|
Steve is aware that Bob stole the radio from Adam prior to the purchase. This is to avoid the "error of knowledge" argument. If the answer is No, then does the answer change to Yes if Steve and Adam are friends?
showing 2 of 13
show all
|
|
This sounds like a case of "receiving stolen property" to me. Not only does the buyer know that the property was stolen, the buyer in this case even knows whom it was stolen from: "Steve is aware that Bob stole the radio from Adam prior to the purchase." The buyer therefore knows that the property is not the seller's to sell; the property still rightfully belongs to the victim. If the buyer aids and abets the withholding of the property from its rightful owner, the buyer is an accomplice to the initiation of physical force against the victim. That, in turn, makes the buyer evil (a form of immoral) as well as criminal. (I also see friendship as totally irrelevant, if the buyer is proposing to withhold the property from its rightful owner.) After writing above I looked into the definition of "receiving stolen property". I'm really not sure why "receiving stolen property" isn't just "theft". Here are the elements of theft: 1) unauthorized taking, keeping or using - check 2) of another's property - check 3) without the owner's permission or consent - check 4) with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it - check Morally, anyway, I wouldn't say the "buyer" is aiding and abetting - they're just stealing. Steve sees a radio sitting on a table. He knows the radio belongs to Adam. "How much for the radio, Bob?" he asks. "I'll sell it to you for $10", Bob replies. Steve hands Bob a $10 bill, and takes the radio. That sounds like plain old "theft" to me. Perhaps "theft of lost or mislaid property" if the property was lost or mislaid, but still theft. The fact that Bob at one point moved the radio to the table doesn't change the fact that it's theft. I really don't see how, legally as well as morally, this doesn't constitute outright theft. Trading stolen property isn't the same as stealing the property in the first place. They are both crimes, but they are not the same crime. And, Anthony, your example about the radio on the table deliberately blurs the distinction. In that case, it's theft, and bribery (I'll pay you ten bucks to shut up about my stealing this). What would be an example which doesn't blur the distinction? "Steve is aware that Bob stole the radio from Adam prior to the purchase." The case presented by Humbug is theft and bribery. The use of the word "buys" is inaccurate. What element of theft is missing? Update: Ah, here it is. At least in some jurisdictions, theft requires a taking from the (constructive) possession of another (http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim26.htm). If the item was already stolen, then the owner doesn't have constructive possession, and it's not theft. That said, I don't see what the moral difference is. Even if it's not "theft", it's still "stealing".
showing 2 of 6
show all
|
I'm not sure what this "acting immorally toward" is. By this do you mean "violating the rights of"?
If so, my answer is yes. He's violating Adam's rights unless he immediately turns over the radio to Adam after "buying" it. It's Adam's radio. By taking it into his own possession (other than temporarily with the intent of delivering it to its rightful owner), he's stealing it. It's basically no different than if he had stole it directly (and paid Bob to keep quiet about the theft).
I've updated the question to be about justice instead of morality since it's about relations between people vs. relations with the self.
I want to add that this isn't a difficult concept, it just hasn't, in many cases, been taught particularly well (if at all, and if the opposite hasn't been taught).
My son, at four years old, when he found a coin on the ground would ask around whether or not it's anyone else's before he sticks it in his pocket. I don't remember explicitly teaching him that, but it's great that he can separate possession from ownership like that.
Growing up I was always taught the adage "finders keepers, losers weepers". It wasn't until adulthood that I realized that was neither morally correct nor the law.
You've changed "acting immorally toward" to "committing an injustice toward". This is better in the sense that justice is a concept which requires other men, unlike morality which applies on a desert island. On the other hand, I still vote for "violating the rights of". I think it's much simpler to apply. We don't have to analyze the character of Adam, except to note that he is a man that owns a radio.
The other injustice, which is not a rights violation, is in paying Bob for stolen property - rewarding Bob for stealing.
Hopefully this is all part of a sting operation.
Why would we have to analyze the character of Adam? Are you saying that if the owner was Hitler, then this would still be a rights violation but not an injustice?
I said we don't have to analyze the character of Adam, except to note that he is a man that owns a radio.
Taking things from a genocidal maniac would not be an injustice. It wouldn't be a rights violation either, if due process was followed. A person convicted of a capital crime who has exhausted all appeals doesn't even have the right to life, let alone the right to property. A foreign leader of a government against which one has declared war similarly lacks the right to property.
In that case I do want to keep the term "injustice" and not use "violation of rights" as it clearly separates the concept of justice from the concept of rights and also illustrates where they may diverge, according to your view anyway.
A violation of rights is always a violation of justice. The reverse is not always true.
Premise 1: "Taking things from a genocidal maniac would not be an injustice."
Premise 2: "A violation of rights is always a violation of justice."
Does this mean it's not a violation of rights to steal from Hitler? What about stealing from Jeffrey Dahmer? Is the criteria genocidal maniac vs. just mere maniac?
Hitler is dead, as is Jeffrey Dahmer. It's not possible to steal from either, and neither has any rights. As for James Holmes, justice dictates, and he has the right to, a fair trial, including all appeals, before his things can rightly be permanently taken from him. As I said above, "a person convicted of a capital crime who has exhausted all appeals doesn't [...] have [...] the right to property."
The criterion, domestically, is someone who has been convicted by the state and had his ownership of the property stripped from him.
The criterion, internationally, is based on the rules of war.
And once we do permanently take all the things from James Holmes (assuming it does happen), that doesn't mean they are a free-for-all for anyone to grab. They will presumably go to his victims/victims-families, as he is indebted to them.
I think we're going off topic. The topic is Bob stole the radio from Adam. The topic isn't Bob received the radio from Adam as compensation for Adam punching Bob in the face. When you say "judge Adam's character", I thought you mean to only judge his character (is he a good or evil person). Not expand it to include reparation of Adam's actions toward Bob.
What we can assume from your hypothetical about the character of Adam is very minimal. However, we can assume that he created (unlikely), earned money to buy, was given, or otherwise came into rightful ownership of a radio. So at least he has that going for him.