A few more comments...

... and then maybe I can find something worthwhile to say for myself. (No promises).

To Lou, regarding The Theft and other such...: I think the point that needs to be made is that while the act of stealing is always technically immoral, it's not always unreasonable. It's entirely reasonable to point out that some thieves deserve the items they steal (essential food being the example most people have cited) more than their 'victims' deserve to profit from them. Entirely reasonable-- just not really justifiable within the context of social morality...

Also, just as an aside, if someone steals your iPod and you go break their head, that's not 'stealing it back': it's recovering your stolen property, and hence technically redressing a wrong, rather than compounding it. I don't think it's possible to make a rational case that people engaging in unreasonable theft don't fully deserve whatever they get.

Belatedly, in response to A Rebel Yell's first post, just vis-à-vis the following remark: "when questioned ‘why is incest bad?’ people were struggling to answer. We KNOW/BELEIVE its bad behaviour, but ‘cos it is’ doesn’t seem a sufficient answer." Well-- I dunno. I suspect incest might be one of those things that just provokes a visceral, entirely subrational revulsion in a lot of people. I know that's certainly the case for me... and I'm pretty sure that's not merely because my sister is a disgusting bitch.

And Claire, regarding "Would you steal a car": I'm intrigued by your examples. What is it about stealing a car that makes it worse-- or at least warrants a more severe form of punishment, as you seem to be suggesting-- than stealing "makeup, or sweets or something small"? Surely, since neither cars nor makeup nor sweets can be considered necessities¹, the crime is identical and hence the punishment should be the same.

Are you implying that the monetary value of the item in question should be proportionate to the penalty² for stealing it? Because honestly, that strikes me as straying dangerously far into the territory of value-based morals, where you're at risk of winding up with the (material) tail wagging the (judicial) dog as far as your legal system is concerned...


¹ In fact, I can at least imagine a range of circumstances in which someone might actually need to steal a car-- whereas I can't think of any in which a similar necessity could be presented for stealing makeup, for example...
² To pre-empt any confusion, I'm talking only about the penalty for the theft here; not the compensation potentially due to the victim(s).