Is stealing ever morally permissible?
Statement of Intent: I will argue that stealing is sometimes morally permissible in special circumstances
because the utilitarian account of stealing is the most convincing. Firstly, I will show that Kantian Ethics
fails the most in its response to stealing as it can lead to a clash of absolute duties. Secondly, I will show
that virtue ethics although better then Kantian ethics, is still too rigid in its account for justice. Lastly I will
show that utilitarianism is the most convincing and therefore stealing is sometime morally permissible
RICE 1:
R: Unlike Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics is unable to adapt to scenarios as in doing so is unrealistic to
human behaviour in that it prohibits it completely and it is the worse account of whether we should steal.
We should allow for cases for example, if you are told you need to steal something or they will shoot your
family. Whilst it is an extreme case, it still follows that there will be a clash of duties as you can’t steal but
you also can’t kill your family but Kant would have to say you shouldn’t steal regardless. Virtue Ethics is
better in that in these cases, because there is psychological resistance, it is an involuntary action and
therefore there is no moral responsibility from ther person who steal. Utilitarianism would also say that the
utility lost from stealing compared to the utility gain of your family not dying means in this case stealing is
permissible. There will be many cases where there is a clash of duties
I: If we understood Kantian Ethics we will find that a real conflict of duties can never occur. Consider the
example stated - it is a false dichotomy - you could simply tell the friend that the other friend told you to
keep it a secret and therefore you won’t tell them and so you were never compelled to lie and so there is
no conflict of duties. There appeared to be a conflict because we misunderstood what at least one duty
required of us. Because of duties are absolute we have to be careful when formulating them to avoid them
conflict. Rather then having just ‘don’t lie’ as a duty our duty could be ‘don’t lie unless you have to save a
life’ which avoids conflict. Therefore issue is resolved and you can always do your absolute duty
C: But in reality, it is much more realistic and simplistic to say that most duties are not absolute rather then
forcing them to be absolute and formulating absolute duties carefully. For instance considering the same
scenario we still have the duty to not lie but because it would not be absolute, it would be steal eg to save
a life. Less important duties can give way to more important ones and so if there is such ‘conflict’ one will
give way and no longer be a duty in that situation. This is more convincing as it is more realistic and
adaptable to scenarios - a severe lacking of Kantian Ethics in general.
E: Therefor Kant fails to accommodate for the problem of duties clashing and most notably it shows that
absolute duties is not the ways to understand morals. Therefore stealing is not a perfect duty and so
utilitarinaism is correct in allowing some occassions when it’s allowed.
RICE 2:
R: The virtue ethicist’s view of justice (as stealing is a matter of justice) is still too rigid. Virtue Ethics
understands justice as deontological and that some acts such as stealing is always wrong because it
deprives someone from their fair share. Justice supercedes the context of other virtues. It is better then
Kantian Deontology in that it permisses stealing if there was a unjust state of affairs and the state of affairs
have come about through unjust means (e.g if the rich accumulated wealth through exploitative means) as
this is justice in rectification but if the rich were rich simply due to merit then it is unfortunate but nothing
can be done. I still think this limits the scope of when we want to say stealing is permissable. For example
if someone is desperately poor and starving, and stealing a dollar from a billionaire who earned his money
fairly seems morally okay, they shouldn’t be punished as they were under dire circumstances. Or maybe
you really needed to steal food for your child, you are morally responsible for raising a child which could
mean death, because the stealing is for necessity it should be okay. To say the unjust state of affairs is
Is stealing ever morally permissible? 1
Statement of Intent: I will argue that stealing is sometimes morally permissible in special circumstances
because the utilitarian account of stealing is the most convincing. Firstly, I will show that Kantian Ethics
fails the most in its response to stealing as it can lead to a clash of absolute duties. Secondly, I will show
that virtue ethics although better then Kantian ethics, is still too rigid in its account for justice. Lastly I will
show that utilitarianism is the most convincing and therefore stealing is sometime morally permissible
RICE 1:
R: Unlike Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics is unable to adapt to scenarios as in doing so is unrealistic to
human behaviour in that it prohibits it completely and it is the worse account of whether we should steal.
We should allow for cases for example, if you are told you need to steal something or they will shoot your
family. Whilst it is an extreme case, it still follows that there will be a clash of duties as you can’t steal but
you also can’t kill your family but Kant would have to say you shouldn’t steal regardless. Virtue Ethics is
better in that in these cases, because there is psychological resistance, it is an involuntary action and
therefore there is no moral responsibility from ther person who steal. Utilitarianism would also say that the
utility lost from stealing compared to the utility gain of your family not dying means in this case stealing is
permissible. There will be many cases where there is a clash of duties
I: If we understood Kantian Ethics we will find that a real conflict of duties can never occur. Consider the
example stated - it is a false dichotomy - you could simply tell the friend that the other friend told you to
keep it a secret and therefore you won’t tell them and so you were never compelled to lie and so there is
no conflict of duties. There appeared to be a conflict because we misunderstood what at least one duty
required of us. Because of duties are absolute we have to be careful when formulating them to avoid them
conflict. Rather then having just ‘don’t lie’ as a duty our duty could be ‘don’t lie unless you have to save a
life’ which avoids conflict. Therefore issue is resolved and you can always do your absolute duty
C: But in reality, it is much more realistic and simplistic to say that most duties are not absolute rather then
forcing them to be absolute and formulating absolute duties carefully. For instance considering the same
scenario we still have the duty to not lie but because it would not be absolute, it would be steal eg to save
a life. Less important duties can give way to more important ones and so if there is such ‘conflict’ one will
give way and no longer be a duty in that situation. This is more convincing as it is more realistic and
adaptable to scenarios - a severe lacking of Kantian Ethics in general.
E: Therefor Kant fails to accommodate for the problem of duties clashing and most notably it shows that
absolute duties is not the ways to understand morals. Therefore stealing is not a perfect duty and so
utilitarinaism is correct in allowing some occassions when it’s allowed.
RICE 2:
R: The virtue ethicist’s view of justice (as stealing is a matter of justice) is still too rigid. Virtue Ethics
understands justice as deontological and that some acts such as stealing is always wrong because it
deprives someone from their fair share. Justice supercedes the context of other virtues. It is better then
Kantian Deontology in that it permisses stealing if there was a unjust state of affairs and the state of affairs
have come about through unjust means (e.g if the rich accumulated wealth through exploitative means) as
this is justice in rectification but if the rich were rich simply due to merit then it is unfortunate but nothing
can be done. I still think this limits the scope of when we want to say stealing is permissable. For example
if someone is desperately poor and starving, and stealing a dollar from a billionaire who earned his money
fairly seems morally okay, they shouldn’t be punished as they were under dire circumstances. Or maybe
you really needed to steal food for your child, you are morally responsible for raising a child which could
mean death, because the stealing is for necessity it should be okay. To say the unjust state of affairs is
Is stealing ever morally permissible? 1
