It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is stealing worse than murder?

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
This is the question I'm asking myself after a spirited debate with a friend. We were discussing SHTF survival tactics, and got on the topic of looting to survive. I chose the position of a thief. I would steal to eat, if I had to. The debate ultimately ended in a simple statement made by my friend, "it doesn't matter why, stealing is stealing". I have heard this many times, from many people.

This statement sent my mind off on a search for truth. This person obviously places a large value on the crime of stealing. How large?

I then thought about the idea of self defense. If a person kills without what society would call reason, they are a murderer. If a person kills due to so called "self defense", even without the actual need to end a life, it's magicaly okay to do so? I think most of society would say yes, it is okay.

Reading any firearm publication will inform you that, if you pull a firearm, you must shoot quickly and for the biggest target. They encourage you to shoot fast, give zero warning, and do not concern yourself with loss of life. The biggest target is also the second most likely way to end a life (the body). Shooting for the head being the most assured way of ending a life. If a person that's unarmed breaks into your house, and you shoot them in the head, this is called self defense.

What of theft though? Does it ever become acceptable to steal? Not that I have heard. If you are starving, does stealing turn into "self preservation"? Many would say no, it does not. You could argue that charity could care for the person's needs. Charity isn't always around. It won't sustain you for long.

That leads me to the real question. Why have we placed a higher value on the crime of stealing than we have the crime of murder? By higher value I mean that we are less willing to deem the action of stealing morally acceptable, under any circumstance.

What do you think ATS?




posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Stolen property is far easier to replace than a life that is taken. Nothing is worth a human life.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
Stolen property is far easier to replace than a life that is taken. Nothing is worth a human life.


I agree... Death is permanent, there is no going back, there is no way to replace a human life... If one steals a piece of jewelry, money or anything of value it can always be replaced...

IMO, Murder and stealing are night and day... Murder is far worse. I have a tough time even comparing the two...

If the debate was what's worse rape or murder, then I think you could make a point because Ive always felt that when a person is raped or molested a part of them is murdered... So with that instance I could make an argument, but with theft, they arent even remotely close to me...



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by jhn7537
 


Yet most Americans are all too fast to accept loss of life, compared to the loss of property. Why? Are we a society of sociopaths with low moral standing?

When I joined this forum, one of the top threads was about stealing water. Have we really been so removed from morallity?
edit on 27-7-2012 by AnarchysAngel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Look at all the things the government takes from people and then ask yourself is stealing worse than murder.

To coin a Godwin, look at all the things Hitler did to steal from people.

look at all the things Communism did to steal from people.

Hundreds of millions of people have been killed so that that the guys with the bigger guns can have whatever it is they want to take.

The Cherokee Trail of Tears was a big organized effort to steal land from Cherokee Indians, and America's growth was founded on stealing land from the Indians.

Slavery is also another form of theft.

And this kind of stealing has always been done with the excuse of doing it for the "greater good".

As opposed to murder, where just some people will be sad for a while, but they do get over it, and the life of one person is over, so he really can't do anything about it.

Murder is bad, yes, but it has a temporary effect on things. When you look at human history, you'll see that people who can steal with impunity will continue to steal and take whatever it is they want to until they are stopped. This can go on for centuries until the people are tired of it and rise against it.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by AnarchysAngel
 

Even though I think it is wrong to steal, I have absolutely no moral issues with it in a survival situation.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


Sad for a little while? Whoa buddy. Ask a mother that's lost a child to murder how long she was sad.

The person is dead, and it's over? Well, no, it isn't over. Most often the murderer remains anonymous, or is sent to prison. If that did not happen, acts of vengeance have happened. More loss of life.

If you are claiming that murder is over fast for the person commiting the crime, or even the act of self defense, that's also false. The Earp family won the gunfight, but died poor from having to defend their actions for the rest of their lives. Loss of life never ends well for anyone.
edit on 27-7-2012 by AnarchysAngel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by AnarchysAngel
 


If you steal a person's "means of survival" then you are committing murder.

If you kill another then you are stealing their life.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by AnarchysAngel
 





Yet most Americans are all too fast to accept loss of life, compared to the loss of property. Why? Are we a society of sociopaths with low moral standing?


Life can't be bought or sold. So greed is the reason why the loss of life is more accepted than the loss of property.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
There was an old time lawman that said that he'd never seen a piece of property that needed to be stolen but he'd seen a lot of people that needed killing....I kind of see things that way myself especially crooked banksters and politicians.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Well, if we were controlled by greed that would explain that. It doesn't explain why child molestation and rape are so hated.

"I would hang him by his balls and cut his head off." That's what someone said to me about Jerry Sandusky recently. I was put off by that comment. I'm not a support of molestation, but as the old saying goes, "two wrongs don't make a right".

More evidence that we're all going wonky on morallity.

I'm glad to see that so far ATS posters seem to be of morally sound mind.
edit on 27-7-2012 by AnarchysAngel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Stealing property can never be worse than stealing a life. You can replace property....



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchysAngel
"two wrongs don't make a right".


Who defines "wrong", though? Many would say that vengeance isn't a wrong but, rather, a fundamental Right (note the capitalization) granted to each and every one of us by our own base desire to get back at whoever has wronged us. As far as I am concerned, people like Jerry Sandusky are USELESS and, therefore, society is better served with them removed from this life completely... idealy going out experiencing 10 fold the pain and suffering they caused others. That's natural order, my friend.

As to the stealing vs killing issue, I kind of see where you're headed here. That said, I'd argue that in the case of the crook or mugger who gets shot by their intended victim, the individual who placed more value on material goods than on a human life is actually the crook... not the victim that defended their own. Theives are often willing to forfeit their own lives to forcibly take what is not theirs. Why then does it somehow fall on the shoulders of the "victim" who actually earned the possession to display some non-natural level of philathropy and place more value on a person's life than the person themself holds and hand over the possession rather than defend it with ultimate force if need be?
edit on 27-7-2012 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
You cannot steal what belongs to no one. These ideals are archaic in the least. judge not lest ye be.....



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchysAngel
 


If the SHTF I'm taking the world with me. I'm sorry, but I hate all that is " Society " today, I know this almost labels me as a terrorist, but I don't think of it this way. One day society will end, it just will and on that day I will do everything in my power to preserve myself and family and unfortunately humans tend to become very dangerous when " Rules " go out the window. Looting, rape, assault, murder, violence to the extremes.

In chaos no one is a friend, no one can be trusted when they have the same mentality. Preserve myself and my family, unfortunately that doesn't leave much to the way of trust or friendship. If we are all starving looking for a meal, and someone says I know where some food is if you will help me get it. Do you help them? How do you know you are not the intended meal, or that this individual is trying to lead you away from your family/posessions so that they can find out what you have in a situation they are comfortable with.

Human beings can be great, and they can be evil. I love how religion, plays this Good vs Dark bullcrap. In itself that statement perpetuates the negativity. It makes us feel as if we are superior to those we deem evil or dark. It gives us the right to disregard those individuals which in itself is a trait of the dark, or evil side.

In order to steal, one has to own something and the concept of ownership is a falsity. If you are not currently consuming it, it's just an apple, or an orange. IT's not yours, it does not identify itself with you nor is it a part of you. So In reality, animals as we are all is fair game. Society, is an invention of man, as is ownership. So murder, assault, rape, torture, these are the only crimes that truly affect your only possession. Survival of the fittest is the oldest rule of nature. If it's truly yours do everything in your power to keep it. Everything else is nature, get over it.

When society collapses, so will man. The majority of us will die off in a very short time. The stresses imparted on the body will drive the " comfortable " insane, the unhealthy sick, the sick to death, and the truly strong may do their best to live with in their needs, and even this will see many succumb to the collapse of their fragile world. In reality, those best suited for the collapse of society will be those nations we deem " Third world." Their won't be a whole lot of change for them. They will continue working to find food, collect water, and keep their families safe.

All about perspective. We often think of the third world nations as horrible places to live, but is it any different than our society? Instead of disease, famine, wildlife and crazy assholes trying to tell you how to live. We have Bills, Jobs, stress, the government, and each other telling us how to live. Poisons toxins, diseases caused by our lifestyles. Crime on an entirely different level, fueled by religion, political stance, those who have and those that don't. I would almost prefer to break away and work to sustain myself on my own, rather than have someone tell me what my work is worth, give me less for doing more, and then telling me what I can and can't have still. It's much easier to accept what you can and can't have based on what you can or can't find or do.

My Shelter(home) would only be limited by my materials, creativity and strength. I could live on a mountain, near a stream, or lake. As close or as far from a reliable source of water or food as I like. My work would be finding food, water, protection not doing something for someone else, being paid as little or as much as they like for my hard work, then giving a good portion to my government that claims to be providing these things for me, but isn't.

I've gone on quite the rant here. I guess, my point is if need be stealing is a part of life. It's an instinct, if it's food no I don't see any problem with it, and if it's something other than food than I believe the problem lies with society not the individual. What does he need an Ipod for, why do I need an Ipod? If he is in fact selling it for food, No I don't see that much problem with it, and if he had asked I would have given it to him.

Everyone deserves to eat.

I guess what I'm getting at here is stealing is acceptable in my eyes if the individual is in need of sustenance.

Murder is wrong, self defense is self defense, It's Natural as far as I'm concerned, but humans lie. It's what we do. Every single one of us seems to do it.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by AnarchysAngel
 


What you are really asking is whether ideals are stronger than morals...

Stealing is, in the grand scheme of things, completely harmless. Material possessions switching hands. The only reason it's "wrong" is because laws put in place to control humans say it is wrong.

Murder is, in the grand scheme of things, completely permanent. That person you murdered is gone from that body. S/he will never come back. It's wrong because you have removed all choice and all free will from another being.

Stealing is based on ideals.

Murder is based on morals.

For the record, my ideals tell me that I don't need to steal when things are good, but I would have no problem stealing if my children were starving. My morals tell me that I will not murder unless it is to protect a child. Stealing is stealing and murder is murder. This is not even close to an accurate comparison.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Because American society values stuff above people.

And considers war and violence glorious and heroic. People love the troops not because they are willing to protect, but because they kill people.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchysAngel
reply to post by buster2010
 


Well, if we were controlled by greed that would explain that. It doesn't explain why child molestation and rape are so hated.

"I would hang him by his balls and cut his head off." That's what someone said to me about Jerry Sandusky recently. I was put off by that comment. I'm not a support of molestation, but as the old saying goes, "two wrongs don't make a right".

More evidence that we're all going wonky on morallity.

I'm glad to see that so far ATS posters seem to be of morally sound mind.
edit on 27-7-2012 by AnarchysAngel because: (no reason given)


I'm gonna get a lot of flack for this, but I actually think rape and child molestation are overrated in terms of how heinous they are. They are treated like they are worse than murder, I think it has more to do with people's idea of sexual purity and honor than anything else. I definitely think they are worse than stealing by FAR, but I don't see them as being qualitively worse than any other kind of major assault. And I think people treating victims of rape and molestation like perpetual victims and feeling so sorry for them because they feel they'd be 'better off dead' for their own sake actually makes them feel worse and less willing to come open and be open about what happened to them.

There is this story about a girl in Kentucky who was drugged, raped and made pregnant a few years ago. She loves her son very much and doesn't care about where he came from and she's so happy she didn't go through with aborting him. Of course she was very hurt, but I think it would be far more tragic if she was murdered, saying that murder isn't as bad as rape is actually a pretty disturbing statement in my opinion and I'm pretty surprised it's such a common sentiment, I find it insulting to rape victims because they are indirectly saying that their lives are not worth living.
edit on 28-7-2012 by lampsalot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by AnarchysAngel
 


On most cases no, but if UMG own's the copyright you've got more chances to get away with murder...
Sorry I had to say it... lol

Murder's always worst, you can take someone's possessions but at least they can still live to buy something else...



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by AnarchysAngel
 


I think Stealing is o.k. in certain circumstances, but only where it saves a life or your own life.
so there are circumstances where stealing is o.k.

Example: there is a house fire at night and you hear calls for help and there is no body else in sight, you see two people in the upstairs window, you have no way to reach them, but know the next door neighbours have a ladder, so you run to their shed and break in and take the ladders (no time to ask) and get to the house and use the ladders to save them. they are only in pajamas and you remember seeing a couple of thick blankets in the shed so you go back and take them to give to the people who are waiting for the fire brigade to come put out the flames to keep them warm.

although technically it was taking without asking i don't think anybody would have a problem with it, not even the police or the neighbours.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join