Stealing – Is it ever appropriate?

Stealing – Is it ever appropriate? This is the question that we are going to attempt to answer in this discussion. The question is a complex one as several arguments on both sides of the question could be explored from an ethical point of view. There is the natural answer that stealing is never appropriate which is backed up by the Divine Command, Natural Law, Utilitarian, and Social Contract ethical theories. But what happens when a person is faced with extreme circumstances, such as natural disaster, poverty, or hopelessness? Does that make it okay for a person to steal in order to survive? Is it okay for a person to steal as a form of protest?

The Ethical Egoism supports these answers in the affirmative as the theory states that everyone is self-preserving by nature. Therefore, it provides a justification for a person to steal in order to feed their family in times of crisis. We will examine these arguments by first breaking down the issue into the individual components. These individual components will identify the possible agents, acts, patients, and any interesting situations. Then we will utilize these components to establish two ethical theoretical viewpoints for each side and examine the underlying complexities that exist on each side of the argument.

The complexities introduce themselves in the form of racial stereotypes. Minorities have always struggled with equality in the areas of civil and economic rights. They have been typically stereotyped as animals, and therefore not worthy of exception or the proper respect afforded to other races. This was exemplified during the New Orleans disaster, when Kanye West commented on the government response to Hurricane Katrina during the NBC telethon where he stated the following:

“I hate the way they portray us in the media. You see a black family, it says, "They're looting." You see a white family, it says, "They're looking for food." And, you know, it's been five days [waiting for federal help] because most of the people are black. And even for me to complain about it, I would be a hypocrite because I've tried to turn away from the TV because it's too hard to watch. I've even been shopping before even giving a donation, so now I'm calling my business manager right now to see what is the biggest amount I can give, and just to imagine if I was down there, and those are my people down there. So anybody out there that wants to do anything that we can help -- with the way America is set up to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off, as slow as possible. I mean, the Red Cross is doing everything they can. We already realize a lot of people that could help are at war right now, fighting another way -- and they've given them permission to go down and shoot us!... George Bush doesn't care about black people!”

This quote is unprecedented for a number of reasons: 1.) Kanye is commenting on the how the actions of the victims are being perceived based on race, 2.) He is a Black entertainer making a direct criticism of the President of United States, implying that the President has racial bias, which is unheard of, and 3.) He is in a position to assist the victims and he understands that he is not doing enough to solve the problem making him part of the problem as opposed to being part of the solution. Personally, I agree with the statements that Kanye West made during that telecast. My view is that stealing is appropriate when faced with life and death situations such as natural disasters and extreme poverty. Survival becomes the only priority in this case, and that is paramount to not only survive, but bring attention to the situation so that assistance could be provided.

The following table decomposes the issue of stealing into the individual components. These individual components identify the possible agents, acts, patients, and any interesting situations.

(Table not listed)

This is important because the decomposition allows us to perform a comprehensive analysis of the question of stealing by carefully examining each component on both sides of the argument and constructing the appropriate justifications that will support the arguments.

As I stated earlier, my personal view is that stealing is appropriate when faced with life and death situations such as natural disasters and extreme poverty. Survival becomes the only priority in this case, and that is paramount to not only survive, but bring attention to the situation so that assistance could be provided. Ethical egoism is the ethical theoretical viewpoint that can be used to support this argument. This theory explicitly states that, "In other words, it is good for humans to act in their own self-interest in each and every occasion." Under situations of extreme duress, such as Natural disasters (New Orleans disaster), Traumatic situations (Rodney King verdict), or Poverty mentioned in the table, the agents, whether it is a single person or a particular group of individuals, have to commit acts of stealing against the patients in order to survive. Traumatic situations such as the Rodney King verdict and the death of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. are a catalyst for such acts because the affected groups of people are traumatized and require a release. Thus, the traumatic situation becomes an impetus for a riot against those who are perceived to inflict the trauma. These riots start with stealing simply for survival, but quickly degenerate into situations of looting and the complete destruction of property. In a weird twist the Prima Facie theory, specifically the Principle of Reparation could be used to support the acts that arise from traumatic situations. The reason being is that prior to the traumatic situation, there are usually symptoms that create unrest in these communities. Whether its lack of quality schools, affordable housing, stable employment, or basic social violations, these communities feel neglected and that their voice is not being heard by their leaders on all levels (local, state, federal, and international). At this point, the traumatic situation represents the point where the community is fed up and the community is seeking both retribution and reparation for the harm that has been caused. The government has continually inflicted harm on these communities through waste, exploitation, mismanagement, and an abject failure to listen to the citizens. So the community inflicts reparations on those who they feel are exploiting them for profit without giving back to the community.

But does that justify stealing as appropriate? These acts are still crimes, with or without proper justification. The Eighth Commandment in the Bible states, "Thou shall not steal...” which establishes the Divine Command theory as the foundational theory to support the argument that stealing is not appropriate. Furthermore, the Natural Law theory states that "there are very general moral principles/laws that are objective truths discoverable in the nature of things." Stealing is understood as a general moral principle that has consequences for the action. If it is a generally understood law that stealing is illegal, and there is a contract within society that states that citizens will obey the generally understood laws of society, then to break that contract is to understand that significant penalties come with these illegal acts. That premise is the basis for the Social Contract theory which states, "...we agree to give up some authority and power to a ruler (or rulers) in exchange for the benefits of living in a peaceful, law-abiding society. We contract (agree) to form a society. Just by living in this society we silently agree to its laws and ethos." So stealing becomes a violation of God's Law, Natural Law, and the Laws of society that govern our people.

There is an emotion that Kanye West conveys in his quote at the onset of this discussion that applies to both arguments. That is one of remorse or use of his moral conscience in analyzing his actions against the backdrop of the New Orleans disaster. Whether the justification of stealing is right or wrong, there is crime committed against your soul that will always have to be atoned for. It may not be right away, but at some point those actions come back to affect one's conscience. Aristotle's theory states that, "The goal of morality is to develop a soul whose rational and non-rational parts act as one." This synthesis occurs at different stages of a human's life and development. But when it occurs, regret sets in, upon reflection upon the act that has been committed. This is important in the development of the next aspect of Aristotle's theory which outlines that, "Virtue ethics emphasizes that it is not actions that are right or wrong, moral or immoral. It is the human being that is moral or immoral. Becoming a good person involves developing a certain moral wisdom throughout a lifetime." This allows for healing, whether it is in a correctional facility, through God, or the reparation for wrongdoing. The act of stealing for one's survival would still be appropriate, because it is an extenuating circumstance, but there still is a price to be paid, which society cannot define.

So in conclusion, we have successfully examined both sides of the question, "Stealing – Is it ever appropriate?” We have established an argument through careful examination that stealing is appropriate under situations of extreme duress. It does not excuse the moral price that has to be paid for the pain that is inflicted on others because it is still a violation of law. But under situations of extreme duress, survival is the primary instinct, with the consequences being a secondary factor in the equation. So under that specific condition, stealing is an appropriate act, regardless of the consequence.