5 ms·

A hierarchy of things to steal is a weird father-son lesson I must say.

klyrs 4y ago
There are greater sins: we have a military, you know. Raising a child means teaching nuance in ethics. I've had similar conversations with my kid, arising from questions like "why do robbers exist?" "Why are some people homeless?" "Why do murderers exist?" Ethics is full of gray areas, and refusing to engage in hard conversations increases the risk that your kid will make the wrong call if they ever find themselves in a shitty situation.
- googlryas 4y ago
  You can teach these lessons without engaging in an explicit discussion of "If you're going to steal, steal X and not Y". Just the intersection of "stealing is very bad unless absolutely necessary" and "some things are more important to people than other things" seems good enough to understand this. I've never stolen anything, except for a few hearts, and was taught to never steal, and yet I can somehow piece together that it is better to steal something trivial to a person rather than the means of their survival if need be.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    Teach kids to connect the dots. But on the important stuff, connect the dots. Repetition is also important, and jarring imagery is a memory aid.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    First off so far I haven't had need to steal something so it hasn't come up in the literal sense. But I have found wisdom in the general principle there. Let's say we are playing cards and I'm winning, I'd walk away rather than let you put the deed to your house on the table. Sometimes in life you may need to hurt someone, before you do think about everyone else who is going to be hurt as well and make sure it's worth it.
- bumby 4y ago
  I agree that they main point of ethics is providing a decision framework in the grey areas (if they were clear-cut, there would be no discussion). But that seems off-place here. It leads to the question about "when is it okay to steal?" There's an obvious "defense of necessity", but that doesn't stop at stealing someone's means to a living. If it's legal to steal food in a disaster, it doesn't matter if that food comes from a neighbor's pantry or the bakers shelfs. The colloquialism described seems like one of those heuristics that feels true at first glance but quickly breaks down on further inspection (which is what a lot of ethical debate seeks to accomplish).
  - klyrs 4y ago
    It's important to discuss alternatives, teach problem solving, etc. But at the end of the day, teaching your kid to starve to death because stealing is always wrong is only going to erode their trust in you. This isn't something that I brought up with my kid, btw. He led the conversation, he was asking honest and innocent questions. Shutting the door in his face loses the opportunity to discuss nuanced ethics when he's receptive to the conversation. If I drive, then it's just an abstract lecture.
    - bumby 4y ago
      >But at the end of the day, teaching your kid to starve to death because stealing is always wrong is only going to erode their trust in you. This is a misinterpretation of my point, though. When I brought up the "defense of necessity", it was a direct acknowledgement that sometimes stealing is ok (or is at least, the more moral action). However, communicating vague heuristics based on shaky principles can set the ground for rationalization that leads to immoral behavior. When we read about abhorrent behavior (like in the featured article), it's more often than not the result of a line of rationalizations rooted in human biases rather than a principled moral stance. All I'm saying is the OP's guideline of "don't steal tools or a vehicle" isn't a particularly good first principle (for one, as the previous example shows, it could still result in starving).
    - esoterica 4y ago
      Nobody in America will starve to death unless they have a severe mental illness that prevents them from obtaining help that is otherwise accessible to them. The welfare system is not great, but it's not that bad. Food stamps and food banks are a thing.
JustSomeNobody 4y ago
Not really. It was probably a father telling his son, "I got you. Someone steals my means of taking care of you, don't be surprised I go stomp some ass."
bombcar 4y ago
It's probably more along the lines of "never mess with a man's means of providing for his family, because that will be when you push him so far he has nothing left to lose."
tcmart14 4y ago
It can be. My dad would tell me growing up about home protection something along the lines of, "if someone breaks in and just wants the TV in the living room (or other living room type items), it ain't worth it to put my body in harm's way to stop them over a $300 TV. If they start coming back to the bedroom area of the house, its a different ballgame because they aren't looking just to steal something." Now as an adult with a two story town home, I have the same line of thinking. If someone breaks in is just staying down stairs, it ain't worth it. Once they hit the stairs to come to the bedrooms, its a different ballgame. And yea on stealing things. I remember someone locally was stealing Cadillac symbols on cars, it made big news, and my dad telling me something like, "don't assume the person is a bad person. They could just be feeding their kids." This was during the 2008-crisis and with an emphasis of, yea they are stealing, but it is rather benign in comparison to what they could be stealing.
yellowapple 4y ago
Arguably an important lesson, though. Just because you might have to steal to survive doesn't mean you have to be a dick about it. Likewise, if someone's stealing to survive and not being a dick about it, that leaves less motivation for retaliation and more motivation for compassion.

There are greater sins: we have a military, you know. Raising a child means teaching nuance in ethics. I've had similar conversations with my kid, arising from questions like "why do robbers exist?" "Why are some people homeless?" "Why do murderers exist?" Ethics is full of gray areas, and refusing to engage in hard conversations increases the risk that your kid will make the wrong call if they ever find themselves in a shitty situation.

googlryas 4y ago
You can teach these lessons without engaging in an explicit discussion of "If you're going to steal, steal X and not Y". Just the intersection of "stealing is very bad unless absolutely necessary" and "some things are more important to people than other things" seems good enough to understand this. I've never stolen anything, except for a few hearts, and was taught to never steal, and yet I can somehow piece together that it is better to steal something trivial to a person rather than the means of their survival if need be.
- klyrs 4y ago
  Teach kids to connect the dots. But on the important stuff, connect the dots. Repetition is also important, and jarring imagery is a memory aid.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  First off so far I haven't had need to steal something so it hasn't come up in the literal sense. But I have found wisdom in the general principle there. Let's say we are playing cards and I'm winning, I'd walk away rather than let you put the deed to your house on the table. Sometimes in life you may need to hurt someone, before you do think about everyone else who is going to be hurt as well and make sure it's worth it.
bumby 4y ago
I agree that they main point of ethics is providing a decision framework in the grey areas (if they were clear-cut, there would be no discussion). But that seems off-place here. It leads to the question about "when is it okay to steal?" There's an obvious "defense of necessity", but that doesn't stop at stealing someone's means to a living. If it's legal to steal food in a disaster, it doesn't matter if that food comes from a neighbor's pantry or the bakers shelfs. The colloquialism described seems like one of those heuristics that feels true at first glance but quickly breaks down on further inspection (which is what a lot of ethical debate seeks to accomplish).
- klyrs 4y ago
  It's important to discuss alternatives, teach problem solving, etc. But at the end of the day, teaching your kid to starve to death because stealing is always wrong is only going to erode their trust in you. This isn't something that I brought up with my kid, btw. He led the conversation, he was asking honest and innocent questions. Shutting the door in his face loses the opportunity to discuss nuanced ethics when he's receptive to the conversation. If I drive, then it's just an abstract lecture.
  - bumby 4y ago
    >But at the end of the day, teaching your kid to starve to death because stealing is always wrong is only going to erode their trust in you. This is a misinterpretation of my point, though. When I brought up the "defense of necessity", it was a direct acknowledgement that sometimes stealing is ok (or is at least, the more moral action). However, communicating vague heuristics based on shaky principles can set the ground for rationalization that leads to immoral behavior. When we read about abhorrent behavior (like in the featured article), it's more often than not the result of a line of rationalizations rooted in human biases rather than a principled moral stance. All I'm saying is the OP's guideline of "don't steal tools or a vehicle" isn't a particularly good first principle (for one, as the previous example shows, it could still result in starving).
  - esoterica 4y ago
    Nobody in America will starve to death unless they have a severe mental illness that prevents them from obtaining help that is otherwise accessible to them. The welfare system is not great, but it's not that bad. Food stamps and food banks are a thing.

JustSomeNobody 4y ago

Not really. It was probably a father telling his son, "I got you. Someone steals my means of taking care of you, don't be surprised I go stomp some ass."

bombcar 4y ago

It's probably more along the lines of "never mess with a man's means of providing for his family, because that will be when you push him so far he has nothing left to lose."

tcmart14 4y ago

It can be. My dad would tell me growing up about home protection something along the lines of, "if someone breaks in and just wants the TV in the living room (or other living room type items), it ain't worth it to put my body in harm's way to stop them over a $300 TV. If they start coming back to the bedroom area of the house, its a different ballgame because they aren't looking just to steal something." Now as an adult with a two story town home, I have the same line of thinking. If someone breaks in is just staying down stairs, it ain't worth it. Once they hit the stairs to come to the bedrooms, its a different ballgame. And yea on stealing things. I remember someone locally was stealing Cadillac symbols on cars, it made big news, and my dad telling me something like, "don't assume the person is a bad person. They could just be feeding their kids." This was during the 2008-crisis and with an emphasis of, yea they are stealing, but it is rather benign in comparison to what they could be stealing.

yellowapple 4y ago

Arguably an important lesson, though. Just because you might have to steal to survive doesn't mean you have to be a dick about it. Likewise, if someone's stealing to survive and not being a dick about it, that leaves less motivation for retaliation and more motivation for compassion.