This is my last response to you because you are disingenuous and I’m tired of writing the same things again and again. If you are sick and starving and the society that you belong to refuses to effectively aid you I would argue it is morally good to steal from companies that create and perpetuate the systems of oppression. This is not a hard thought experiment. It is the same as saying there are times where it is morally right to lie. You once again refuse to actually engage with the core of my argument. Your ideas have no substance and your analysis of these situations is elementary to the point that I think I may be arguing with a teenager. I’m done, bye.
Why am I disingenuous? Were you or were you not making the case that theft could sometimes be considered morally good?
I find it more disingenuous of you to try and just brush over that by asking me to engage with a completely different argument about the system being the problem.
The system does not care if you steal from it. As you said yourself, the CEO of the supermarket does not pay for the losses out of his own pocket. He’ll just raise prices or lock things up behind glass so that ultimately, we’re ALL paying for it. Your so-called “charity” ends up costing everyone.
Like, have you considered that there may be elderly ladies on fixed incomes that also need to buy toiletry items and cannot afford paying extra price increases just because you decided it was okay to let someone else steal?
This is my last response to you because you are disingenuous and I’m tired of writing the same things again and again. If you are sick and starving and the society that you belong to refuses to effectively aid you I would argue it is morally good to steal from companies that create and perpetuate the systems of oppression. This is not a hard thought experiment. It is the same as saying there are times where it is morally right to lie. You once again refuse to actually engage with the core of my argument. Your ideas have no substance and your analysis of these situations is elementary to the point that I think I may be arguing with a teenager. I’m done, bye.
Why am I disingenuous? Were you or were you not making the case that theft could sometimes be considered morally good?
I find it more disingenuous of you to try and just brush over that by asking me to engage with a completely different argument about the system being the problem.
The system does not care if you steal from it. As you said yourself, the CEO of the supermarket does not pay for the losses out of his own pocket. He’ll just raise prices or lock things up behind glass so that ultimately, we’re ALL paying for it. Your so-called “charity” ends up costing everyone.
Like, have you considered that there may be elderly ladies on fixed incomes that also need to buy toiletry items and cannot afford paying extra price increases just because you decided it was okay to let someone else steal?