Originally Posted by Miburo
I don't consider it as shifting blame any more than I would if I was beaten in a wrestling match and accepted my defeat. If someone is able to steal my shit, then I obviously didn't protect my shit well enough from possible thefts. Facing up to that fact, and it is a fact, isn't immoral. In fact, I could easily argue that not acknowledging that fact would be a disservice to myself, and leave me more vulnerable to future looting. I can more easily control my own actions than those of others. By analyzing my own shortcomings which lead to allowing myself to be stolen from, I could use that information to become much better prepared to stop or prevent further attempts of theft. Accepting a part of the responsibility is much more useful to me than placing the blame fully on the thief.
And don't get me wrong here. I'm not actually condoning theft. I'm simply saying that one could likely argue for the morality of stealing when operating under certain proposed moral systems. For example: Yes, there are less dangerous professions than thievery. Does that make it immoral? I dunno. Is construction work immoral since there are less dangerous professions, comparatively speaking? Etc. It's actually quite hard to argue a case against it when operating under the system we were discussing in this thread. And I actually support that system myself, so I'm not trying to discredit it or anything. But when I think about it myself, I work to make sure it's as valid as possible in my head. So I try to argue against it, and I sometimes can. Which is why I'm hesitant to fully adopt the stance as entirely with merit myself. That's pretty much all I was trying to say, really.
I know you're not condoning stealing. But for the sake of debating looking at having property stolen from you as if beaten in a wrestling match is a tough stretch for me to make. Maybe a WWF Wrestling match where the referee was distracted and you were knocked out with a chair style loss. Not a collegiate style match where two men meet and compete on under agreed upon terms. But yes under all but one moral system can a man's actions be debated as moral and immoral. And that is a world in which we live in. We live in world of blended ideas and views of what morality is and what is to be tolerated, etc. Where a man's need is used to try and give reason to his actions. And where a man's actions can be used against him as exceeding his needs.