re Bernie Madoff, if he somehow got out and managed to still have lots of his stolen money I would say it would almost be an moral obligation for people to take advantage of him any chance they got. He over pays, don't tell him. He leaves his wallet sitting out, take it.

If you want to mail it to one of his victims and go full Robin Hood great, but taking it for any reason is ok.

Not legal but certainly Just in my books.

Obviously using that as an extreme example. Slippery slope though, huh? How much is it OK for someone to steal before it's OK for me to steal from them?

As you take the reanimated Madoff for his money and feel good about it because he is a meanie - what happens when you realize the money you took off him was money he stole from others who may not be meanies? Maybe they were rich, so then it is ok? Taking it for any reason as being ok is just a way of rationalizing away your own criminal act. No real slippery slope as I see it, if you steal then you steal.

Exactly. Congratulations on finally getting the point of the thread.

Cool. Nice to see you agree that the answer to your question of

is zero. Not so slippery in the end though, huh?

All the best.

This subtle point may have evaded you, as you do seem keen to reply to every post in the threads where you are active, but the question was not directed to you. In fact, it was directed to a poster who took pretty much the opposite of your position.

Well, you seemed to want replies to what you thought was an innovative "thought experiment" on your part, but I will be the first to admit that I do not place value to your posts much of the time, so I may miss things when you believe you are being clever and subtle.

Unrelated, I am still waiting for links to posts of mine that you suggested I made that were extreme about religion. You promised to share those details, but that has yet to happen for some reason. I indicated that I had no idea what you were talking about at that time and you did say that you were completely drunk, but I want to be sure that I did not miss some of your subtlety in that situation as well, so feel free to update it accordingly.

All the best.

That may somehow fit with your view of morality but morality is often (typically even) about us and not them i.e . I oppose the death penalty because of who I am not because of who they are. Nothing they can do changes that and there is no part for vindictivness, vengence etc within my view of morality.

This is different but has some similarities to 'what if you can definitely get away with it?' See Plato and the Ring of Gyges.

It's like if a guy promised you 3 grand to beat Bonesaw and then only gave you a hundred. And on your way out he was robbed and you let the robber go right past you because he was a meanie. Then you find he later killed your dear Uncle Ben who raised you. And then you embraced your fate.

An extended emo dance fixes everything.

I would not say there is a direct line there if you base your actions on the concept of what is Just.

Going back to my Wild West robber baron Rancher who has steam rolled anyone and everyone who has got in his way taking by force their land and resources with the weight of the purchased law behind them (pure rot and corruption thru and thru), I see no point where people on the margins taking animals from him, squatting on his land and using it, all where they can get away with it, being also 'ethically' bad or 'unjust' that they too, should now be subject to being 'Justly' stolen from.

The line for 'Just' is not 'steal' V 'no steal' and instead deals with the 'why'.



Just for the record I am under no illusions that most people would take the 'no slippery slope' view, even when it comes to the robber baron Rancher.

Many take the same with regards to killing a person who has just killed your entire family.

We did these extreme example thought exercises all the time in Rotten Tomatoes. We had a thread dedicated to them and the intent was to push people to see if they did indeed 'have' a slippery slope that could be be fleshed out and discovered with more extreme examples or if they were more on the absolutist side of things. To test peoples preconception about 'right', 'wrong' and other absolutes. Almost everyone who started off as an absolutist, got tested and failed the test as they found a slippery slope they suddenly agreed with.

I would love to test you on that, but understand you likely don't care to play and that is fine. But I suspect I could find examples (and many) where you would see the slippery slope and not feel all stealing is stealing, at least not morally and not in a justice way.

If you stick simply to a legal definition then that is a tautology and I do not think that is what this thread is asking.

Anyway I know I am likely the outlier on this as I loved these type of thought experiments questions and actually thought about trying to create a similar thread here to see if people would take it up but it would not fit this forums guidelines.

I totally agree with that.

There are some people who might have a family heirloom of immense personal value blatantly stolen. Try to get it back from the thief. But the law unable to establish ownership awards it to the thief.

That is the law. He is not a thief and did not steal in their eyes.

That same person victimized having the ability to take it back in a way that will have no ramifications (no one will see or know) may indeed take an absolutist view, that, that would be theft and not do it.

I would take it back.

I understand people differ. But that is why I distinguish Just from legal or 'theft' (a legal term).

I think it is absolutely Just to take your possession back, given the opportunity regardless of what the law might rule. I get that others, like you, might not.

Theoretical thought experiments are the definition of a fun internet forum type topic, but I tend not to place a ton of value on them in the sense that what people say they would do in a theoretical thread on a random forum may have nothing to do with what they would actually do in real life in a similar situation.

The rancher example is to me not an ethical situation (since if they steal they steal), rather it is a risk reward situation. I doubt many will care if people take from the evil rancher from an ethical point of view (ie: its justified because meanie etc.) but the people doing that are taking a risk that if caught they will likely pay a significant price for it. I would also point out that people stealing from meanies are more than likely going to be willing to steal from less defined meanies as the situation presents itself, hence my belief that stealing is stealing, and people who steal pretty much have that as part of their DNA moving forward.

As to the take back your possession angle - OJ tried that after trying to get back his stuff. That did not work out so well for his as the Chewbacca defense for his murder trial.

Maybe create a thread in SMP?

I agree with most but think in many cases the person who decides to steal from someone who stole from them would not then steal from others.

I am speaking to a person who is acting out of a sense of 'justice' and they were 'wronged' and thus feel this action is justified but who then would not want to become the person they hate or are targeting by doing same.

It really comes down to a question of defining words, too. If 'theft/stolen' are
limited to the legal construct only and not a moral or 'just' one, and thus if you can get a court to say what you did was fine and legal (even a corrupt bought off court) then I think you see far more people not agree that 'theft is theft'. Far more will divide on that issue.

I think most people today would agree that indigenous people all over the world had their lands 'stolen' regardless of what any court at the time might rule.

And once you agree to that, then where does the slippery begin and end for them? Is stealing from Bernie Madoff ok? What if you were a direct uncompensated victim of his? What if you have a chance to grab something of his and give it to a victim (robin hood)?

And yes I understand that 'risk' is an overlying factor on all. The risk of getting caught and punished will be cold consolation to your feeling that what you did was Just.

I never think of those other forums and whether you get thanked or cursed for nudging me towards one, is on you. But yes that would be the place for such a thread.

i'll think about that. thx.

It depends on how blatant it is. Telling a jury that it need not follow the judge's instructions on the law most certainly would not be allowed.

The grey area is usually around telling a jury to "send a message" and the like.

So would I. Or at least, I wouldn't consider it morally wrong in any way.

I wasn't talking about the legal term at all.

I would take the possession back. Getting away with it would be a practical constraint. Everything has a price and it can be too high.

You seem shook, homeslice. And I am sorry I don't subscribe to your little riggie theory about the imaginary friend in the sky.

Have you thought about applying that not inconsiderable mental aptitude of yours to question your own beliefs?

You have made it clear of your utter hatred of any aspect of religion or anyone or anything associated with "faith" of any kind, except when fermentation is involved. Thing is - you still have not showed me links to posts of mine that you suggested I made about (as you put it) imaginary friends, and to be fair - I never had faith in your ability to provide that proof when you promised to deliver it, so that should make you happy!

All the best.

Do me !!!!!

In NJ you just make one or two jurors an offer.

That's such an odd image

kids at home - dont lube up with ground salt or pepper.

I'll play, QP. Let's hear your hypothetical.