner who is not harmed by your actions in any way.

Isn't he? If you know who the rightful owner is, and do not return it to him, then you are harming him. Sure, there's a middleman involved (the original thief), but you are harming the original owner. Perhaps not directly by your action of stealing the money from the original thief, but by your inaction of not returning it to the known owner.

I don't disagree that I could understand someone doing it, but I do disagree that it would not be immoral.

 

[nolongerhome]

My position is a bit unorthodox on this matter.

I certainly think that the higher the question I put, the more moral it is (as did all of you), however I do not consider any of the possibilities I mentioned to be immoral.

Even in the one where you steal from the thief, and keep for yourself while the owner can be found. In this case you, yourself, are not causing any more harm. You are taking the money away from someone who has no right to have it, and giving it to yourself, another person who has no right to have it. There is no change of property values. You are not taking it from the original owner who is not harmed by your actions in any way.

I myself, under most circumstances, will give it back, but I cannot hold it against someone who would not.

The way I see it, there is only one person that has a legitimate claim to the money. That person is not you. It doesn't matter who you take it from, the money is not legitimately yours.

The person that has their legitimately owned property taken from them is harmed. If I take it off the person that stole it and don't return it, I am personally responsible for some of that harm - my illegitimate possession, despite my knowledge of the legitimate owner, is causing harm, isn't it?

 

[yasic]

The way I see it, there is only one person that has a legitimate claim to the money. That person is not you. It doesn't matter who you take it from, the money is not legitimately yours.

The person that has their legitimately owned property taken from them is harmed. If I take it off the person that stole it and don't return it, I am personally responsible for some of that harm - my illegitimate possession, despite my knowledge of the legitimate owner, is causing harm, isn't it?

If you find a hundred dollar bill on the sidewalk, it is certainly not yours and belongs to someone else, yet nobody complains that you take it because you are harming the legitimate owner by taking it.

I don't think it is immoral to have something that does not belong to you, rather I think it is immoral to take something away from the person it belongs to. Just the 2 are so closely tied together most people combine the two.

So sure it is not yours, but you took it from someone who also does not own it, and as such did not make the situation worse for anyone.


Although I will admit, my gut feeling is that I am wrong and I really pose this question so I can see the logic behind why it is I am wrong

 

[yasic]

Isn't he? If you know who the rightful owner is, and do not return it to him, then you are harming him. Sure, there's a middleman involved (the original thief), but you are harming the original owner. Perhaps not directly by your action of stealing the money from the original thief, but by your inaction of not returning it to the known owner.

I don't disagree that I could understand someone doing it, but I do disagree that it would not be immoral.

You are not harming him in that no additional harm is being caused by your actions. If you do or do not steal the money, the original owner will be in the exact same state.

You are simply not helping the owner even when you can.

 

[stella_ku]

stealing in any way or form is still stealing, no matter how you try to justify it

 

[Skaloop]

You are simply not helping the owner even when you can.

Which is harmful.

 

[nolongerhome]

If you find a hundred dollar bill on the sidewalk, it is certainly not yours and belongs to someone else, yet nobody complains that you take it because you are harming the legitimate owner by taking it.

You don't think there is a moral difference between "finding" and "stealing"?

Also, the particular case I am taking issue with involves you knowing who is the rightful owner - finding a note on the street is a case where it is basically impossible to know whose it is, unless you see it or someone asks if you have seen the money on the ground without knowing that you are in fact in possession of it.

If you see someone drop the $100 accidently and don't give it back to them, is that moral? I don't think it is.

I don't think it is immoral to have something that does not belong to you, rather I think it is immoral to take something away from the person it belongs to. Just the 2 are so closely tied together most people combine the two.

If you have something that doesn't belong to you and you know who it belongs to, what is the difference between "having" and "taking" in this instance? If someone else took it from that person, and you then took it from that thief, you are part of a chain of people that have taken something away from the rightful owner.

So sure it is not yours, but you took it from someone who also does not own it, and as such did not make the situation worse for anyone.

If you know who the rightful owner is, you didn't make their situation any worse (they still don't have their money), however you have just become a contributor to their original bad situation as someone who is withholding their legitimate property - you are ensuring that their bad situation continues. Doesn't that make you responsible for harm to them? The original thief is responsible for the harm of stealing the money and possessing it for however long they have it, so robbing the person of the chance of using that money. You are responsible for the harm of continuing to lengthen the amount of time that that person is unable to use their money.

So I don't see how you can get away with claiming that you are moral to continue the original owner's bad situation because you don't make it any worse when you are clearly and easily able to remedy the situation.

 

[nolongerhome]

You are not harming him in that no additional harm is being caused by your actions. If you do or do not steal the money, the original owner will be in the exact same state.

The owner may still be in the same state, but by taking illegitimate possession of the money yourself you are shifting the ongoing responsibility for that fact from the original thief to yourself.

You are simply not helping the owner even when you can.

And is that a moral thing to do?

 

[underpressure]

You are not harming him in that no additional harm is being caused by your actions. If you do or do not steal the money, the original owner will be in the exact same state.

You are simply not helping the owner even when you can.

You are harming the thief. Even thieves have feelings.

 

[Penumbra]

Would it be immoral to steal the money from him and give it back to the proper owner?

In my opinion, no, it is good to give it back to the owner. This is hypothetically speaking, though. I don't think I'd attempt to pull it off in real life, because
a) I probably have lousy stealing skillz
b) There is no such thing as assurance that you won't be caught in real life.

If the original owner cannot be found or is otherwise inaccessible, would it be immoral to steal the money and give it to a charitable cause?

In my opinion, no, it is not immoral to do this. (Though, see above for real life.)

If the original owner cannot be found or is otherwise inaccessible, would it be immoral to steal the money and keep it yourself?

I think this is neutral at best, but I would categorize this as immoral under my worldview because I wouldn't be able to sleep at night. See my comment at the end of my post.

Would it be immoral to steal the money and give it to a charitable cause, even if you could give it to the original owner?

In my opinion, this might be ok, but is messy. Its morality is probably proportional to the wealth of the original owner.

Would it be immoral to steal the money and keep it yourself, even if you could give it to the original owner?

I think so, yes. Again, this might fall under "neutral" but I couldn't sleep at night if I did this.

When I consider things to be "moral" or "immoral", one metric I use is to consider what would happen if everyone did this thing. If everyone were so underhanded that they would steal from a thief and keep the money, then I don't think that would make a very healthy society, so I classify this (and the other thing I considered neutral) as immoral.

-Lyn