Exception to the rule

[LethalMouse]

No it is not.

It is theological precision.

This is a forum for the discussion of Moral Theology.

It is a very very important point to note that theft is sinful.

And to note that it is *not *an “exception” to that moral reality. Rather it is not that moral reality.

It is simply* not theft*.

If we were on a grammar forum and discussing whether to use “than” or “then”

Correcting someone’s typo of “you’re” would not be within context nor “precision” it would serve only to detract from the point of than vs then and to make one’s ego feel good.

Which again is one of the aspects being pointed out by my thread

You are not interested in the context of the discussion but rather “theological superiority” (based on something that no catholic here is actually arguing agaisnt you) and then walking away droppijg the mic knowing how much better you are than others.

Bradski I have to give credit to in that his post was directed to you in context so he is not undermining the thread context but following a course of conversation started by the mental tool used to do so…

So I see his discussion to be okay, but yours of malice

Which is again the entrie philosophy of my thread. No one was arguing that non theft “theft” (for linguistics not theology) was and “exception” of allowable theft.

It would be using the idea that there exists a linguistic “theft” that is not theft as a reason to discredit the moral truth that stealing is wrong.

And in the originators context was that the “exception” to stealing that makes this “not stealing” can be useful knowledge when not used in malice but in accurate surrounding discourse that is not used out of context

I will in fairness assume you lacked understanding of context even if my humanity leans toward the above indications of intents…

 

[LethalMouse]

And quite frankly I will say I “stole” the killers gun

I will not say I “Justifiably confiscated the weaponry of the intended evil doer”

Because when humans are capable of rational thought and understanding context saying the latter is a thing that, in the words of the most lovely Sweet Brown:

"Ain’t nobody got time for that!"

 

[Bookcat]

If we were on a grammar forum and discussing whether to use “than” or “then”…

Not a question of grammar here.

 

[SilverShadow22]

ducks for incoming

 

[Bookcat]

And quite frankly I will say I “stole” the killers gun

I will not say I “Justifiably confiscated the weaponry of the intended evil doer”

Which would not be a correct moral statement. It was not theft …there was no “stealing” involved.

If one wanted to use more colloquial speech I suppose one could simply say “I took the killers gun”.

 

[LethalMouse]

Which would not be a correct moral statement. It was not theft …there was no “stealing” involved.

If one wanted to use more colloquial speech I suppose one could simply say “I took the killers gun”.

Idk if you are aware

But

The lowest position on a totem pole was the more important

When someone says High/Low on the totem pole

I know what their context is

I do not tell them they are stupid and wrong

I consider the latter to be morally questionable at best
A surefire buzzkill at a party
And a great way to be friendless

 

[Bookcat]

CCC 2408: The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.

It is not that the evil of theft becomes ok under certain circumstances - or that such is an “exception” it is rather that what in question is not theft. In the language of moral theology -the “moral object” is not theft.

This is important.

Why?

Because circumstances cannot make an objectively (intrinsically) evil moral object into a good.

It is never ok to steal, or commit adultery, or murder for example.

No good intention can change such into a good. No circumstance makes such ok.

1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

In the matter at hand - it is simply not theft. By definition. It is not that theft there is ok

 

[SilverShadow22]

Must be why nobody likes me. I’d be like ‘why do you want to be higher on the pole?’ And they’d say, because that’s better, and then if I was using my brain, I’d Google it and pretend I didn’t actually know, and then say ‘heyyyy did you know the bottom is actually the higher status??’

As for the colloquialism… In my family we say ‘stole’ when we borrow without permission.

“I stole your pen earlier, here it is back.”

Taking anything to which you don’t have a property right is by legal definition, stealing. Only no one is going to press charges if you take a weapon from a madman

 

[Bookcat]

“I stole your pen earlier, here it is back.”

Taking anything to which you don’t have a property right is by legal definition, stealing. Only no one is going to press charges if you take a weapon from a madman

I do the same or similar sometimes…by way of exaggeration…

But this Tis a moral theology forum…not a legal forum or otherwise…

 

[LethalMouse]

I do the same or similar sometimes…by way of exaggeration…

But this Tis a moral theology forum…not a legal forum or otherwise…

But the morality being discussed here is one metaphorically of than vs then

And “you’re” is being discussed…

Which is incidentally the exact conversation of than vs then…

Using you’re to prove something when it is out of context

So better yet, my totem pole example

Would it be moral to delegitimize someone OR prop oneself up in superiority by spouting the correct attributes of the totem pole when everyone involved knows full well the context of the totem pole commenter and the only use of correction at that moment would be deciet/gaining of superiority? (Pridefulness I would consider it)

Perhaps my OP should have used the totem pole example

 

[Bookcat]

No idea what your saying.

 

[LethalMouse]

No idea what your saying.

Okay so basically in truth people say “high on the totem pole” as an expression to denote importance and authority.

So if you said “who is he?”

And I said “He is the boss, highest guy on the totem pole”

Now in cultural norm, context, known speech etc…

High on the totem pole = boss or head honcho

This cultural norm is a misnomer in that actual totem poles the higher value was on the lowest totem.

So the point is there is a time (say history class) to mention this.

There is also a time when saying this serves one of two goals:

1. To discredit the person who said “high on the totem pole” or to make them look stupid etc…
2. To make a comment that gives one superiority and ability to walk away feeling prideful and better than everyone saying “high” instead of low.

 

[LethalMouse]

And in exception fashion… lol yes obviously if someone was essentially Rain Man… we would give them a pass. But we are of course talking the rule, not the exception

 

[SilverShadow22]

No idea what your saying.

*you’re

… I could not resist

 

[LethalMouse]

*you’re

… I could not resist

Epic example Bravo madam bravo

 

[SilverShadow22]

Epic example Bravo madam bravo

Thank you

 

[Bradski]

I believe what Bookcat means is that it’s only theft if someone has the right to what you’re taking. The right of your coworkers to live outweighs the aggressor’s right to possess his weapon.

Therfore, again, that’s not stealing. That’s prudence.

But it’s stealing if you simply fancy the gun for yourself, or you don’t have good reason to believe he intends harm with it.

No. It’s stealing. By any definition that you’d care to supply. By your account, there are no exceptions because if there are, it ceases to be theft in the first instance. That’s nonsense.

It’s like saying killing is wrong, but if there are exceptions when it’s justified… then it’s then not killing. Well, yes it is. If I shoot someone and they die, I have killed them. Period. Whether it is justified or not depends on circumstances.

Similarly, if I take something that someone owns without their permission, it is stealing. Period. Whether is is justified or not depends on circumstances and one’s personal opinion on the matter.

 

[SilverShadow22]

No. It’s stealing. By any definition that you’d care to supply. By your account, there are no exceptions because if there are, it ceases to be theft in the first instance. That’s nonsense.

It’s like saying killing is wrong, but if there are exceptions when it’s justified… then it’s then not killing. Well, yes it is. If I shoot someone and they die, I have killed them. Period. Whether it is justified or not depends on circumstances.

Similarly, if I take something that someone owns without their permission, it is stealing. Period. Whether is is justified or not depends on circumstances and one’s personal opinion on the matter.

I agree with you. That’s why we have the distinction ‘murder’. Murder is always killing, but killing is not always murder.

I was simply restating for clarification what I took the other poster to have said. If you’ll note, I stated my own position later, to the effect that it’s still stealing… It simply incurs no charges, legal or moral.

ETA:
… I admit I was not entirely clear. Justified taking is legally and technically stealing, but we might not choose to call it that… Just as we call certain things ‘manslaughter’ rather than ‘homicide’.

So analogously…

It’s always ‘taking’ but not always ‘theft’? Perhaps that’s a distinction we could validly make. I’m asking, btw, not stating.

 

[Rau]

No. It’s stealing. By any definition that you’d care to supply. By your account, there are no exceptions because if there are, it ceases to be theft in the first instance. That’s nonsense.

It’s like saying killing is wrong, but if there are exceptions when it’s justified… then it’s then not killing. Well, yes it is. If I shoot someone and they die, I have killed them. Period. Whether it is justified or not depends on circumstances.

Similarly, if I take something that someone owns without their permission, it is stealing. Period. Whether is is justified or not depends on circumstances and one’s personal opinion on the matter.

Unfortunately Bradski, the common usage of words and their strict theological meaning often does not align. This is not uncommon in other specialist disciplines. Given the theological context here, we are right to assert the appropriate usage of words.

In our Catholic theology (Christian in fact, as the principles pre-date the diversity of Christian sects) theft or stealing is a “moral” act, not just a physical act. The moral character of acts are not discernible purely by the physical actions that one can observe, say, in a movie. The moral character requires more than that to be evaluated.

Killing is not itself a “moral act”. It is a physical act, and whether or not someone killed/was killed is not a moral question, and usually not in doubt. Further, while “a killing” is always an evil, it may be a physical evil (and thus morally tolerable under suitable conditions) or a moral evil (in which case it is forbidden under all circumstances). Those moral acts forbidden as morally evil (eg. Murder, calumny, stealing, contraception, etc) are by definition, forbidden without exceptions. Of course, there are systems of morality that reject that principle - eg. they can justify intentional killing of infants in suitable circumstances. And then, there are simply cases where a word is used colloquially rather than in a theological context.

 

[Bradski]

Killing is not itself a “moral act”. It is a physical act, and whether or not someone killed/was killed is not a moral question, and usually not in doubt. Further, while “a killing” is always an evil, it may be a physical evil (and thus morally tolerable under suitable conditions) or a moral evil (in which case it is forbidden under all circumstances). Those moral acts forbidden as morally evil (eg. Murder, calumny, stealing, contraception, etc) are by definition, forbidden without exceptions.

But it’s the conditions at the time that dictate whether an act is moral or not. And hence whether it was evil. You will not be able to give an example of a killing that is a moral evil without describing the conditions at the time. It would be literally impossible.

So there is no theological stand-alone definition of a morally evil killing. You are simply taking the conditions under which the act was comitted and then, post hoc, declaring it to be evil. And declaring it to be so based entirely on the conditions. Nothing else. And this is what we all do. Whatever beliefs we have, whatever religion we profess, we all do exactly the same.

There are, I admit, some purely religious beliefs that are stand-alone. Contraception for one. Masturbation for another. But I don’t see those as moral problems in the first place.