3 ms·

Theft as a moral/philosophical concept doesn't mean "deprival of another's property against their will", it means "extrajudicial deprival of another's property

Theft as a moral/philosophical concept doesn't mean "deprival of another's property against their will", it means "extrajudicial deprival of another's property against their will". Doesn't this line of thought lead to the rather unpleasant consequence that the state is incapable of murder? I mean by definition, a legally sanctioned state killing of a person or group of people cannot be extrajudicial.

ajkjk 10y ago
It's totally true that a constitution could declare the state is not capable of murder, and if the governed agree to that then it's not really unjust for the government to murder people. Yes. The idea is that people would not agree to that. (That's in the political philosophy sense. You can argue that there's a universal moral sense above that and that's fine, but that's not what we're talking about when we're talking about the just-ness of government actions. It's totally possible to have a morally-wrong constitution, and it's on the governed to change it.) The US government has this relationship with the murder of enemy combatants right now.
- dnautics 10y ago
  Do you make the same argument for the death penalty? If it's legally sanctioned for the state to terminate a prisoners life, then it is morally OK too
  - ajkjk 10y ago
    Was that second part supposed to be a question?
- lacampbell 10y ago
  That's in the political philosophy sense. You can argue that there's a universal moral sense above that and that's fine, but that's not what we're talking about when we're talking about the just-ness of government actions. I am pretty sure people are talking in the philosophical sense when they say "taxation is theft". I don't know what it accomplishes to simply state "a democratic state has instituted it, therefore it's not a crime" - you could see how this would fall apart for other things we would consider crimes like murder.

ajkjk 10y ago

It's totally true that a constitution could declare the state is not capable of murder, and if the governed agree to that then it's not really unjust for the government to murder people. Yes. The idea is that people would not agree to that. (That's in the political philosophy sense. You can argue that there's a universal moral sense above that and that's fine, but that's not what we're talking about when we're talking about the just-ness of government actions. It's totally possible to have a morally-wrong constitution, and it's on the governed to change it.) The US government has this relationship with the murder of enemy combatants right now.

dnautics 10y ago
Do you make the same argument for the death penalty? If it's legally sanctioned for the state to terminate a prisoners life, then it is morally OK too
- ajkjk 10y ago
  Was that second part supposed to be a question?
lacampbell 10y ago
That's in the political philosophy sense. You can argue that there's a universal moral sense above that and that's fine, but that's not what we're talking about when we're talking about the just-ness of government actions. I am pretty sure people are talking in the philosophical sense when they say "taxation is theft". I don't know what it accomplishes to simply state "a democratic state has instituted it, therefore it's not a crime" - you could see how this would fall apart for other things we would consider crimes like murder.