Was this bad?
#11
(02-09-2020, 04:02 PM)Blind Horus Wrote: Poetic, I know the feeling you're talking about.

Did you look to see if anyone was watching when you took it?
Yeah I looked
Reply
#12
(02-09-2020, 10:04 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: It is worth noting that theft is the taking of something which does not belong to you, against the reasonable will of the owner.

So, if one is truly starving, and someone who has extra food refuses to give at least some, it would not be theft to take what one needs, provided it does not significantly harm the owner. It is not reasonable to refuse alms to someone is severe need. So taking is not against the reasonable will of the owner.
I disagree.  It's still stealing, even if it seems unreasonable of the owner to object.  It may be understandable if a starving person steals food from someone who has a lot, but it's still stealing.  

The problem with this is the subjectivity it introduces into the equation.  What's reasonable?  Today it will be allowing people to take what they think they need, regardless of the will of the owner, tomorrow it will be coercing people to be "charitable".
[-] The following 1 user Likes jack89's post:
  • newenglandsun
Reply
#13
This reminds me of a time when I discovered a St. Benedict medal on the ground on University campus. The right thing was to turn it in to lost and found since it was not mine. I also made certain that lost and found would not throw it away if unclaimed. They indeed had relations with a children's charity. I don't know if it was claimed or not.
[-] The following 1 user Likes newenglandsun's post:
  • jack89
Reply
#14
(02-10-2020, 09:37 AM)jack89 Wrote:
(02-09-2020, 10:04 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: It is worth noting that theft is the taking of something which does not belong to you, against the reasonable will of the owner.

So, if one is truly starving, and someone who has extra food refuses to give at least some, it would not be theft to take what one needs, provided it does not significantly harm the owner. It is not reasonable to refuse alms to someone is severe need. So taking is not against the reasonable will of the owner.
I disagree.  It's still stealing, even if it seems unreasonable of the owner to object.  It may be understandable if a starving person steals food from someone who has a lot, but it's still stealing.  

The problem with this is the subjectivity it introduces into the equation.  What's reasonable?  Today it will be allowing people to take what they think they need, regardless of the will of the owner, tomorrow it will be coercing people to be "charitable".

I'm just making a technical distinction, not suggesting by this, of course, it is right to take what is not ours.

The sin of theft is committed when one takes something which another person has a claim to and can reasonably (i.e. according to right reason, not some subjective personal reason) would not give to this person if asked.

If one takes something which another person has no interest in, but has not been offered for taking, then this is not theft, but bad faith possession. In moral theology there is a distinction.

In theft, since it is a sin against justice, reparation is owed, including any foreseeable damage (e.g. interest). Possession in bad faith does not have the same consequences. It still has to be given back if the owner wants it, but there is probably no duty beyond this.

That was not said to suggest that it is okay to go about taking items which one thinks might not have much value to the owner, and if that is what was understood by what I wrote, I stand corrected and want to clarify. This is why I suggested a way of "repairing" or finding out if the owner actually wanted the item.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)