Is it immoral for a POOR child to STEAL from a RICH man?

Question

Is stealing wrong? Most people would say yes, but how about a poor child stealing from a rich man? So is stealing not wrong? Is it only wrong depending on WHO steals from WHO?

But what if: If the child didn't STEAL, then his family couldn't eat? Still wrong?

What about the intent?
If the rich man was stealing with an evil intent, and the poor kid was stealing so he and his family could stay alive.
So isn't it the INTENT that makes it good/evil?

EDIT
Lip: But why?

Answer 1

No. Circumstances require some flexibility in rigid moral standards. But I need to add a reality: In this country, thousands of children starve every day BECAUSE of the small percentage of RICH people who have mostly gotten rich by hook or by crook, & basically control our government.
Is it immoral to lie to spare someone's feelings?
Is it immoral to kill (if absolutely necessary) someone who is going to kill your child?
Anyone who says there are no exceptions isn't looking beyond their nose.

Answer 2

Q: Is it immoral for a POOR child to STEAL from a RICH man?

A: Yes! its immoral, its wrong and its very paradoxical. Why? In order to legally allow a poor child to steal from a rich man, the law makers would need to first define the meaning of "poor". They would then need to define the meaning and scope of "stealing". For example, does the poor child have the right to stab or kill the rich man in the process of stealing if the rich man tried to protect his/her assets? Its not whether or not this is immoral but it simply doesn't make any sense for the public to allow this to happen "legally".

I think the only time the public would think this kinda thing is 'moral' and "acceptable" would be when it happend as an "exception". For example, the poor child was very hungry and couldn't find any food or anyone willing to donate food or necessities needed to keep his family alive. He had no choice but to steal from someone with the intent of saving his family from starvation.

Answer 3

Stealing is wrong because it is disrespectful of others (of their property rights).

One might argue that the rich man who will not give charity to a starving child is disrespectful of the child, and disrespectful of the value of his own property; thus he has earned the child's disrespect, and/or forfeited his right to a certain amount of property.

But while we could argue about those things, I still don't think those arguments could justify stealing based on the child's intent. The child's action would still be disrespectful of the rich man's property rights, and so the general case of stealing is still wrong. It's only after it has happened, that I might insist on leniency for a particular someone who stole from a particular someone else in a particularly desperate situation.

Kind of like, murder is always wrong, but we are more lenient towards a manslaughterer or a third degree murderer than we are towards a premeditating cold-blooded killer.

Answer 4

It is possible to be a moral absolutist, and yet accept that rules have exceptions. Take murder, for instance. There is no contradiction in saying that in general, killing humans is wrong--but that exceptions can be made for self-defense, as a soldier acting on valid orders, etc. In fact, this is quite a mainstream position, though we do argue about the list of exceptions.

Moreover, there MUST BE exceptions--because otherwise, how would we choose which moral rule to follow in case of conflict? For example, if it is wrong to steal, but also wrong to let yourself or others die of starvation, which rule should have precedence? Maybe the second!

Answer 5

Of course intent matters.
When a poor child steals to feed his family it is so much different than when a rich man steals to increase his wealth.
But still stealing is wrong.
a poor man should work, not steal, to sustain his family,
and a rich man should willingly give part of his money to the poor, (he should bear in mind that one day he might become poor himself)
This is the way it Should be, but unfortunately not the way it is..

Answer 6

It's immoral but absolutly justified. Until we get these people out of poverty crime will continue. There was only one time in my life that I didn't have anything to eat and was flat broke. So guess what I did.We have to figure out how to have jobs for a person when they are released from prison. You know. if a person is hungry and they steal to be able to eat and causes no harm to the victim well I can't blame them.

Answer 7

It is understandable that a hungry child would steal, but if he is caught? It will cost him more than it is worth.
It doesn't matter who has more, or whether you steal from ill gotten gains. It is still a theft. It is wrong.
There is no grey area here. It is simply black & white.
You do not steal.
There is no room for compromise, nor are there any exceptions.

Answer 8

i believe in moral absolutism, and i believe that stealing is WRONG regardless of who have done it, the status of who have done it, the person who he stole from, the intention of the stealer, and other particular circumstances.

the law of morality states that "the end does not justify the means."

on the other hand, moral relativists say that "there is no such thing as an absolute truth." that means that it all depends upon the circumstance.

well, I BEG TO DIFFER.

if you will criticize the statement of the moral relativists, you'll see that it is a paradox (self-contradicting). how come that they believe in that statement (which they regard as a truth), when for them, there is no such thing as an ultimate and absolute truth?

think about it.

Answer 9

it is not immoral. according to a philosopher, there are three stages where a person views morality: the pre-conventional stage(a person only follows his desires), the conventional stage(a person who follows convention; general laws) and the post conventional stage(a person under philosophical reasoning deducts what is right and what is wrong). whatever the poor child steals from the rich man is irrelevant to the wealthy, for he is rich, while for the child it means his life.

Answer 10

Of course stealing is wrong.

Your example makes no difference whatsoever. We may have a tendency to sympathise with some aspects (i.e. your example, Robin Hood, tax evasion), but it doesn't alter the immorality of it.

**EDIT**
You can throw in as many scenarios as you like - the basic principle of stealing is immoral whichever way you look at it and whatever the reasons for it.
As I said, there are situations we can sympathise with, but the basic act is still wrong.