First, knowing Richie a bit, I'm not terribly concerned that any of this discussion on the ethics of taking the book is at all troubling to him. So I'll give my comments on it.
From the few posters who've questioned it, it would appear there may be two lines of thought. 1) Beep perhaps does not agree that the WTS' policies regarding pedophilia are as serious as some of us do. 2) A few others wish to state that 'theft of any sort is simply wrong, case closed.' They include the thought that doing so results in our 'stooping to their level' and how this only validates negative claims the WTS makes about so-called "apostates."
1...Beep, if this is the case, then we simply have another debate. But let me ask you this question: If the marginal notes in this "Flock" book included information that was even more incriminating--say, things that convinced you they were in fact guilty of very serious moral and legal infractions, things that positively outraged you--would you agree that, given these circumstances, taking the book in order to make the facts public and put a stop to such activity would be the right thing to do?
2...To stand on principle is a fine thing. Recently I told a number of my workmate friends not to tell me anything they didn't want our fellow workmates to hear. Why? Because I'm a terrible liar. I don't think lying is right, I'm not good at it, and I don't like being put in the position to lie for others. Stated Principle: Lying is wrong.
Now, for the rest of my life, there may be a certain comfort in being able to say that I will never--under any circumstances--lie. And who knows? Maybe I'll live out my entire life never having to break this personal policy. Good for me. But I am aware that other virtuous persons throughout history have been put in a position in which holding to this policy resulted in profound, unjust ramifications for many others. If you were a German businessman during World War II--and you were horrified by Hitler's racial cleansing--would you admit that some of your employees were Jews when questioned? Or--if it were in your power--would you lie about it?
It would certainly be good to stand on this fine "no lie" principle, and be able to say at the end of your life that you never broke it. But extraordinary circumstances presented themselves, didn't they? I think most of you would have lied. Lives would have been saved from a madman, and you'd sleep just fine at night.
So what about stealing? Okay... Stated Principle: Stealing is wrong. Some contributors here have already noted that somtimes stealing may actually be necessary. When? When necessary to survive, someone may need to steal food for themselves or their families--when no alternative exists. What if a company you work for were pumping carcinogenic chemicals into the ground--and that you had proof they knew that it was making its way into local drinking water? What if they were committed to concealing this information and continuing to do what you considered to be immoral and illegal--and any employee who tried to put an end to it was fired? What if you had access to documents that would expose this?
You could say, "Look, stealing is wrong, case closed." Great. You've satisfied your personal policy just fine. You feel good about yourself for this. And hundreds of thousands continue to be exposed to cancer-causing chemicals in their drinking water. Good for you, buddy.
You can't accuse me of a strawman argument here, because I'm not trying to say that the preceding examples are exactly the same situation as Richie's. I am countering the "Lying is wrong, case closed" position as an absolute principle. And don't misunderstand. I'm not trying to say, "Oh, stealing's not so bad! (Grin) C'mon, once in awhile, if you can get away with it, go for it!" No.
What I'm saying is that righteous persons have lied when presented with extraordinary circumstances. Since we may not all agree on which circumstances are or are not "extraordinary," we may find ourselves in disagreement from time to time. But your blanket policy--while perhaps comforting to you--can actually be irresponsible (and horribly so) if it means a great injustice goes on.
