Can anyone prove me wrong, logically?

Question

Is robbing a good or an evil act? A normal balanced person would say it is evil. How would a person who does not believe in the hereafter convince a powerful and influential criminal that robbing is evil?

Suppose I am the most powerful and influential criminal in the world. At the same time I am an Intelligent and a logical person. I say that robbing is good because it helps me lead a luxurious life. Thus robbing is good for me.

If anybody can put forward a single logical argument as to why it is evil for me, I will stop immediately.

Prove me wrong, logically.

Don't use any religion stuff like sin and Hell, tell me why is it wrong for me to rob?

Some may say that the person who is robbed will face difficulties. I certainly agree that it is bad for the person who is robbed. But it is good for me. If I rob a thousand dollars, I can enjoy a good meal at a 5 star restaurant.

Some people argue that someday I may be robbed. No one can rob me because I am a very powerful criminal and I have hundreds of bodyguards. I can rob anybody but nobody can rob me. Robbing may be a risky profession for a common man but not for an influential person like me.

Some may say, if you rob, you can be arrested by the police. The police cannot arrest me because I have the police on my payroll. I have the ministers on my payroll. I agree that if a common man robs, he will be arrested and it will be bad for him, but I am an extraordinarily influential and powerful criminal.

Some may say its easy money and not hard-earned money. I agree completely that it is easy money, and that is one of the main reasons why I rob. If a person has the option of earning money the easy as well as the hard way, any logical person would choose the easy way.

Some may say it is against humanity and that a person should care for other human beings. I counter argue by asking as to who wrote this law called ‘humanity’ and why should I follow it?

This law may be good for the emotional and sentimental people but I am a logical person and I see no benefit in caring for other human beings.

Some may say that robbing is being selfish. It is true that robbing is a selfish act; but then why should I not be selfish? It helps me enjoy life.

The point is, I just want to see what else can be answered logically to this question?

....What the hell is wrong is discussing a point!? I just want to see your opinion on this!

Don't attack meh D=

Answer 1

The simplest answer would be because it's against the law, and you may eventually get caught, thus loosing everything you have, and you may make some new "friends" in the prison showers. But this answer feels almost too simple.

Answer 2

Since you have the logic part down, and you are saying morals don't count, then mathematically, robbing is neither wrong nor right because you cannot commit a "crime" if you do not believe what you are doing to be one. Society is the dictator in this relationship, and I would venture a guess as to 50% believe that theft in some form is ok, while the other 50% do not. Most people might not go so far as to actually rob people and reap profits, but think of how many people do the little things, like not tell the cashier when he/she gives back too much change, or the people with illegal cable/satellite signals.

Based on your story, I would say you think it IS wrong to steal, or else you would not steal to afford yourself the luxury of keeping yourself safe from payback and/or prison time. If you thought that stealing was in fact "right", you would not take such protective measures, you would have no need or concern for self-preservation.

Answer 3

If the only thing that a person is concerned with is that they lead a luxurious life, then I find it doubtful they would ever see thier crime as being a bad thing.

BUT YOU WANT AN ATTEMPT AT AN ANSWER

I shall call this hypothetical criminal: Bob.

One might try introducing the idea that that Bob's crime is harming other people, and what makes Bob so special that he has the right to cause such harm...but Bob being so self centered would probably respond with something along the lines of "survival of the fittest."

If you were to play on Bob's knowledge that when he dies, he is gone forever...you could try to convince him that he would actually gain more benifite from doing good for people, becasue when he dies, people will remember the good deeds Bob did, and the good consequences of what he did will ripple out through the rest of time. Although then it comes down to which is more valuble to Bob: Immediate pleasure, or peace of mind about the future.

One final point that could be made to Bob is that not stealing, and spending his time doing helpful things for humanity might actually make him happy, prehaps he would enjoy it. he would also get real friends he could trust, something he wouldn't get in the cutthroat world of crime.

But we don't really know enough about bob to know for sure how he would respond. People are social creatures, so it would seem silly for them to harm one another , but we do it all the time...so can we even say anything a human does is logical?

Answer 4

No one can prove you wrong because you are not allowing any context. For morality to be meaningful, actions must be considered in their context - which does not presuppose religion or anything supernatural.

So first it is necessary for you to define "good" and "evil", in order to create the context. For example, if we define evil as being intentionally harmful to other people, then robbing is generally evil. But if you define evil as ignoring your own greed, then robbing is good.

Humans, being social animals, seem to have evolved with an altruistic nature, which is seen in the various forms of social contracts that exist in different societies around the world. These contracts, whether based on human rights, mythology, religion, or whatever, consistently reflect that some people or groups have certain rights or interests which are to be protected and respected.

Here's an instructive example: Adam Smith and the early economists proved mathematically that 2 parties can BOTH be better off (at least economically - which stems from satisfied desires) if they agree to trade. This is based on a Utilitarian form of ethics, which strives for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Again, there must always be some kind of context.

The simple logic goes like this:
If evil is defined such that robbing has no evil impact, then robbing is not evil.

But adding some context easily changes the logic:
If it is evil to harm others, and if robbing harms others; then robbing is evil.

Answer 5

Robbery has no intrinsic good or evil quality. If someone steals something from you, is it evil to steal it back? If you steal food to feed your children, is that an act of evil?

But robbery can be harmful. Not only to the person being robbed, but to the person committing the act. They could get caught, and go to jail. They could be hurt or killed in the act of committing a robbery. Empathy is a natural human emotion, and we all have it. The person who robs people is ignoring their feelings of empathy and guilt associated with their victims. In doing this, they are not only harming the people they rob, but themselves as well.

EDIT: OK, I see that you've added on several more conditions because people who answered your question have come up with logical reasons for the person to cease their actions of robbery.

Your question has been answered. Let it go.

Answer 6

Experience is the only source of knowledge. In the world, religion is the only source where there is no surety, because it is not taught as a science of experience. This should not be. There is always, however, a small group of people who teach religion from experience. They are called mystics, and these mystics in every religion speak the same tongue and teach the same truth. This is the real science of religion. As mathematics in every part of the world does not differ, so the mystics do not differ. They are all similarly constituted and similarly situated. Their experience is the same; and this becomes law. In the church, religionists first learn about religion and then begin to practice it; they do not take experience as the basis of their belief. But the mystics start out in search of truth, experience it first, and then formulate their creed. The church takes the experience of others; the mystics have their own experience. The church goes from the outside in; the mystics go from the inside out. Religion deals with the truths of the metaphysical world just as chemistry and the other natural sciences deal with the truths of the physical world. The book one must read to learn chemistry is the book of nature. The book from which to learn religion is your own mind and heart. The sages are often ignorant of physical science, because they read the wrong book--the book within; and the scientists are too often ignorant of religion, because they too read the wrong book--the book without. All branches of science have their particular methods; so has the science of religion. The science of religion has more methods than the other sciences, because it has more material to work upon. The human mind is not homogeneous like the external world. Different minds have different natures and so they must have different methods. As some special sense predominates in a person--one person will see more, another will hear more--so there is a predominant mental sense; and through this gate must each reach his or her own mind. Yet through all minds runs a unity, and there is a science that may be applied to all. This science of religion is based on the analysis of the human soul. It has no creed. No one form of religion will do for all. Each is a pearl on a string. We must be particular above all else to find individuality in each. No person is born to any religion. Every person has a religion in his or her own soul. Any system that seeks to destroy individuality is disastrous in the long run. Each life has a current running though it, and this current will eventually take it to God. The end and aim of all religions is to realize God. The greatest of all training is to worship God alone. If all people chose their own ideals and stuck to it, all religious controversy would vanish.

Answer 7

The direct and immediate benefit for you is that you become richer. By that logic, robbing is not wrong. Then assuming that robbing is no longer considered wrong, anybody would be free to rob you. Since you are the initial instigator, and you are now rich, you are then going to be the primary target for retribution.

In response to the additional details: so many body guards cannot be convinced to allow you to rob their own family and friends, and one of your body guards will certainly kill you for your money. A person who builds their empire off the backs of others will eventually fall. It's been proven by history. Please don't super-power-up your action figure anymore by saying he can fly & stuff.

Answer 8

We are in this world to live a peacful life not to hurt any one.
Say some robber robs your place what will happen, you lost some valuables which you have bought doing hard work. And by losing those things you got hurt a lot.
So my logic says is i am here to live a peacuful life where i dont hurt anyone. Therefore i would prefer living a non-luxurious life and doing only hard work instead of a luxury life but as a reasult of hurting people.

Answer 9

I assume what you want to know is what role does right and wrong play in a world without God. Christains believe that the reason God gave laws was so that the laws would show them how to have good relationships with God and Others. In the same way that Christians see robbing as wrong because it an affront on their relationship with God, robbing in a world without God would be wrong if it affronts other relationships. Do you hurt your relationship with those you rob from, then you have wronged them? Do you hurt your relationship with yourself by robbing because you feel guilt, then you have wronged yourself? Does it hurt your family’s perception of you because you rob, then you have wronged them?

Answer 10

You need other peopel to do well in order for you to live well. You need someone to grow food and if is doing well, there is more chance that there will be food at the store.

So basically in all situations, put together, there is a greater probability you won't be hurt if you don't hurt others.

You could also go the other way and argue that if you touch fire it burns you...and fire is energy....and you are mass...but mass can be converted to energy.....so you are the same thing in the end....so then it is the nature of thigns to hurt others.