Suppose the person taking and the person being taken from do not agree on whether there is harm. Who gets to decide?
(mk say almost the same thing below) I dont know how to address the problem (not being fluent in english, dont help either) Of course the "hurting" part is subjective (that's the mk's old watch dilemma- on a side note, nobody could decently back you up for a fucking old watch-).
And nobody alone should be able to decide what really will be considered hurting. I guess my point was just that Stealing is not inherently immoral like killing, hurting, exploiting weakness is. Stealing just might sometime involve immoral stuff (hurting, exploiting, etc) it is not that
Disparity in wealth is just luck based. Nothing moral or immoral in it. How you acquired your wealth might be. If you did steal to get rich is not inherently bad. But If you hurt people, or exploited their lack of wealth to make them work for less than minimum wage, you're probably an asshole.disparity in material wealth is immoral, and thus stealing from those that have more sets things right
I see mk's moral argument did not impress you; I will try a practical approach. The ethical rule "If a rich person has something you need, you should take it" seems far too subjective to be useful, especially compared to the traditional "You should not take things that belong to others," even though the traditional rule does not give perfect results. First of all, who is rich? There are people with wealth hundreds of times greater than mine. But I have wealth hundreds of times greater than some people. I don't mind if a homeless person asks me for money on the street, but I would object if they took my wallet. The ideas of "need" and "hurt" are also unclear to me. Say my eyes are failing and I need good vision to do my job. Can I force a wealthy person to give me their corneas? Won't that hurt them? Can I force them to pay for my surgery, because losing some money won't change their lifestyle? But if enough people like me force the wealthy person to pay for our needs, they will eventually be as poor as a hobo. Thanks for responding to my request for clarification, and in the language I know best! Your English is clear to me, and please let me know if you would like me to clarify anything I've said. The only linguistic point I would make is that the word "stealing" -- to me -- implies immorality. It is possible to take something from someone in a moral way, for example, taking a coffee from a shop after you have paid for it. Stealing is immoral taking -- taking something that belongs to someone else without their permission. So if I may rephrase your sentence, Taking just might sometimes involve immoral stuff, and in those cases we call it stealing.