Why if a person steals meds do they truly believe they did not steal the meds?

Answer 1

This is an ethical question, and it sometimes comes up in beginning ethics classes (philosophy). The real question is whether or not it is OK to steal something that you NEED. There are various versions involving different setups...

case 1: A man can not afford to purchase medicine for his dying wife - is it OK for him to steal it?

case 1a: What if he intends to pay back the medicine people?

case 2: A man can not afford to purchase medicine for his dying wife, the people who have the medicine have plenty of it and no immediate need for it - is it OK for him to steal it?

case 2b: What if he intends to pay back the medicine people?

case 1a and 2b: What if he intends to not only pay for the medicine but to pay back even more than it is worth, but at a later date?

case 3: The medicine is not available for sale anyway. So even if the man were with funds he could not buy it. Is it OK for him to steal the medicine?

case 4: There is a limited supply of the medicine, a lot of people want it. Is it OK for the man to steal the medicine?

case 5: The wife explains that she will take responsibility for the theft, but is too sick to steal it herself? If she intends to explain to the medicine people what happened (later on after the theft), to pay for it, and ultimately to take responsibility for it, is it OK to steal the medicine?

? 1: If you were the medicine people - under what situation (if any) would you be OK being robbed?

? 2: If you (the medicine people) found out that medicine was stolen from you so that Mother Teresa might receive it and not die, would you be OK with that?

? 3: Instead of mother Teresa, what if it were a heroine addicted dead beat dad who has never contributed to society, would you be OK being robbed then?

? 3.a: What if the dad had ambitions to go sober, make peace with his family, and to start to become the best dad he can be - would you be OK being robbed for that?

In the end the situation is never simple or just right / wrong. The idea from this is that sometimes it appears as if engaging in "wrong" actions can be morally correct - but that the situation strongly dictates the ethics...

As a closer - here is an example of a situation where I (in my opinion as one person) believe it would be more than OK to steal from the medicine people and that few people would support the technical law in this case.

case evil: The medicine people are evil (for lack of a better term). They purposefully took out patents on a medicine that they never intended to produce or sell. They do not legally allow anyone to produce it or sell it either. It is obvious that people will die without the medicine. The medicine takes a year to make, but the illness kills you in a matter of days. The only supply is in the possession of the medicine people. In this case I would not only steal from these people I would probably attempt to physically harm them afterwards just for extra ethical satisfaction.

Anyway - it isn't that people believe they DID NOT steal the medicine when they actually did steal it; its that people believe that sometimes it is OK to steal the medicine and that the "wrongness" of stealing sometimes does not apply (depending on the situation).

Answer 2

It's possible the person may rationalize their actions by justifying the theft to themselves, such as feeling they deserve the medication or convincing themselves they have a greater need. It could also be a defense mechanism to avoid feelings of guilt or shame associated with their actions.