Philosophical Questions: Stealing
May. 24th, 2025 12:06 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmithPeople have expressed interest in deep topics, so this list focuses on philosophical questions.
If I steal a loaf of bread from you and eat it, when does the bread itself cease to be yours and becomes mine?
In practice, when you remove it from where the owner put it. But ethically and legally, stolen property is not ever yours.
If I steal a loaf of bread from you and eat it, when does the bread itself cease to be yours and becomes mine?
In practice, when you remove it from where the owner put it. But ethically and legally, stolen property is not ever yours.
(no subject)
Date: 2025-05-24 11:42 am (UTC)My mind goes immediately to presumption of innocence and burden of proof being the prosecution's responsibility.
Say the people of the village see the starving beggar looking in the window of the bakery but, they (and the baker) don't see the beggar steal the loaf of bread. The baker has done a count of loaves and cash in the till and knows a loaf has been stolen. Later, a person sees the beggar "sleeping off a feed in the park," so the local "plod" is called and the beggar is arrested for theft.
If the law is applied as it should be, the judge at the trial (or jury) has to acquit the beggar, because nobody saw them take or eat the bread, only seeing them looking longingly in the baker's window.
In the real world, would the circumstantial evidence be insufficient to convict? How many people are convicted on circumstantial evidence because of prejudice? How many get away with theft because the presumption of innocence is applied without prejudice?