On David eating bread

Highlander · **Posted:** Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:58 am

Vern Humphrey wrote:

But many who are NOT in grave need will say they are in order to justify theft.

I suggest there are two tests in cases like this:

1. Will you suffer death or grievous harm if you do not steal?
2. Will you inflect death or grievous harm if you steal what another person needs?

To justify theft, you must apply both tests.

Or Laws. Such as:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law
3, A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws

Sorry (but not much). The tests triggered a memory of the Laws.

gherkin · **Posted:** Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:03 pm

Vern Humphrey wrote:

Peregrinator wrote:

Doom wrote:

But one has to be extremely careful about applying that kind of logic because that is the justification offered by every shoplifter and every thief for every active theft that's ever been committed in the history of the world. "I want it it's unfair that I don't have it therefore I have the right to take it" whether it's a loaf of bread an iPhone 11, a Rolex watch or the Mona Lisa.

Not really. The logic doesn't apply to those who are not in grave need.

But many who are NOT in grave need will say they are in order to justify theft.

I suggest there are two tests in cases like this:

1. Will you suffer death or grievous harm if you do not steal?
2. Will you inflect death or grievous harm if you steal what another person needs?

To justify theft, you must apply both tests.

Theft cannot be justified by any test. The Church teaches that in cases of grave need, when one person has goods over and above his needs, and another person lacks, the first person does not own those excess goods at all, and hence they can't be stolen from him, properly speaking.

Vern Humphrey · **Posted:** Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:15 pm

gherkin wrote:

Vern Humphrey wrote:

Peregrinator wrote:

Doom wrote:

But one has to be extremely careful about applying that kind of logic because that is the justification offered by every shoplifter and every thief for every active theft that's ever been committed in the history of the world. "I want it it's unfair that I don't have it therefore I have the right to take it" whether it's a loaf of bread an iPhone 11, a Rolex watch or the Mona Lisa.

Not really. The logic doesn't apply to those who are not in grave need.

But many who are NOT in grave need will say they are in order to justify theft.

I suggest there are two tests in cases like this:

1. Will you suffer death or grievous harm if you do not steal?
2. Will you inflect death or grievous harm if you steal what another person needs?

To justify theft, you must apply both tests.

Theft cannot be justified by any test. The Church teaches that in cases of grave need, when one person has goods over and above his needs, and another person lacks, the first person does not own those excess goods at all, and hence they can't be stolen from him, properly speaking.

But that brings back to the original problem I mentioned -- a thief will always say he NEEDS what he has stolen.

Since we have laws to deal with problems like this, how should the law determine whether the goods were stolen or not? Hence I proposed a two-part test.

I suggest that forcibly taking goods you do not own must pass those tests in order to be justified.

gherkin · **Posted:** Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:25 pm

Vern Humphrey wrote:

But that brings back to the original problem I mentioned -- a thief will always say he NEEDS what he has stolen.

And if the crime is a serious one, then it is the job of the prosecutor to show that the alleged need either didn't exist or didn't justify the act predicated on the need. What the criminal does or doesn't say is largely beside the point.

Quote:

Since we have laws to deal with problems like this, how should the law determine whether the goods were stolen or not? Hence I proposed a two-part test.

I suggest that forcibly taking goods you do not own must pass those tests in order to be justified.

I don't have much interest in positive law in this case. I'm just talking about what the Church teaches, and you're not far from wrong on that, apart from the technical point about it not being theft at all.

On David eating bread

Who is online