Applied Ethics
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_d5ck3c
1. What is stealing? Individuals have property rights (rights over certain things)
and to steal is to violate these property rights.
2. What would an Whether or not it is acceptable to steal depends on the
act utilitarian say situation. As Bentham says, stealing is morally good if
about stealing? it leads to the 'greatest happiness for the greatest num-
ber'. There is no moral right to property over and above
its utilitarian benefits and so if an act of stealing results
in greater happiness than pain then it would be morally
acceptable to steal. This does mean that stealing would
usually be right since it is most likely that the pain caused
to the victim (and the disapproval of others) outweighs
the happiness of the thief. However, Bentham may argue
that there are situations in which stealing is good when it
involves helping others.
3. Example of what An act utilitarian would say it is acceptable for a starving
an act utilitarian person to steal food if it saves their life, because the vic-
would say about tim's loss is outweighed by the thief's benefit. Similarly, it is
stealing. morally acceptable for very poor people to steal from very
rich people, because the rich person's loss of happiness
is insignificant compared to the thief's gain of happiness.
4. What would a Although there may be specific instances where steal-
strong rule utili- ing leads to greater happiness, having a general rule of
tarian say about "don't steal" leads to greater happiness overall. Hence, it
stealing? is always wrong to break a rule or law such as 'do not
steal' unless it can be truly morally justified in specific
situations (such as avoiding further immoral actions). Mill,
in his argument of justice and property rights, argues that
a society that permitted stealing would be one in which
everyone would live in constant fear of being robbed. With-
out property rights, people would feel insecure that they
would be stolen from. This distrust and fear would lead to a
less happy society than one in which stealing isn't allowed,
and so a rule utilitarian would argue that we should never
violate a person's property rights - even in situations where
doing so would maximise happiness - because the moral
value of an act comes from its observance of a rule.
, Applied Ethics
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_d5ck3c
5. What a weak in general, we should abide by the rule "do not steal", but
rule utilitarian there may be some occasions where stealing saves lives
say about steal- and it is then morally permissible. A rule utilitarian would
ing? be more lenient to breaking these rules if the happiness
will be greater by breaking rules such as 'do not steal' than
not breaking the rules.
6. What would Kant Stealing is morally and legally wrong in multiple ways.
say about steal- The categorical imperative says that we ought to "act only
ing in regards to according to the maxims you can will would become a
the 1st formula- universal law.". You cannot universalise the maxim "its ok
tion of the C.I? to steal" because if I will stealing to be a universal law, then
anyone could steal whenever they wanted. But if anyone
could steal whenever they wanted, the very concept of
personal property wouldn't exist. If there is no such thing
as personal property, the very concept of stealing doesn't
make sense (you can't steal something from someone if it
isn't theirs to begin with). In this way, willing that everyone
followed the maxim "to steal" leads to a contradiction
in conception and so does not meet the universal law
formulation of the C.I. Hence, we have a perfect duty to
never steal, and we are always morally blameworthy if we
choose to do so and must accept the consequences.
7. What would Kant Stealing fails to meet the second formulation of the C.I., in
say about steal- that by stealing, you are bypassing the owner's autonomy
ing in regards to and treating others as a means to further your own ends
the 2nd formula- rather than an ends in themselves, therefore, your action
tion of the C.I? is morally reprehensible.
8. What would Kant Kant's political theory plays a large part in his beliefs about
say about steal- stealing. Whilst some people argue that laws inhibit our
ing in regards to freedom, Kant argues that a lawless world is a 'state of
his political theo- nature'. Whilst living in a 'state of nature' has an animalistic
ry? freedom, it lacks the freedom and reason that is really
required in a functioning society. In a 'state of nature',
we lack external freedom as having no laws means that
people around us would be able to impose their own be-
liefs or choices on others. The only way that we would be
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_d5ck3c
1. What is stealing? Individuals have property rights (rights over certain things)
and to steal is to violate these property rights.
2. What would an Whether or not it is acceptable to steal depends on the
act utilitarian say situation. As Bentham says, stealing is morally good if
about stealing? it leads to the 'greatest happiness for the greatest num-
ber'. There is no moral right to property over and above
its utilitarian benefits and so if an act of stealing results
in greater happiness than pain then it would be morally
acceptable to steal. This does mean that stealing would
usually be right since it is most likely that the pain caused
to the victim (and the disapproval of others) outweighs
the happiness of the thief. However, Bentham may argue
that there are situations in which stealing is good when it
involves helping others.
3. Example of what An act utilitarian would say it is acceptable for a starving
an act utilitarian person to steal food if it saves their life, because the vic-
would say about tim's loss is outweighed by the thief's benefit. Similarly, it is
stealing. morally acceptable for very poor people to steal from very
rich people, because the rich person's loss of happiness
is insignificant compared to the thief's gain of happiness.
4. What would a Although there may be specific instances where steal-
strong rule utili- ing leads to greater happiness, having a general rule of
tarian say about "don't steal" leads to greater happiness overall. Hence, it
stealing? is always wrong to break a rule or law such as 'do not
steal' unless it can be truly morally justified in specific
situations (such as avoiding further immoral actions). Mill,
in his argument of justice and property rights, argues that
a society that permitted stealing would be one in which
everyone would live in constant fear of being robbed. With-
out property rights, people would feel insecure that they
would be stolen from. This distrust and fear would lead to a
less happy society than one in which stealing isn't allowed,
and so a rule utilitarian would argue that we should never
violate a person's property rights - even in situations where
doing so would maximise happiness - because the moral
value of an act comes from its observance of a rule.
, Applied Ethics
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_d5ck3c
5. What a weak in general, we should abide by the rule "do not steal", but
rule utilitarian there may be some occasions where stealing saves lives
say about steal- and it is then morally permissible. A rule utilitarian would
ing? be more lenient to breaking these rules if the happiness
will be greater by breaking rules such as 'do not steal' than
not breaking the rules.
6. What would Kant Stealing is morally and legally wrong in multiple ways.
say about steal- The categorical imperative says that we ought to "act only
ing in regards to according to the maxims you can will would become a
the 1st formula- universal law.". You cannot universalise the maxim "its ok
tion of the C.I? to steal" because if I will stealing to be a universal law, then
anyone could steal whenever they wanted. But if anyone
could steal whenever they wanted, the very concept of
personal property wouldn't exist. If there is no such thing
as personal property, the very concept of stealing doesn't
make sense (you can't steal something from someone if it
isn't theirs to begin with). In this way, willing that everyone
followed the maxim "to steal" leads to a contradiction
in conception and so does not meet the universal law
formulation of the C.I. Hence, we have a perfect duty to
never steal, and we are always morally blameworthy if we
choose to do so and must accept the consequences.
7. What would Kant Stealing fails to meet the second formulation of the C.I., in
say about steal- that by stealing, you are bypassing the owner's autonomy
ing in regards to and treating others as a means to further your own ends
the 2nd formula- rather than an ends in themselves, therefore, your action
tion of the C.I? is morally reprehensible.
8. What would Kant Kant's political theory plays a large part in his beliefs about
say about steal- stealing. Whilst some people argue that laws inhibit our
ing in regards to freedom, Kant argues that a lawless world is a 'state of
his political theo- nature'. Whilst living in a 'state of nature' has an animalistic
ry? freedom, it lacks the freedom and reason that is really
required in a functioning society. In a 'state of nature',
we lack external freedom as having no laws means that
people around us would be able to impose their own be-
liefs or choices on others. The only way that we would be
