Greg's Case

Determinants of Morality

Object George stole sacks of rice, fertilizers, mechanical and electrical

components, and tools in the farm he's working not just once, but
occasionally. Taking others' possessions behind their back is morally wrong,
and as such, so does Greg's deed of stealing from his employer.

Intention Greg's action of stealing was done with the intention of supporting and
taking care of his family, animals, and plants, repairing their belongings,
and providing school supplies for his children. However, although his
intention was good, an act which is bad in itself but done for a good end
does not make it good, so what Greg did was still considered wrong since
the end doesn't justify the means.

Circumstances Greg's circumstances, such as not having received his income for the last
two months while having to provide for his family, manage his two hectares
of private land, and take care of his animals and plants, lessened his
voluntariness or freedom in the theft he committed but does not justify it.

Characteristics of Human Action

Knowledge It is a well-known fact that stealing is wrong and against the law, yet in the
end, Greg still chose to commit theft and continued to do it occasionally
despite being aware that his actions are immoral.

Freedom Greg did the act of his own choice and initiative. But although he has the
power to think and decide on his own, Greg is also constrained by the laws
and moral obligations that he is expected to uphold and follow, which he
chose to deliberately break upon stealing from his employer.

Full Consent/Will Greg stealing was an act which proceeds from free will acting in the light
of knowledge, and is therefore voluntary, for his ability to pursue his ultimate
end was not of compulsion, but of his own will and choice.

Final Judgment

In Greg’s case, what he did was morally wrong, for he repeatedly committed theft as he
occasionally stole a handful of things from his employer. Taking others' possessions behind their
back is immoral. Although his intentions were good—given that he stole to provide for his
family and to take care of his animals and plants—the end doesn't justify his means since an
act which is bad in itself but done for a good end does not become good. His tough
circumstances due to not having received any income for two months on top of having to
support his family and manage his two hectares of private land may lessen his
voluntariness/freedom to an extent, but ultimately, it does not excuse his wrongdoing.
Moreover, it is already well-established that stealing is wrong but Greg still decided to
deliberately steal from his employer, thus his actions are voluntary and are done with
knowledge and freedom since he chose to commit theft out of his own will as it was a choice
he freely made despite being aware of the wrongness of the act.
Greg's Case