NationStates Jolt Archive

If someone rich steals a loaf of bread of a poor, starving child and someone sees this, and steals the loaf back off the rich guy, giving it back to the child.....is this wrong? Does not the second wrong make a right?

Poll Coming!!

If someone rich steals a loaf of bread of a poor, starving child and someone sees this, and steals the loaf back off the rich guy, giving it back to the child.....is this wrong? Does not the second wrong make a right?

Poll Coming!!

I guess I'd have a hard time considering the second action a "wrong". As the loaf of bread, although in the rich man's physical possession, is still the property of the poor starving child. As a result, you are not stealing from the rich man. You are merely returning the child's possession to him.

I guess I'd have a hard time considering the second action a "wrong". As the loaf of bread, although in the rich man's physical possession, is still the property of the poor starving child. As a result, you are not stealing from the rich man. You are merely returning the child's possession to him.

Then two wrongs, in this case at least, make a right? I mean, that is the route of this thread I just want to know do two wrongs make a right?

its not stealing to return the bread to its rightful owner.

anything that might qualify it as stealing probably wont help the child anyway.

Unfortunately it is wrong, yes. While the intention is good, we can not allow our social rules to be disregarded because of the unknowable intention of the law breaker. The second person should have used the recourses of the law to force restitution on the first offender, and not resorted to breaking the law himself.

No one person can be above the law, and we can not justify vigilante action even when it is so clearly the 'correct' thing to do.

The only question is whether the second person's action was actually theft or whether it was intervention in the first person committing the crime. Here there is a grey area that the second person could use to justify their actions, but it would have to have been a pretty immediate actionb. It can not have been a couple of minutes later.

Then two wrongs, in this case at least, make a right? I mean, that is the route of this thread I just want to know do two wrongs make a right?

But my argument is that the second action isn't stealing and therefore isn't a "wrong". So 2 wrongs wouldn't be making a right, a wrong + a right > a wrong, is essentially what I am saying.

Why would a rich man steal a poor boys loaf of bread

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????:sniper:?? ??????????????:mp5: ??????????????????????????

Unfortunately it is wrong, yes. While the intention is good, we can not allow our social rules to be disregarded because of the unknowable intention of the law breaker. The second person should have used the recourses of the law to force restitution on the first offender, and not resorted to breaking the law himself.

No one person can be above the law, and we can not justify vigilante action even when it is so clearly the 'correct' thing to do.

The only question is whether the second person's action was actually theft or whether it was intervention in the first person committing the crime. Here there is a grey area that the second person could use to justify their actions, but it would have to have been a pretty immediate actionb. It can not have been a couple of minutes later.

Are we talking about the law (breaking or keeping) or about morality (right or wrong) here?

Unfortunately it is wrong, yes. While the intention is good, we can not allow our social rules to be disregarded because of the unknowable intention of the law breaker. The second person should have used the recourses of the law to force restitution on the first offender, and not resorted to breaking the law himself.

No one person can be above the law, and we can not justify vigilante action even when it is so clearly the 'correct' thing to do.

The only question is whether the second person's action was actually theft or whether it was intervention in the first person committing the crime. Here there is a grey area that the second person could use to justify their actions, but it would have to have been a pretty immediate actionb. It can not have been a couple of minutes later.

There's nothing special about law that makes it above people. Law is just a bunch of words on text. All of it stems from intention. I'm having a hard time responding to this post because I'm utterly dumbfounded anyone could think what you do.

But my argument is that the second action isn't stealing and therefore isn't a "wrong". So 2 wrongs wouldn't be making a right, a wrong + a right > a wrong, is essentially what I am saying.

Ok, so what if, for instance, that rich guy is a government, and the poor boy is a poor land owner, making approx 5000 tops a year. Now this government has just enforced a new law that will cost him over 400 pounds (800 dollars approx) a year. Now this farmer so obviously can't afford this, so is it wrong for him to then ignore the law - it's not harming anyone ignnoring this law - it's his own land, his own animals ---- even if he sold his crops/animals to the public it wouldn't harm them, but the gov wants his money anyway.......is it wrong to ignore them?

Yup. Both sides are wrong. Both the rich guy, and the guy who stole it back for the Kid.

THe guy who saw the rich man stealing should have reported the rich man to the police and not take matters into his own hands.

But heck.. The bread is so trivial, that I bet the court would laugh in your face and give the poor kid a cookie.

If someone rich steals a loaf of bread of a poor, starving child and someone sees this, and steals the loaf back off the rich guy, giving it back to the child.....is this wrong? Does not the second wrong make a right?

Poll Coming!!
This is not an example of two wrongs making a right.

If, as your post implies, the answer to the question is "No, the second action is not wrong," then there is no second "wrong" to make a right. On the other hand, if the answer is "Yes, the second action is wrong," then you have two wrongs, and no right.

There's nothing special about law that makes it above people. Law is just a bunch of words on text. All of it stems from intention. I'm having a hard time responding to this post because I'm utterly dumbfounded anyone could think what you do.

In that case you have little experience of moral or politcal thinking.

It is impossible to establish the intention of any action. All we can establish are the facts of the action. If we are then to be able to judge an action in any way, be it morally or legally, we have to judge on its facts not on any hiden and unknowable intention.

This is clearly explained by David Hume in a footnote in his Enquiries:

If the secret direction of the intention, said every man of sense, could invalidate a contract; where is our security? And yet a metaphysical schoolman might think, that, where an intention was supposed to be requisite, if that intention really had not place, no consequence ought to follow, ands no obligation be imposed.
(An Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals, ed. L. Selby-Bigge, rev. Nidditch, p.200 n.)

Much here depends on how you see the role of the law in society. It is not possible to hold a society together if we start opening exceptions to laws simply because the intention of someone wasa good. If you go that way, you head straight into anarchy due to the undecided nature of the good in our society. If the good were clearly decided then our laws would follow this line exactly and the issue would not arise.

Morally, there is a question as to whether breaking the law can be justified under these circumstances. I happen to believe, on a personal basis that it can, as the moral decision is superior to the legal one. However this does not make the action right, it makes it excusable or justifiable. In the same sense that it is not right, ever to kill another human being, but it is justifiable or excusable in self defemce for example.

Do you understand now. The question was whether this action was right. My answer is that it is not, but that does not mean that it should not be done.

Yup. Both sides are wrong. Both the rich guy, and the guy who stole it back for the Kid.

THe guy who saw the rich man stealing should have reported the rich man to the police and not take matters into his own hands.

But heck.. The bread is so trivial, that I bet the court would laugh in your face and give the poor kid a cookie.

But to the kid, the bread is NOT trivial. it is his life, that is all he has to live on..that loaf of bread could keep him fed for upto three weeks, if he rations it, which he will have to, because he saved for that long to afford it in the first place.

If someone rich steals a loaf of bread of a poor, starving child and someone sees this, and steals the loaf back off the rich guy, giving it back to the child.....is this wrong? Does not the second wrong make a right?

Poll Coming!!

It is wrong only because the rich man was not punished. Rightfully, the child should recieve all of the rich man's possessions and the rich man should recieve the child's bread since he wanted it so much in the first place.

Why would a rich man steal a poor boys loaf of bread? (snip)

it's probably going to end up being a means to justify robbing from the rich to give to the poor... only this time he's saying that the rich steal from the poor, which they don't (generally). they choose to employ many poor people, give them and their families their means of subsistence.

to answer the question, no...

the loaf of bread rightfully belongs to the poor boy and his family.

getting the loaf of bread back, into the possession of the rightful owners, is not wrong, imo.

although it would be better to employ the police to do this, that option is not always readily available or, really, practical.

In that case you have little experience of moral or politcal thinking.


Maybe, just maybe I simply disagree.

Maybe, just maybe I simply disagree.

Fine, disagree then, but there was no need for the personal attack.

pfft...no such thing as right and wrong.

Stupid poor kid should've guarded his damn bread better...

If someone rich steals a loaf of bread of a poor, starving child and someone sees this, and steals the loaf back off the rich guy, giving it back to the child.....is this wrong? Does not the second wrong make a right?

Poll Coming!!

Hm. You seem to have a penchant for posting these weird moral questions.

I would like to point out that this sort of thing - metaphorically, at least - happens all the time in the world, and although the person who stole the bread or whatever back from the rich man is technically right, he tends to get imprisoned, tortured, executed, etc. for doing it.

No, because the rich man stole the breead from the poor kid. In my books, it's still the poor kid's property.

it's probably going to end up being a means to justify robbing from the rich to give to the poor... only this time he's saying that the rich steal from the poor, which they don't (generally). they choose to employ many poor people, give them and their families their means of subsistence.

Dude, what rock have you been living under? In the ideal situation proposed by, say, Confucian philosophy, the rich would indeed take care of the poor, but that doesn't happen. The truth is, the rich get rich and stay that way by stealing from the poor and keeping them down.

Dude, what rock have you been living under? In the ideal situation proposed by, say, Confucian philosophy, the rich would indeed take care of the poor, but that doesn't happen. The truth is, the rich get rich and stay that way by stealing from the poor and keeping them down.

yey!! somone with a vague grasp on reality

Ok, so what if, for instance, that rich guy is a government, and the poor boy is a poor land owner, making approx 5000 tops a year. Now this government has just enforced a new law that will cost him over 400 pounds (800 dollars approx) a year. Now this farmer so obviously can't afford this, so is it wrong for him to then ignore the law - it's not harming anyone ignnoring this law - it's his own land, his own animals ---- even if he sold his crops/animals to the public it wouldn't harm them, but the gov wants his money anyway.......is it wrong to ignore them?
yes

yes

It's wrong to ignore it? Why, when it's ok for the boy to have his bread returned to him?

Why would a rich man steal a poor boys loaf of bread

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????:sniper:?? ??????????????:mp5: ??????????????????????????
Maybe hes the Sheriff of Nottingham?

No, and steal his wallet while you are at it

No, and steal his wallet while you are at it

Now, that's going too far...lol

Yup. Both sides are wrong. Both the rich guy, and the guy who stole it back for the Kid.

THe guy who saw the rich man stealing should have reported the rich man to the police and not take matters into his own hands.

You are a minless zombie. So pre-programmed by society to accept human LAW as being infallable. I feel sorry for you If you really belive what you just said.

Fine, disagree then, but there was no need for the personal attack.

There was no personal attack. I'm honestly astonished anyone could think what you do.

Then two wrongs, in this case at least, make a right? I mean, that is the route of this thread I just want to know do two wrongs make a right?

Perhaps you should use an example that contains two wrongs then. In this case, the man hasn't stolen anything. Calling it stealing doesn't make it so. Your comparison is like saying if someone is attacking you by kicking you in the stomach, would you be wrong for attacking them back by stopping them from kicking you in the stomach? The latter is not an attack in my scenario and not a wrong, and the latter in your scenario is not stealing and also not a wrong.

Based upon the given information, I don't know. Pass.

Why is the child starving? It could easily be that the child is a petty criminal or hoodlum that abandoned his parents and is starving because of his behavior and irresponsibility; he may have stolen the bread from the rich man in the first place, and the man was taking it back rightfully even though it appeared that he was stealing.

If the child committed a wrong act to get the bread and the rich man took it justly back, then the one who took it from the rich man is wrong for abetting in the crime.

What if the rich man is starving? Money is useless in a time of famine, and perhaps he would die without it.

Based upon the given information, I don't know. Pass.

Why is the child starving? It could easily be that the child is a petty criminal or hoodlum that abandoned his parents and is starving because of his behavior and irresponsibility; he may have stolen the bread from the rich man in the first place, and the man was taking it back rightfully even though it appeared that he was stealing.

If the child committed a wrong act to get the bread and the rich man took it justly back, then the one who took it from the rich man is wrong for abetting in the crime.

What if the rich man is starving? Money is useless in a time of famine, and perhaps he would die without it.

Finally a moral person....lol

First of all, what is right or wrong? Personnaly i think the guy who stole the bread from the rich man shouldve kept it. I consider life survival of the fittest.

Ok, so what if, for instance, that rich guy is a government, and the poor boy is a poor land owner, making approx 5000 tops a year. Now this government has just enforced a new law that will cost him over 400 pounds (800 dollars approx) a year. Now this farmer so obviously can't afford this, so is it wrong for him to then ignore the law - it's not harming anyone ignnoring this law - it's his own land, his own animals ---- even if he sold his crops/animals to the public it wouldn't harm them, but the gov wants his money anyway.......is it wrong to ignore them?


I guess for me on a personal level, I believe forced redistribution of wealth is stealing, but when it comes to taxes, I have to balance that with Christ's statement about rending to Caeser what is Caeser's... It does present a little bit of a delima.

I personally wouldn't do it, if only to avoid any possible misunderstanding on my part. What if the "poor kid" is actually a member of an alien race bent on the extinction of humanity? And bread is the only Earth substance that can be used to power their giant Destructo-Ray?

...err, I'm sure there're some plausible explanations that could be the case, too. Use your imagination.

this poll is kinda similar to this situation...

You see a bum walking along asking for money.. you decide to give him 20 dollars.. The bum thanks you and walks off, the bum is later killed for those 20 bucks by another bum :)

So is it right to give money to the poor?

Well in the example provided, yes its fine, but generally two wrongs dont make a right. However revenge is ever so fun....:D

Then two wrongs, in this case at least, make a right? I mean, that is the route of this thread I just want to know do two wrongs make a right?

No because the second action isnt a wrong, he is returning the bread into the child's possesion, there is only one act of theft because of course the loaf of bread doesnt belong to the rich man.

Unfortunately it is wrong, yes. While the intention is good, we can not allow our social rules to be disregarded because of the unknowable intention of the law breaker. The second person should have used the recourses of the law to force restitution on the first offender, and not resorted to breaking the law himself.

No one person can be above the law, and we can not justify vigilante action even when it is so clearly the 'correct' thing to do.

The only question is whether the second person's action was actually theft or whether it was intervention in the first person committing the crime. Here there is a grey area that the second person could use to justify their actions, but it would have to have been a pretty immediate actionb. It can not have been a couple of minutes later.

Law doesnt equal morality, there are many laws i consider imoral and unlawful actions i consider morally right,Breaking the law is not imoral unless the law is forbidding an imoral action.

Laws dont dictate whats wrong or right but whats wrong and right (should at least) dictate what becomes law.

I guess I'd have a hard time considering the second action a "wrong". As the loaf of bread, although in the rich man's physical possession, is still the property of the poor starving child. As a result, you are not stealing from the rich man. You are merely returning the child's possession to him.
well, it depends on which country he was in. if he was in a communist country, it was the government's possession.

also, two wrongs don't make it right, three wrongs do! i'll prove this to you, turn wronge 90 degrees three times.

why doesn't english have that really odd thing where right and right are the same thing anyways?

Then two wrongs, in this case at least, make a right? I mean, that is the route of this thread I just want to know do two wrongs make a right?
the second one isn't a "wrong," he is returning stolen property, unless he attacked the guy in some way to get it, I'm pretty sure its not a "wrong"

Law doesnt equal morality, there are many laws i consider imoral and unlawful actions i consider morally right,Breaking the law is not imoral unless the law is forbidding an imoral action.

Laws dont dictate whats wrong or right but whats wrong and right (should at least) dictate what becomes law.

I know full well that law does not equal morality, but morality is connected directly, whether you like it or not, with the type of society we live in, and the law of the society in some aspects reflects this. Where theft is concerned, as in the issue presented here, it is always wrong, both morally and legally. The moral reason behind this is that the pereservation of the society's rules is of more benefit to more people, is more useful, promotes a better life, than the initiation of a behaviour pattern of vigilantism. It is not morally wrong that the man breaks the law hear because he would be breking a law, it is moraly wrong because it is the first step on a path away from a civilised society.

He may be able to claim that this one action would not have such disasterous effects, and this may well be the case, but this opens a question as to what degree of risk of the society breaking down completely is acceptable.

The original offender should be punished, by the society, according to the societies rules, being punished otherwise would make the punisher as bad as he was in taking the property to start with. That this should happen however, does not excuse the second man from breaking the same social rule as the first man. If stealing is wrong, then it is wrong full stop.

If the second man wishes to act ethically he would arrest the first man or arange for this to be done by the authorities, buy the child a new loaf of bread and then prosecute the first man for this cost in addition to the charge of robbery that he would be facing.

As a seperate point. This thread was not started just out of curiosity.

See http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=431895 post #7.

It is wrong only because the rich man was not punished. Rightfully, the child should recieve all of the rich man's possessions and the rich man should recieve the child's bread since he wanted it so much in the first place.

That's a good idea.

It is wrong only because the rich man was not punished. Rightfully, the child should recieve all of the rich man's possessions and the rich man should recieve the child's bread since he wanted it so much in the first place.

That's a good idea.

Anyway, if I see a rich guy forecefully take a poor kids bread, I'd forcefully take the bread from the guy and give it to the poor kid. If the guy tries anything, I have the cops bust him.