Theft isn't legislated, and the law recognizes the difference between necessity and theft, as do animals.
You're threading a flimsy line of thought: do the means justify the ends. They don't. It's objective, what is necessary and what isn't, equally what Theft, Murder, Rape is, is never for interpretation. Whether it is good or bad or whether justified or not peope will recognize readily.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Sorry, I can't agree with you at all. The theft can't be objective because even ownership isn't objective. You'd first need to have the ownership recognized objectively to even consider a theft (taking the ownership away without permission). Are you sure the house you paid for belong to yourself, or maybe it belong to the worms who occupy the land it's built on for generations? Anyway, I'm done here. Thanks for the discussion. It's always good to share different points of view. BTW, there would be no discussions needed or even existing if the 'morality' would be objective, there would be nothing to discuss, ever.