|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2011 6:58:33 GMT
My retired neighbours often go abroad to help out with charity projects organised by a Christian group. Their recent trip took them to Africa to work with orphans and help build a new orphanage.
It was an overnight flight and passengers were given pillows and a blanket. The charity told my neighbours and other volunteers to take these with them when they disembarked to give to the orphanage.
My neighbours knew the airline had not been asked for permission. The group had asked for free extra baggage so they could take more stuff for the children, and grumbled when the airline granted them only one extra 20 kilo bag for the whole group. Someone also told them that the bedding would be thrown away and replaced, but the blankets bore a lable saying "freshly laundered". They took it anyway, as instructed by the church leader.
Should they have done?
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Sept 14, 2011 11:29:08 GMT
No. The airline had not asked for permission, therefore it's stealing. I don't buy the argument (often used by shoplifters) that a company an 'afford' it./make a profit etc. Quite apart from the fact that honest people then pick up the tab from the extra costs built in to compensate for/replace the stolen articles, it's simply a way of justifying the fact that you are stealing. Your morals should not be dictated by the economic position of the organisation you steal from, nor the fact that it is for a good cause. An individual's moral code should not be a relative response to how they perceive the code of others. Nor is the fact that they were allowed only one 20 kilo bag extra an excuse. That may have been because the airline is mean, but could also have been because the flight was full and total weight restrictions applied. That a church leader should encourage theft is morally dubious, never mind the church's lie about bedding being thrown away: but this goes back to the point I was making on another thread i.e. that religion and morality are separate concepts. I wonder if these church-supporting volunteers thought they were right to steal and if so, whether they felt comfortable about it.
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Sept 14, 2011 11:29:56 GMT
Sorry: that first line should have read "the airline had not been asked for permission".
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2011 13:54:46 GMT
My first post was misleading because the people concerned only noticed the "freshly laundered" sticker on the return flight. Up until then they were prepared to believe that the blankets were thrown away, though had not checked with the cabin crew. But from what they said, they would have taken them anyway, taking great pains to point out the (admittedly large) sum of money they paid for their flights
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Sept 14, 2011 15:36:08 GMT
Nope......not right at all.....
Every company that deals with retail or people have to add into their prices the cost of theft. Doesn't matter if it's a big company or a small one. All those little things add up! So we all end up paying for those things that are taken.
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Sept 14, 2011 15:42:00 GMT
One of the Commandments followed by the Christian Church is "thou shalt not steal". Seems pretty clear cut.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Sept 14, 2011 16:56:51 GMT
If the owner's property was taken without their consent with the intention of permanently depriving them of it (or whatever the legal wording is) then it is a clear cut case of theft.
On the issue of when theft is justified, it seems odd to me that it is seen as OK for a person to loot a store or house to feed themselves and their family during a time of natural disaster, yet outside of such a time, well, we'd be less reluctant to accept a poor person breaking into the house of another person and stealing their food, even if they were just as starving as the natural disaster survivors.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 14, 2011 17:43:58 GMT
in this case, yes, it was theft, albeit for a just cause. of course, robin hood was not a thief
|
|