TheftTaking the possessions of others without authorization is sometimes morally permissible. For example, a person on the verge of starvation is permitted to "steal" food. Similarly, it is permissible to take a weapon away from a person who is deranged. Neither of these acts can be properly termed "stealing."He is not justified in declining always and without regard to conditions to assent to the alienation of what belongs to him merely because it is his. Thus one in danger of death from want of food, or suffering any form of extreme necessity, may lawfully take from another as much as is required to meet his present distress even though the possessor's opposition be entirely clear. Neither, therefore, would he be bound to restitution if his fortunes subsequently were notably bettered, supposing that what he had converted to his own use was perishable. The reason is that individual ownership of the goods of this world, though according to the natural law, yields to the stronger and more sacred right conferred by natural law upon every man to avail himself of such things as are necessary for his own preservation. St. Thomas (II-II:66:7) declares that in such straits what is taken becomes, because of the dire need experienced, one's very own, and so cannot be said to be stolen. This doctrine is sometimes expressed by saying that at such a time all things become common, and thus one reduced to such utter destitution only exercises his right.
Everything that we possess ultimately belongs to God. None of us has an absolute right to ownership of property.
In this case, it is moral to destroy pornography since it has no proper use, and because it represents a clear and present danger to the moral health of others. In fact, destroying these things is obligatory, except in cases where countervailing prudential reasons would apply.
Wrong. I can decline giving you what is mine for any reason, a bad reason or no reason at all.
Thus one in danger of death from want of food, or suffering any form of extreme necessity, may lawfully take from another as much as is required to meet his present distress even though the possessor's opposition be entirely clear
Great, so a hungry person should have every right to break into your house and take as much food as he needs. Wonderful.
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
Neither, therefore, would he be bound to restitution if his fortunes subsequently were notably bettered, supposing that what he had converted to his own use was perishable.
This is perhaps the stupidest thing I have read today. Not only are you allowed to steal, but you're also not required to make restitution.
St. Thomas (II-II:66:7) declares that in such straits what is taken becomes, because of the dire need experienced, one's very own, and so cannot be said to be stolen.
If St. Thomas believes that, then he is an idiot.
Taking the possessions of others without authorization is sometimes morally permissible. For example, a person on the verge of starvation is permitted to "steal" food.
It is also morally permissible for the person from whom the food is being stolen to shoot the thief.
Similarly, it is permissible to take a weapon away from a person who is deranged.
If your only intent is to prevent the deranged person from huting others, then you have not formed the criminal intent to steal.
Everything that we possess ultimately belongs to God. None of us has an absolute right to ownership of property.
No, but I have a much greater right to my property than some thief. Therefore, unless God himself comes and forces me to give up my property (and it would still require force on his part- I'm not giving up my property even to him voluntarily), I am well withing my rights to use force to keep a thief from stealing it.
In this case, it is moral to destroy pornography since it has no proper use, and because it represents a clear and present danger to the moral health of others. In fact, destroying these things is obligatory, except in cases where countervailing prudential reasons would apply.
Just because you have some quasi-moral basis for comitting a crime doesn't mean you're not a thief and/or a vandal.
Let me guess; you'd like to take things away from people on behalf of the common good.
Do you actually believe this? What I have I earned.