[catzaa]

> The story unwittingly demonstrates a case where zero-tolerance policies could have created frighteningly different results.

The problem in having too much tolerance is that the library would be stolen empty. Everyone thinks that if they take just one book there is no apparent damage - but there is. Zero tolerance is also important in situations where the crime is difficult to catch (such as shoplifting or stealing books). Stealing is wrong as a moral principle. I do not get the argument from moral relativists that stealing is wrong in some cases but not in others – it is always wrong. This is a very rare case where the person actually took the book back.

There are societies where stealing has become almost socially acceptable with young people looking up to criminals and their apparent wealth.

[cglee]

The problem with the moral objectivists' argument is that they then refine stealing. So stealing is always wrong, except when it isn't, in which case it's not stealing.

[whatusername]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft

So to use the English legal definition of the law: "A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it"

I don't see that the student in question was "permanently depriving" the library of the book. (So in this case - using the legal definition - it wasn't stealing)

[catzaa]

I would not really call the argument of moral relativists as “refinement”. The same actions should always be wrong – no matter what the inferred motivations or rationalisations are.

A good example is stealing from a rich person. A lot of people feel that it is suddenly “not wrong” to steal from a rich person. The same goes for motivation – no matter what your motivation are, the action is still wrong.

[ezy]

The key part being "the same actions". This is missing subtlety and judgment. Is "stealing" the action, or is "stealing a book from the library with the intent to return it" the action?

Would you agree that stealing the same book out of someone's bag with the intent to return it is different? If so, then why are you arguing for zero tolerance?

If not, why haven't you turned yourself into the authorities for the laws you've broken?

[jacquesm]

A lot of people think murder is bad, except:

- when it is in self defense

- when it is done in the context of war

- when the state executes a serial murderer

And so on. If life were as simple and context free as you suggest we wouldn't need courts at all.

Your honor, he stole babyfood from my store!

Yes, but did he steal it to sell it or because he's too poor to afford it and needed to feed his baby ?

What's the last time you saw a street person make a law on shoplifting ?

In the law, and by extension in court, context is everything.

[catzaa]

Murder is still wrong in all of the above. In the first case it was basically the person’s choice to get killed.

> Your honor, he stole babyfood from my store! > Yes, but did he steal it to sell it or because he's too poor to afford it and needed to feed his baby ?

Having a need and stealing to fulfil it is still wrong. It does not matter what your motivation is – it is still not your property. I have respect for a person who break the law in the above case and face the law. But he should still receive his punishment.

To act as if he is not guilty is wrong – he is just as guilty of the crime as any other person who stole baby milk formula (whatever their motivation is).

A good example of moral relativism that I hate is so called “hate crimes”. Do you really care what the person’s motivation is when he murder/assaulted you?

[jacquesm]

The world isn't black & white, it's lots of shades of gray, and orthogonal to that there are lots of colours, there is not 'one truth', there are as many truths as there are observers.

This isn't a mathematics problem where the outcome is '1' ('guilty') or '0' ('not guilty'), there are an infinite number of degrees in between.

Let's just say that I hope you will never be put in a position where your assumptions are put to the test.

For the record, (some of) my family lived through World War II in a pretty uncomfortable spot and plenty of what they did was against the law of the land at that time, but that didn't make any of it wrong.

[cglee]

Sorry, I meant "redefine", not "refine". I would say the problem with this "always right/wrong" approach is not in the obvious cases (like stealing from the rich ... it's still stealing), but in the edge cases where it's not entirely obvious a real act of stealing is taking place.

Moral objectivists will vary the definition of stealing for self benefit. We've seen this in history where moral objectivists have justified slavery, invasion, and all kinds of destruction this way.