Morality of theft

I believe theft is wrong, be it from the small family store or the large corporation. The large corporation does pay wages to workers, and though they may pay executives and investors immorally high sums, loss of profits are usually taken out on the lowest paid workers first. Responding to immoral action with immoral action does not cancel them out.

Theft to feed a starving family is likewise immoral, but one could claim is justifiable because we prioritize sustaining life above sustaining wealth in our moral judgements. Between the two we took the less bad option. The action is not rendered moral, but we make an exception in our response to the action.

Morality and Law are completely separate entities. Theft is a complex topic because property is a matter of law. The immoral action is in depriving people of things they have come to possess through effort. Property and thus Theft leans into that heavily. But not all taking is immoral.

Example: There is an apple tree in the woods owned by Joe. Joe has no plans to harvest the apples. If I take an apple to eat without Joe's permission I have legally committed Theft. However, morally, I have done no wrong. Joe was not going to use that apple. Joe has not been deprived. If Joe was going to harvest the apples, then I would have deprived him of an apple from the tree he had been taking care of and that would have been immoral.

The morality of Theft is not in the taking, but in the depriving.