[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 64 KB, 600x751, Olivia-Sitting-Painting-by-Alex-Russell-Flint.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6069138 No.6069138[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

A man steals $10 and uses it to become a millionaire. how much is he obliged to return? Keep in mind his entire fortune is based of the stolen money.
$10 or his entire fortune?

>> No.6069143

I suspect this is a TTKM, who wit me?

>> No.6069144

10$

>> No.6069147

10$

>> No.6069149

>>6069138
About three fiddy

>> No.6069150

Literally none

>> No.6069151

>>6069138
Was he poor when he stole that 10$? If so, he doesn't owe anyone anything.

>> No.6069153

>>6069138
$10, plus interest and inflation.

>> No.6069154

>>6069151
that is, unless he stole that 10$ from some other poor person.

>> No.6069155

>>6069138
>uses it to become a millionaire

How exactly did he do this?

>> No.6069161

It would be polite to send a thank you card.

>> No.6069162

>>6069144
>>6069147
But the money you gained from it was not yours
Think if the money you gained as a sort of interest from the original. $10

>>6069155
It doesn't matter nigga its a hypothetical question

>> No.6069164

$10 inflation adjusted and damages for his stealing

>> No.6069165

>>6069153
This. There's no logic behind him returning the million.

>> No.6069169

>>6069138
This is basically the plot of The Goldfinch.

>> No.6069173

>>6069169
>NiggerFinch

hehe

>> No.6069174

>Implying the 10$ doesn't belong to the US government

>> No.6069190

>>6069138
>bourgeois
Minimum? Labour rehabilitation.
Maximum? Shooting.

>> No.6069192

>>6069162
>It doesn't matter

This is why you will always have a tiny mind.

>> No.6069196
File: 982 KB, 390x259, giphy.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6069196

>>6069192
>doesn't understand what a hypothetical question is
>thinks miniscule details matter

>> No.6069204
File: 46 KB, 1024x576, 1422125095543.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6069204

Who was the man he stole it from?
What race are they?

Also people should not be able to go from rags to riches but that is a problem with society

>> No.6069207

>>6069138
>obliged to return
Obliged by whom or what? Nothing, if he feels like it.

>> No.6069212

>>6069162
>But the money you gained from it was not yours

Yes it was, you made it, it's your own added value. Steal 10, give back 10, nothing more nothing less

>> No.6069217

>>6069162
>It doesn't matter nigga its a hypothetical question
Obviously it matters. If he gained the money by wisely investing the $10 (a stretch, but w/e) then he only owes the person the original $10; the rest of the money belongs to him.

>> No.6069227

>ITT nobody has ever read philosophy

>> No.6069245

>he obliged to return
>inferring an obligation from how things are
Literally smack yourselves and get back to reading Saint Hume.

>> No.6069661

>>6069149

Damn you, Loch Ness Monster, you ain't gon' get no money!

>> No.6069684

>A man steals $10 and uses it to become a millionaire.
Peruvian Flake Ideology

>> No.6069685

>>6069138
Why or how would he ever return any of it? It is just 10 fucking bucks, who gives a shit.

>> No.6069689

>>6069685
this

>> No.6069690

>>6069138
>>6069138
Half... cause team effort man

>> No.6069692

>>6069138
Privyet, Raskolnikov, howdy?

>> No.6069696

>>6069138
none of it
>stirner.webm

>> No.6069713

>>6069138
I'd say you have to calculate the financial harm inflicted upon the victim. In the counterfactual situation in which they had kept the money, would they have turned it into $100.00, $1000.00, $1,000,000.00, what? Would they have just spent it? In other words, what would the consequences of them having kept the money have been?

>> No.6069719

>>6069165
agreed. The million is by his work.

If you take a loan from a bank and earn millions with it, the bank does not own anything except the money you took out plus interest for its use.

Interest is basically that - the payment someone receives for giving someone else their liquidity to use. This is how banks work - they aggregate liquidity by offering to keep it safe and pay you a little for it. In return, the bank makes money by using that liquidity to invest.

The fact it was stolen has little impact on the outcome, except that additional costs related to the damage suffered by the victim should be paid out - either in the form of punishment or in the form of an arbitrary punitive fee, or (preferably) both.

>> No.6070660

>>6069719
weeeell

I think interest doesnt make much sense because he didnt willingly (en contraire to the bank) give you the money. I think a solution in which you somehow reflect the damage you made on his life, would be better.

>> No.6070685
File: 115 KB, 480x342, 1359906494246.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6070685

>>6069204
>Evolafags trying to act like their opinions are at all relevant

>> No.6070709

>>6069138
10$ and potential damages adjusted for inflation and an additional punishing tax of some kind, though this doesn't have to necessarily have to go to the victim.

That is based on a strong moralistic law system, which doesn't exist.

Realistically morally speaking he doesn't have to return shit and I wouldn't feel even a shred of guilt over that.

>> No.6070730

>>6069138
>run off with someone's wife
>have kids
>wife and kids belong to whom, exactly?

>Steal slave
>impregnate her
>unborn child belongs to ... ?


Also, is it only the 10 itself that's worth anything? I mean, how much more money could the true owner have hypothetically possessed? Does this not matter?

>> No.6071905

>>6070660
The damage would be pretty small in almost all cases.

The question tries to confuse you by inserting unrealistically large dividends from $10, to make the worth of the $10 seem larger than it is, but in truth you can only really argue for what the $10 could "reasonably" be expected to have accrued for its original owner under normal circumstances. That "reasonableness" clause makes it entirely obvious that the thief owes the victim but a small fraction of his huge fortune.

>> No.6071927

>>6069138
$10. The rest is value added by the man.

Of course, you would factor inflation and the time value of money in, but in reality, the man who made the million is obliged to keep nearly all of it.

>> No.6071933

Guys, you tear all the money in half.

>> No.6072038

>>6069212
If you made a million out of that 10, what's to say that the guy you stole from wouldn't have done the same if you hadn't taken it from him?

>> No.6072050

>>6069245
this

>> No.6072053

>>6072038
intelligence, knowledge, work, chance

>> No.6072249

>>6069138
Reported.

I hate everyone in this thread so much.

>> No.6072292

The ten dollars was an involuntary investment. Share price was not agreed upon, so fifty percent seems like a reasonable default, especially since the initial investment was non-consensual and therefore eligible for additional compensation.

>> No.6072320

>>6072053
>intelligence, knowledge, work, chance
and lack of being a thief ?

>> No.6072691

20$

>> No.6072693

He should return half of his wealth

>> No.6072751

Depends. Who'd he steal it from?

>> No.6072754

Let's make this question more interesting OP.

A man steals $10 to buy anti-venom which will save his life. The man goes on to become a millionaire. How much should he be obliged to return?

For the original question:

A practical, morally consistent answer on the general case would dictate returning all the money, I'm working under the clause all the money was attained through the initial $10 and is traceable. Firstly the rate payable on stolen wealth was the amount stolen (+ inflation) stealing essentially becomes unsolicited loans with an excellent interest rate (0) and fails to account for potential loses to the original owner who takes on all the risk. Secondly it's an easier distinction to draw the line at 0 rather than some arbitrary non-zero value. What I mean by this is, well if $10 is fine, why not steal 100 million earn the interest of it for a year and then pay back the 100 million + inflation leaving a decent sum of earnings for our thief. The alternative to all would be none, there isn't a morally consistent non-arbitrary middle ground. Working under the cause the $10 was the entire source of that million dollars.

>> No.6072761

>>6072038
>what's to say that the guy you stole from wouldn't have done the same if you hadn't taken it from him?
it doesn't matter, because he didn't. he should've kept his money closer

>> No.6072770

>>6072754
still $ 0

>> No.6072771

how can you steal money if money isn't real?

>> No.6072782

>>6069143
Threat To Kill _____

>> No.6072808

$0

>allowing your money to be stolen

finder's keepers. it's a doggy dog world.

>> No.6072810

>>6069138
Obliged? None. If you mean to ask "how much would it be fair or ethical for him to return?" say so. And then it would depend on the circumstances of the theft and victim. Pretending that details don't matter in a hypothetical question is idiotic. If your morality is so simple-minded and lacking in nuance, your answers will be meaningless. Would a judge want that information? Of course they fucking would.

>> No.6072991

>>6072038
see >>6071905

The question was already answered.

>> No.6073003

>>6069138
10$ plus interest.

>> No.6073009

>>6072754
wrong again, the appropriate way to figure the arbitrary middle-ground sum (which does better than your moral system by acknowledging the substantial effort and luck of the thief) is already shown in >>6071905.

You don't give back all the million just because it's an easier moral system; ease unfortunately has little to do with right, unlike in math or science.

Moreover, your antivenin reformulation doesn't add anything to the original question; the money was used as an investment (into the man's life), which was then turned to profit.

By your logic, we'd owe literally all our money to our parents, since we owe everything we ever did to their original wealth and efforts.