Stealing is immoral, right?

Stealing is immoral, right?

Stealing is the unauthorised taking, keeping or using of a person's property without their permission or consent, permanently depriving the owner with rightful possession of that property or its use. It is a crime and is punishable by law.
We know stealing is wrong. But, what if stealing was the only way to feed a starving child? Or help cure a child dying from a disease? Would stealing be acceptable in circumstances such as these?

Let's create a scenario: Emily, a 5 year old girl, is dying from a deadly disease that can only be cured by a special drug. The drug is expensive; $500 is needed to make a small dose of that drug, but the same quantity is sold at $5000, ten times more. Her parents are relatively stable, financially, but only have $3000 in their bank account. Her father, Robert, has asked the chemist who has developed the drug if he could buy it for $3000 or pay the $5000 later, but the chemist has said no, since he wants to sell it for its price and become rich. Robert is desperate and decides to break into the chemist's laboratory at night and steal the drug. Should he be prosecuted, or should he be let off?
What about Sophie? She's also 5, but is dying from starvation. Her mother is poor and doesn't have enough money to buy a loaf of bread and water. So, she goes to a grocery and steals the loaf instead, along with a few bottles of water. Should she be prosecuted, or should she be let off? After all, in both cases, it is the parents' responsibility to protect their child and ensure they are getting the things needed to stay alive, so why should that be against the law?

I personally think that if you are stealing from someone who is considerably wealthy and/or does not need that product AND that you are stealing for altruistic purposes (i.e to save a child), you should not be penalised. If your life is depending on a certain product and you are in a situation where your only options are to commit a crime to preserve your life or to die due to the absence of that product, then surely it should be acceptable to steal that product. Yes theft is immoral but when it comes to death, a person's life is much more important than someone else's property and by denying them of that property, you are eliminating a life. Things can be replaced, lives can't.
However, if you are stealing something that you don't need, but want, such as a high-definition plasma TV, for pleasurable and selfish reasons, then I definitely think that that is wrong and the culprit should be prosecuted.


What are your thoughts?

Stealing is the unauthorised taking, keeping or using of a person's property without their permission or consent, permanently depriving the owner with rightful possession of that property or its use. It is a crime and is punishable by law.
We know stealing is wrong. But, what if stealing was the only way to feed a starving child? Or help cure a child dying from a disease? Would stealing be acceptable in circumstances such as these?

Let's create a scenario: Emily, a 5 year old girl, is dying from a deadly disease that can only be cured by a special drug. The drug is expensive; $500 is needed to make a small dose of that drug, but the same quantity is sold at $5000, ten times more. Her parents are relatively stable, financially, but only have $3000 in their bank account. Her father, Robert, has asked the chemist who has developed the drug if he could buy it for $3000 or pay the $5000 later, but the chemist has said no, since he wants to sell it for its price and become rich. Robert is desperate and decides to break into the chemist's laboratory at night and steal the drug. Should he be prosecuted, or should he be let off?
What about Sophie? She's also 5, but is dying from starvation. Her mother is poor and doesn't have enough money to buy a loaf of bread and water. So, she goes to a grocery and steals the loaf instead, along with a few bottles of water. Should she be prosecuted, or should she be let off? After all, in both cases, it is the parents' responsibility to protect their child and ensure they are getting the things needed to stay alive, so why should that be against the law?

I personally think that if you are stealing from someone who is considerably wealthy and/or does not need that product AND that you are stealing for altruistic purposes (i.e to save a child), you should not be penalised. If your life is depending on a certain product and you are in a situation where your only options are to commit a crime to preserve your life or to die due to the absence of that product, then surely it should be acceptable to steal that product. Yes theft is immoral but when it comes to death, a person's life is much more important than someone else's property and by denying them of that property, you are eliminating a life. Things can be replaced, lives can't.
However, if you are stealing something that you don't need, but want, such as a high-definition plasma TV, for pleasurable and selfish reasons, then I definitely think that that is wrong and the culprit should be prosecuted.


What are your thoughts?

?

You're still breaking the law.

I understand that. Laws are black and white, they should not be broken no matter the situation. However, surely if there was no discrimination and social inequality, then no laws would need to be broken. Yet from what I see around me, the manipulation of the law appears to be highly unfair (and even immoral in some cases) that it just leads people to do bad things. Why should they be punished for it if they're not being taken care of by society?

Stealing is the unauthorised taking, keeping or using of a person's property without their permission or consent, permanently depriving the owner with rightful possession of that property or its use. It is a crime and is punishable by law.
We know stealing is wrong. But, what if stealing was the only way to feed a starving child? Or help cure a child dying from a disease? Would stealing be acceptable in circumstances such as these?

Let's create a scenario: Emily, a 5 year old girl, is dying from a deadly disease that can only be cured by a special drug. The drug is expensive; $500 is needed to make a small dose of that drug, but the same quantity is sold at $5000, ten times more. Her parents are relatively stable, financially, but only have $3000 in their bank account. Her father, Robert, has asked the chemist who has developed the drug if he could buy it for $3000 or pay the $5000 later, but the chemist has said no, since he wants to sell it for its price and become rich. Robert is desperate and decides to break into the chemist's laboratory at night and steal the drug. Should he be prosecuted, or should he be let off?
What about Sophie? She's also 5, but is dying from starvation. Her mother is poor and doesn't have enough money to buy a loaf of bread and water. So, she goes to a grocery and steals the loaf instead, along with a few bottles of water. Should she be prosecuted, or should she be let off? After all, in both cases, it is the parents' responsibility to protect their child and ensure they are getting the things needed to stay alive, so why should that be against the law?

I personally think that if you are stealing from someone who is considerably wealthy and/or does not need that product AND that you are stealing for altruistic purposes (i.e to save a child), you should not be penalised. If your life is depending on a certain product and you are in a situation where your only options are to commit a crime to preserve your life or to die due to the absence of that product, then surely it should be acceptable to steal that product. Yes theft is immoral but when it comes to death, a person's life is much more important than someone else's property and by denying them of that property, you are eliminating a life. Things can be replaced, lives can't.
However, if you are stealing something that you don't need, but want, such as a high-definition plasma TV, for pleasurable and selfish reasons, then I definitely think that that is wrong and the culprit should be prosecuted.


What are your thoughts?

Stealing is the unauthorised taking, keeping or using of a person's property without their permission or consent, permanently depriving the owner with rightful possession of that property or its use. It is a crime and is punishable by law.
We know stealing is wrong. But, what if stealing was the only way to feed a starving child? Or help cure a child dying from a disease? Would stealing be acceptable in circumstances such as these?

Let's create a scenario: Emily, a 5 year old girl, is dying from a deadly disease that can only be cured by a special drug. The drug is expensive; $500 is needed to make a small dose of that drug, but the same quantity is sold at $5000, ten times more. Her parents are relatively stable, financially, but only have $3000 in their bank account. Her father, Robert, has asked the chemist who has developed the drug if he could buy it for $3000 or pay the $5000 later, but the chemist has said no, since he wants to sell it for its price and become rich. Robert is desperate and decides to break into the chemist's laboratory at night and steal the drug. Should he be prosecuted, or should he be let off?

What about Sophie? She's also 5, but is dying from starvation. Her mother is poor and doesn't have enough money to buy a loaf of bread and water. So, she goes to a grocery and steals the loaf instead, along with a few bottles of water. Should she be prosecuted, or should she be let off? After all, in both cases, it is the parents' responsibility to protect their child and ensure they are getting the things needed to stay alive, so why should that be against the law?

I personally think that if you are stealing from someone who is considerably wealthy and/or does not need that product AND that you are stealing for altruistic purposes (i.e to save a child), you should not be penalised. If your life is depending on a certain product and you are in a situation where your only options are to commit a crime to preserve your life or to die due to the absence of that product, then surely it should be acceptable to steal that product. Yes theft is immoral but when it comes to death, a person's life is much more important than someone else's property and by denying them of that property, you are eliminating a life. Things can be replaced, lives can't.

However, if you are stealing something that you don't need, but want, such as a high-definition plasma TV, for pleasurable and selfish reasons, then I definitely think that that is wrong and the culprit should be prosecuted.

What are your thoughts?

nowadays nobody gets a proper punishment for theft, burglary etc... they get a slap on the wrist; if they have committed 300 burglaries they do not get 300 times the punishment.... grrrrrr

Stealing is the unauthorised taking, keeping or using of a person's property without their permission or consent, permanently depriving the owner with rightful possession of that property or its use. It is a crime and is punishable by law.
We know stealing is wrong. But, what if stealing was the only way to feed a starving child? Or help cure a child dying from a disease? Would stealing be acceptable in circumstances such as these?

Let's create a scenario: Emily, a 5 year old girl, is dying from a deadly disease that can only be cured by a special drug. The drug is expensive; $500 is needed to make a small dose of that drug, but the same quantity is sold at $5000, ten times more. Her parents are relatively stable, financially, but only have $3000 in their bank account. Her father, Robert, has asked the chemist who has developed the drug if he could buy it for $3000 or pay the $5000 later, but the chemist has said no, since he wants to sell it for its price and become rich. Robert is desperate and decides to break into the chemist's laboratory at night and steal the drug. Should he be prosecuted, or should he be let off?
What about Sophie? She's also 5, but is dying from starvation. Her mother is poor and doesn't have enough money to buy a loaf of bread and water. So, she goes to a grocery and steals the loaf instead, along with a few bottles of water. Should she be prosecuted, or should she be let off? After all, in both cases, it is the parents' responsibility to protect their child and ensure they are getting the things needed to stay alive, so why should that be against the law?

I personally think that if you are stealing from someone who is considerably wealthy and/or does not need that product AND that you are stealing for altruistic purposes (i.e to save a child), you should not be penalised. If your life is depending on a certain product and you are in a situation where your only options are to commit a crime to preserve your life or to die due to the absence of that product, then surely it should be acceptable to steal that product. Yes theft is immoral but when it comes to death, a person's life is much more important than someone else's property and by denying them of that property, you are eliminating a life. Things can be replaced, lives can't.
However, if you are stealing something that you don't need, but want, such as a high-definition plasma TV, for pleasurable and selfish reasons, then I definitely think that that is wrong and the culprit should be prosecuted.


What are your thoughts?