Question about stealing.

[Thief]

Would there be a difference between killing a poor homeless person and killing a rich person? Or how about we grab a poor person and cut off his finger and give it to a rich person who is missing a finger.

how about David.....stealing the show bread from the temple
and giving the bread to his hungry men

seems David has been praised for that event

(ooops….already mentioned this)

 

[Samana Johann]

seems David has been praised for that event

Thief, by whom? Those who lost, or does who felt to gain? Those with equal or lower virtuesvirtues, or those wise and more sublime? It's not that hard to gain praise by equal or lower at all. Wise never praise the taking of what is not given, for what ever sake ever. But one may hold on ones view as one likes, of course.

When ones possible good purposes are based on not-knowing and on wrong means, they hardly become of benefit for one self and all others.

 

[Thief]

Thief, by whom? Those who lost, or does who felt to gain? Those with equal or lower virtuesvirtues, or those wise and more sublime? It's not that hard to gain praise by equal or lower at all. Wise never praise the taking of what is not given, for what ever sake ever. But one may hold on ones view as one likes, of course.

When ones possible good purposes are based on not-knowing and on wrong means, they hardly become of benefit for one self and all others.

so.....do you side with the temple priests?
or the hungry men that David fed?

 

[Samana Johann]

This David it the actor here, and good to look at his actions themselfs not to side what ever reasoning (which is very, very risky, not possible to trace and judge anothers current but changing situation)

My person would not side with anybody but with what is skillful and not unskillful. Thiefs question is also not really clear, since the hungry person seems not to be an actor in this sample at all. So also the owner of the bread isn't, but simply this David, who obiviously harmed on one side to help on another, acted unskilful for the sake of "good", for gain, possible for priese of certain people, or to harm other, in the best case, lets say he acted foolish, like a child that wants but does not know how, unwise.

So again simple: taking what has been not given harms, and therefore not of good for oneself and all others, for peace and freedom of conflicts. Giving of what one owns, at the proper occation, and hunger is one of the five, is skillful.
Doing bad for the sake of good is foolish or even lordy, for whom is in the case of not being a proper case for giving would be worthy to help (not to talk about even to harm)? Think: of whom to help, even whom to harm, the mouse or the snake? Both never satisfied, both not dear to harm and kill.

It's good to side simply actions and tendencies. People are not for sure as long as not freed. Stick with simply precepts and what is praised by the wise, Thief. Otherwise thief may find his beloved friends and relatives lying on his battlefields death one day and would have not easy a way to overcome this transgressions done in the past, out of not knowing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is stealing $1,000 from a billionaire like Bill Gates or Donald Trump as sinful as stealing $1,000 from someone who only makes $1,000 a month? I feel like the latter is a worse sin.

Is shoplifting from Walmart just as sinful as stealing the same item from someone who is impoverished? I personally think the latter is worse.

Good point.

Or from the perspective of the thief:

Is stealing a bread while easily being able to afford to pay for it, as sinfull as when you steal a bread while poor because otherwise your kids don't have any food to eat?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you are an atheist who doesn't believe in sin, do you think one is a worse crime than the other?

First, I reject the premise that atheism has anything to do with morality.

Secondly, I think moral evaluation has everything to do with context, intent and the specifics of the action in question.

So while I certainly agree that stealing, in general, is wrong - I definatly don't agree that any and all instances of stealing are "equally wrong".

"how wrong" an instance of theft is imo, is to be evaluated on a case by case basis, taking into account the specific circumstances, intentions and underlying motivations of each individual case.

Because as you yourself note: stealing a coin from a pile of uncountable coins, clearly isn't of the same calibre as stealing a coin from someone that has just that one coin...

Neither is stealing a bread for the adrenaline kick of the same calibre as stealing a bread because otherwise your kids don't have anything to eat...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Stealing is wrong. The wealth of someone from whom you steal has no impact on the wrongness of the act.

What aspect of stealing makes it wrong?
Are any and all instances of "stealing" equally wrong, or are some more wrong then others? If the latter, what kind of thing makes one more wrong then others?

However, in terms of causality, there is a significant difference of impact when it comes to harm done.

Isn't the (im)morality of an action measured by its impact on others and/or society at large?
If not, then by what is it measured?