NationStates Jolt Archive

Two young men, brothers, had got into serious trouble by breaking the law. They were secretly leaving town in a hurry and needed money. Karl, the older one, broke into a store and stole a thousand dollars. Bob, the younger one, went to a retired old man who was known to help people in town. He told the man that he was very sick and that he needed a thousand dollars to pay for an operation. Bob asked the old man to lend him the money and promised that he would pay him back when he recovered. Really Bob wasn't sick at all, and he had no intention of paying the man back. Although the old man didn't know Bob very well, he lent him the money. So Bob and Karl skipped town, each with a thousand dollars.

Which is worse? Stealing like Karl or cheating like Bob?

EDIT: assume both are uninsured

neither it is not wrong to steal or cheat in order to survive

Both deprived people of $1000 by illegal means. They are equally in the wrong I say.

Bob.

Stores are insured. *nod*

Both deprived people of $1000 by illegal means. They are equally in the wrong I say.

I agree.

I think it would depend upon the circumstances of Karl's robbery. Bob, while he did lie, and commit fraud, never caused any physical harm, and the inference from what you wrote is that the old man a) had the money to give, and b) giving the money wouldn't have pushed him into bankruptcy. Karl on the other hand can be presumed to have used a weapon of some kind to extort money from a person or business in a violent fashion.

In the eyes of the law Fraud is a lesser charge than assault and armed robbery. Therefore, Karl gets the longer stay in prison...

Phew! *breath, breath*

Which is worse? Stealing like Karl or cheating like Bob?

Both are guilty of theft. Bob took money he has no intension of returning and that is stealing.

Neither are wrong, unless that $2000 loss influences my life. Then I'll kick some ass.

But no, really......much worse to rob a store than take an old man's money, as it sounds here. If the guy was as old and foolish as is laid out, he probably had more money than he could spend before he died, anyway.

Bob. Stealing from the old guy causes greater hardship ('cause he won't be able to use that money to help someone else) than stealing from the store (although I guess in an extreme case it could go bankrupt as a result)

Bob.

Stores are insured. *nod*
EDIT: assume both are uninsured

Bob.

Stores are insured. *nod*

Quite so.

I must protest this slander I'm am most certainly not a robber, I change sharked that store into giving me the money fair and squa... wait, I mean I was framed I never took no thousand dollars.

Bob's acts constitute an attack on altruism, a trait that makes society and the world a better place. Bob's attack constitutes a broader and deeper attack on those things that make society good and on society itself (as a generalised entity).

While robbing a store is reprehensible it is the self interest of the store owner that resulted in the store being there to be robbed, so his act although it constitutes an attack on his local community and on society (as a generalised entity) is not an attack on altruism.