Ownership

Time spent with A yesterday, as usual, was filled with many delightful and enlightening conversations. Among the things we talked about was the idea of taking that which is not rightfully yours - now when I say it like that, I'm sure you're like "Oh, I never do that, for that would be tantamount to stealing!" But we actually figured that in some very minor ways we all violate this principle from time to time without even realizing it.

Lets take a few examples. Now here are some common ways in which we rationalize, to ourselves and others, the act of taking something that does not belong to us.

1. "He/she does not deserve to have it" - Making a judgment on what someone deserves, we sometimes use that as a reason to take something away from them. Clearly, whether or not they deserve it (which, firstly, we are no one to judge), its theirs, so we shouldn't be touching it. Such an argument might be used, for example, against someone who inherits a lot of money from his parents (and so one could argue that he didn't really earn it).

2. "I need it more than he/she does" - This is related to the first point, where again we make a judgment about our need versus someone else's, and use it to justify taking something. For example, if one were really thirsty, one might be willing to take a bottle of water from a friend without his/her knowledge.

3. "He/she has too much of it anyway, and won't care if I take some" - A combination of these first three is often used as an argument by the poor against the rich - and so a lot of people assume they have a right over someone's money just because he/she has a lot of it, and they themselves don't. Extreme socialism is built on the foundation of this principle. A slight variation of this is also one where you reason that what you're taking is so insignificant that it does not matter - in school, for example, a kid might decide to take a pencil from a friend without him knowing, reasoning that it's such a small thing as to be inconsequential. Again, this is still in violation of the principle. There's a saying in Hindi - "Whether you steal 10 rupees, or 10000, its still stealing" - and that's precisely the point.

There are other situations where such an argument is used as well - especially in the workplace, because there the owner is not a person in front of you, but some corporation/organization that doesn't physically exist - and so its easier to ignore ownership rights. Printing personal documents in office is one example - we do that all the time, but again, in the strictest sense, unless the company has formulated a policy which allows employees to do that, its unlawful. Taking office stationery home, using office phones to place personal calls, using official vehicles for personal transportation (this is oh, so common in Indian government offices) etc are all manifestations of exactly this attitude.

4. "I'm very close to this person, they won't really mind, and if I ask would probably give it to me anyway" - Here's where things start getting more gray (seemingly), and I'm sure a lot of us have done this. Our closest friend has some small thing we want, and he/she is not around, and so we just take it assuming they won't mind at all. It is entirely possible that they will not mind - and there are probably going to be no negative consequences of such an action. And yet, there is something not totally ideal about that action, because in the strictest sense, we only have a right to something once we have the owner's permission. Even if he/she is our best friend.

5. "Its for a good cause, I'm helping someone poor and needy through this act, so its ok" - The Robin Hood mentality is not all that uncommon - and we often violate the principle of ownership under the guise of selflessness. I have particularly seen this attitude in NGOs I have volunteered for, where, essentially, the end is used to justify the means. And of course, its never in the form of blatant stealing (as Robin Hood might have done), but in more nebulous and subtle ways. Company matching is one example - many companies match donations made by their employees to charitable organizations. It is therefore very common for people to donate money through friends of theirs working in such companies, so that it appears like their friend has donated the money - and so they can get the company to match it. Now it seems like its all in a good cause, and especially since these companies (such as Google, Microsoft, Cisco etc) are anyway making so much money, they won't really care (point 3). And yet, who are we to decide that? Most companies match funds because they believe their employee is taking money out of the salary it pays him to donate to someone - and so they match that effort. Unless a company explicitly says that it is willing to use its money to match not just an employee's contribution, but also funds raised by him from other sources, it is unethical to get a third party's funds matched. In most cases though, the grandiose veil of selfless action successfully occludes this principle of ownership and causes one to violate it.

I could probably come up with more examples, but I think these serve to illustrate the point sufficiently.

There is this quote of Baha'u'llah's, which in a very concise and beautiful way summarizes the principle of ownership, and one's rights when it comes to taking things. Here's what he says:

"They who dwell within the Tabernacle of God, and are established upon the seats of everlasting glory, will refuse, though they be dying of hunger, to stretch their hands, and seize unlawfully the property of their neighbour, however vile and worthless he may be."

I find this a very powerful quote, because it is so clear and unequivocal in its condemnation of any violation of ownership - even if one is absolutely dying of hunger, even if the person next to you, your neighbor, has what you need, even if he is the most evil and undeserving person ever, and even if he has so much food that he will not notice if you take some - taking it unlawfully from him still constitutes a violation of that standard. And so I think this quote makes it very clear what course of action we must take in any of those five situations above - and leaves us with no doubt about what is right and what is wrong.