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.