Which is worse, theft or exploitation / Is theft justified if it prevents immorality?

[Narz]

In some cases you have to fight and use violence, certainly. That's not the case with the tobacco companies however. In their case using violent or other extreme means is clearly inferior to legal methods.

-Drachasor

Clearly how? IMO, the ends (short of murder) would justify the means. Assuming the ends are things like sabotaging tobacco processing plants, etc. (again, for all to keep in mind I am not endorsing such activities, simply discussing hypothetical scenerios).

Going about things thru the courts would be a longer (ensuring more deaths in the meantime), though less risky, process.

If one had confidence one of succeed thru the illegal method it would be the best way to go, IMO (since it would be faster).

Stealing cigarettes as an act of protest. How futile can you get?

You wanna fight "the man" do it right! Bomb their factories! Burn their fields!

Wait I have an even better idea. Poison their production lines!

Hmm, that would kill a few unwitting "heroes of the cause" but ultimately might save millions of lives (people would be deathly, literally, afraid to smoke after that). Still, IMO, the murders could not be justified.

 

[LightFang]

So putting people out of their jobs and livelihood is better than preventing people from being stupid to themselves?

 

[JohnRM]

At this point in my life -- and it has become critical -- I would be more than willing to steal from anyone who is a drain on society or who is a real prick in order to enrich my life and the life of my family.

 

[Narz]

That's a rather odd niche to be filling, ne? It's like they specifically exist to help troubled college students acquire gun licenses.

Of course, I believe in less gun control, so...

Yes, it's the student's choice to use that company or not. The company is probably directly condoning the murders.

HOWEVER.

Do I support that company? No. Do I support its right to exist? Yes.

They're not contradictory...people have the right for their own cheap highs. As long as it doesn't damage me, so be it.

I think this is an incorrect view. Allowing others to be taken advantage of does effect you. Maybe not in ways that are easy to measure (though I'm sure creative sociologists can come up with studies that show definitive lessening of quality of life) but IMO, it does have an effect.

Not to say it is the governments job to protect people from themselves but I do think that companies that sell products that damage people should be held accountable for them just like a crack dealer can't expect sympathy if a grieving mother who lost her son tracks him down and puts a cap in his ass.

That quite simply wouldn't happen!

How do you know? I can't be entirely sure but I imagine tobacco could be stolen and turned into ethanol.

And you didn't answer my accusations about this being similar to ELF.

Yes, it is similar to ELF I suppose (I don't know much about them but from your description they are similar).

So putting people out of their jobs and livelihood is better than preventing people from being stupid to themselves?

If people's "jobs" entail coercing others to slowly kill themselves I think I would be doing them a service by forcing them to get better jobs. They'll probably sleep better at night.

At this point in my life -- and it has become critical -- I would be more than willing to steal from anyone who is a drain on society or who is a real prick in order to enrich my life and the life of my family.

Thank you for your honesty.

 

[drachasor]

Clearly how? IMO, the ends (short of murder) would justify the means. Assuming the ends are things like sabotaging tobacco processing plants, etc. (again, for all to keep in mind I am not endorsing such activities, simply discussing hypothetical scenerios).

Going about things thru the courts would be a longer (ensuring more deaths in the meantime), though less risky, process.

If one had confidence one of succeed thru the illegal method it would be the best way to go, IMO (since it would be faster).

How are you not endorsing illegal activities? You say it is morally right, expedient, and that it would work. Are you instead saying people shouldn't act morally?

Furthermore, why you afraid to endorse such activities?

I would say that it definitely isn't expedient. One person is not going to be able to put a significant crimp in tobacco product production. One person, or even a small group, is not going to make a significant difference through violence. Further, it undermines the basic premise of our civilized society, and thereby inherently endorses violence, rather than reason, to solve problems. The latter, in particular, is damning and does far more damage to society than it prevents or stops if one accepts such actions as sound (which is what you are advocating).

-Drachasor

 

[StarWorms]

First off, it is an addictive substance, so it isn't "voluntary". Secondly, it doesn't matter whether it's "voluntary" or not if it is grossly harmful to society (which tobacco is).

-Drachasor

1. It's not difficult to quit smoking if you really want to.
2. Well, it does. If I went around with a gun asking people if they'd like to be shot and 5 said yes, and I shot them, isn't that much better than shooting 5 random people?

Like the judge is gonna buy that one. I appreciate your wanting to make this happen but I must insist on waiting until you're 18.

Typical attempt at patronisation

I'm older than 18.

 

[drachasor]

1. It's not difficult to quit smoking if you really want to.
2. Well, it does. If I went around with a gun asking people if they'd like to be shot and 5 said yes, and I shot them, isn't that much better than shooting 5 random people?

1. You presumption of some sort of free will is silly. In any case, just because SOME people can quit easily doesn't mean all or even most people can quit easily. If quitting was easy, there wouldn't be so many products on the market to help people quit (which still don't help everyone). Your statement that it is easy is blatantly false.

2. No, it isn't much better than shooting 5 random people.

-Drachasor

 

[LightFang]

I think this is an incorrect view. Allowing others to be taken advantage of does effect you. Maybe not in ways that are easy to measure (though I'm sure creative sociologists can come up with studies that show definitive lessening of quality of life) but IMO, it does have an effect.

Well let's just agree to disagree here. I don't think any of us are qualified to debate this specific point.

Not to say it is the governments job to protect people from themselves but I do think that companies that sell products that damage people should be held accountable for them just like a crack dealer can't expect sympathy if a grieving mother who lost her son tracks him down and puts a cap in his ass.

See, that depends. Tobacco is a drug, and people use it to get high. They know it's bad for you - it says that on the bloody box! Therefore it's choice. I don't feel any sympathy for the crack dealer either, but then, I figure we should just legalize all drugs anyway. It's your choice on whether or not you want to ruin your own life.

If people's "jobs" entail coercing others to slowly kill themselves I think I would be doing them a service by forcing them to get better jobs. They'll probably sleep better at night.

I disagree. They need the money to live. There's a point where you sell out your principles so you can do something to, you know, live. I'm pretty sure they passed that by now.

I'm also fairly certain they'll sleep more poorly at night, what with the worrying about finances they have to do.

 

[Narz]

How are you not endorsing illegal activities? You say it is morally right, expedient, and that it would work. Are you instead saying people shouldn't act morally?

Without massive organization and planning they wouldn't work.

Furthermore, why you afraid to endorse such activities?

Endorsing illegal activities in a public forum is never a good idea.

I would say that it definitely isn't expedient. One person is not going to be able to put a significant crimp in tobacco product production. One person, or even a small group, is not going to make a significant difference through violence.

Of course they are. Look at 9/11. Look at the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." said Margaret Mead. IMO, she's right. And it works for violence too (though I suppose we should drop the word "thoughtful" in that case (or simply read it literally).

Further, it undermines the basic premise of our civilized society, and thereby inherently endorses violence, rather than reason, to solve problems. The latter, in particular, is damning and does far more damage to society than it prevents or stops if one accepts such actions as sound (which is what you are advocating).

-Drachasor

I see your point here I respect it.

That said, isn't it the lawmakers & government's job to protect the people? If they aren't doing their job and protecting the citizenry isn't more drastic action required?

Yeah, I know I'm taking this a bit far but you have to admit, the US's (and many other) government is quite corrupt and slow to make changes. As I said above, waiting for legalization is the slow approach. Whether it is the best or not depends on the situation. Violence isn't the only the way to break the law. Obviously the best solution from an individual perspective would be simply not to smoke. However, there is also the responsibility for our fellow man (not to mention the social and environmental impacts of cigarettes production and consumption, and the economic cost to taxpayers in areas with public health care).

1. It's not difficult to quit smoking if you really want to.

Maybe for you. Many people die rather than quit. That's the problem with things that are addictive.

2. Well, it does. If I went around with a gun asking people if they'd like to be shot and 5 said yes, and I shot them, isn't that much better than shooting 5 random people?

A little bit I suppose. I'd still want you prosecuted.

Typical attempt at patronisation

I'm older than 18.

I think you missed the joke.

 

[Narz]

Well let's just agree to disagree here. I don't think any of us are qualified to debate this specific point.

ok.

See, that depends. Tobacco is a drug, and people use it to get high. They know it's bad for you - it says that on the bloody box! Therefore it's choice. I don't feel any sympathy for the crack dealer either, but then, I figure we should just legalize all drugs anyway. It's your choice on whether or not you want to ruin your own life.

It's a choice sure. Undermining the activities of a business who's practices are destructive is also a choice.

I disagree. They need the money to live. There's a point where you sell out your principles so you can do something to, you know, live. I'm pretty sure they passed that by now.

I'm also fairly certain they'll sleep more poorly at night, what with the worrying about finances they have to do.

You act as if without tobacco companies people would starve. Tobacco companies use up tons of farmland, office space, space on store shelves, etc. that, in their absence could be taken up by other companies which would provide jobs. Alot of people worked for Enron too. Should we have spared shutting down the company to avoid hurting them?

 

[drachasor]

Of course they are. Look at 9/11. Look at the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." said Margaret Mead. IMO, she's right. And it works for violence too (though I suppose we should drop the word "thoughtful" in that case (or simply read it literally).

You specified no murder. In any case, typically such actions lead to support for the person/group/etc attacked, and would make long-term solutions more difficult, not easier. At the very least it would make reasonable discussion very difficult, and the whole issue would become much more divisive than it currently is.

-Drachasor

 

[LightFang]

It's a choice sure. Undermining the activities of a business who's practices are destructive is also a choice.

No, no, see, here's the thing. Do I support tobacco companies? No, I'd like to see them shut down. Do I support their right to exist? Yes.

How, then, can these views be reconciled. Easy! Buying power! If people just don't buy cigarettes, there will be no reason for these tobacco companies to exist.

You act as if without tobacco companies people would starve. Tobacco companies use up tons of farmland, office space, space on store shelves, etc. that, in their absence could be taken up by other companies which would provide jobs. Alot of people worked for Enron too. Should we have spared shutting down the company to avoid hurting them?

True, true. However, I advocate shutting the company down because nobody buys their products, not because it's bombed or through legislation.

So in the end, we both agree that tobacco sucks, just that I don't think we should resort to violence or laws; let it be the peoples' choice.

 

[StarWorms]

1. You presumption of some sort of free will is silly. In any case, just because SOME people can quit easily doesn't mean all or even most people can quit easily. If quitting was easy, there wouldn't be so many products on the market to help people quit (which still don't help everyone). Your statement that it is easy is blatantly false.

It's not about can't quit, it's about won't quit. There are so many products on the market because people expect to be able to put no effort in and get lots out - it's similar to obesity. People want to be thin, but those who want to lose weight often don't change their diet enough and don't do sufficient exercise. Or the decide to sneak in snacks. Same goes for smokers - It will fail if someone just decides that they're going to go from 30 a day to quitting - their body won't be able to handle the change - instead it should be gradually reduced.

2. No, it isn't much better than shooting 5 random people.

Why do you think that?

If you have to kill 5 people, and you have a choice between 5 people who want to die, and 5 who don't then the answer seems obvious to me.

 

[bhsup]

For the sake of a poll I will use the example of cigarettes. Cigarette companies knowingly sell a product they admit causes cancer, ruins people's health in general (many years before they die). Basically they profit off of human suffering. This is not to discount the fact that their victims are willing (albeit often with the cards stacked against them, sometimes even from birth if their mother smoked while they were in the womb) but simply to point out that they use the money they receive to create more suffering, therefore taking money from them would theoretically relieve suffering (how much would depend on how much you took).

Basically, if you know someone acquired their money thru immoral means and use their money to finance more immorality is it moral to steal from them?

Feel free to take issue with the idea that cigarette companies are immoral. I don't foresee any compelling arguments though.

Please note, this is a hypothetical philosophical question. Narz does not advocate you risking your liberty on petty theft.

Okay, you know the line I'm gonna use as I'm quite fond of it... Personal responsibility, that's what it's all about!

The tobacco companies do not put a gun to my head and make me buy their products. I choose to. They are a business that is, as of this point in time (and all points previous in this country) perfectly legal. Nothing immoral or exploitive about that. I choose to buy their products and use their products.

Now if you'll excuse me, I am going to go outside, wrap my lips around the butt of a Camel and inhale slowly, savoring the flavor.

 

[Hygro]

Care to elaborate?

It's nuanced, but it goes a little like this:

morally (on one side), I care to have a functioning, consistent society. Therefore I respect my Ethics, and ethics lead me to conclude that stealing is wrong, particularly stealing a product that is legally being sold. That's just bad for society. Stealing is highly unethical so I'm against it.

Morally (on the other side), I think cigarettes are bad and shouldn't exist, especially not for profit, and so I'm doing something vaguely noble by taking away that carton's sale value or whatever.

It's not black and white, but it's not shades of gray either. It's more like digitized black and white that looks gray from a distance. Stealing is wrong. Stopping a bad product is right. Driving up costs through theft is wrong, because all your doing is making the addicts subsidize your theft. But hurting immoral profitability is right. Acting unethically is wrong, and thats the trump card that makes me choose that I would opt to buy them, not steal them even given no legal consequences. There are more wrong and rights involved in this, but aren't worth posting.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think smokers and the tobacco companies are awesome! Cancer is a huge disease and likely to affect me personally at some point in my life. And all these really nice people are effectively volunteering to participate in clincal trials for cancer therapies. Just think: in 20-30 years, VRWCAgent is going to need some type of cancer treatment and so he'll go and create a market demand for cancer treatments. That way, when I'm likely to get cancer in 50 year I'll have benefitted from his sacrifice.

As a side consequence, people who're willing to lie, obfuscate, and deceive on the dangers of smoking (the people who own/run the companies or have major shares) are able to reap huge rewards. It allows 'evil' to be a viable method of maintaining a fortune..

 

[Urederra]

That's true. For the sake of argument we'll assume one is stealing directly from the tobacco company (stealing cartons directly off their trucks).

That's the problem. By using twisted logic you can accuse anybody of exploitation and justify stealing, or even killing them.

Twisted arguments lead to twisted morals. Look at the Bolshevists, Maoists, Castrists, Nazists, communists and all these groups that justify stealing and killing because they felt exploited.

 

[MobBoss]

Stealing is worse. Making a product, marketing it, and selling it to those willing to buy it is just the law of supply and demand in action.

Edit: as long as the product being sold is legal of course.

 

[bhsup]

Just think: in 20-30 years, VRWCAgent is going to need some type of cancer treatment and so he'll go and create a market demand for cancer. That way, when I'm likely to get cancer in 50 year I'll have benefitted from his sacrifice.

Happy to be of assistance, El Machinae!

 

[JollyRoger]

Stealing is worse. Making a product, marketing it, and selling it to those willing to buy it is just the law of supply and demand in action.

Edit: as long as the product being sold is legal of course.

Taking an item off the shelf and taking it out of the store is also a function of supply and demand. The potential for a petty thief to take an item off the shelf may be beyond the shop owner's marginal propensity to consume resources on theft prevention. The thief demands a product for exhibiting risky behaviour and the shop owner is willing to supply a product to such a risktaker by the shop owner's decision to not expend resources that would prevent the risktaker from succeeding.