I was having a bit of a heated political/metaphysical discussion with a colleague a little while back and the subject of lying, stealing and subsequently, fraud, came up. I made the supposition that while differing in scale/scope, these actions have at their metaphysical roots the same core action: theft of some kind.

Before we continue, it is important, perhaps to define some terms:

theft: deliberately taking a possession of value from another individual without permission or right.

This possession of value can give us some trouble a little later when making the metaphysical jump from lying to stealing, so we will have to outline the word "value:"

value: the recognized worth of an item, relationship or idea.

We still also need to define possession of value, and more importantly, how this relates to our metaphysical discussion:

possession of value: an item, relationship or idea that has a recognized worth that is defined and determined by the interaction between the item, relationship or idea and all concerned individuals.

This is important, because this definition of possession of value hinges very directly on the relationship between the individuals involved. We all understand this intrinsically; simply because I may think that my house is worth $250,000 doesn't mean that is the true value of the home; it's directly determined by the relationship between me, the house, and the potential buyer, and the interaction between all three subsequently play an equally crucial role in this determination. The purpose of this brainstorm, however, is to talk about things (personal/social relationships and ideas) that are not physically tangible, and I will touch on this later.

For the purpose of this brainstorm, let us consider some scenarios where this supposition is the most difficult to prove (it's not hard to see why an "affair" or "false accusation of a serious crime" can be considered theft of sorts.), or could be seen as a relevant case:

1. the white lie: A person tells a "white" lie about their friends recently purchased clothing.
2. the delusion lifted:

   Person A reveals to Person B that a long held belief that Person B holds dear is categorically false, thereby making Person B "very unhappy."

   [This case is used to illustrate a contrast of how the opposite of case 1 is NOT theft.]

3. the "false" supporter/member: Person A pretends to be Person B, and becomes a part of a group of people (Person C and Person D), in order to bring about a negative perception of this group in the eyes of others.

It is not unintentional that the aforementioned scenarios lack physical "things" being stolen. This is because all things that are physically tangible already have an intrinsically recognized value: an apple is always fundamentally "worth" 1 apple (of approximate size and shape), regardless of opinion. This is consistent with our definition of value because it's the relationship of Apple to Person that jointly define the value of "1 apple," that is however, a different metaphysical discussion.

The White Lie

This is the most innocuous of our three scenarios, and by the far the most difficult case to make:

Person A tells person B a "white lie" about their recently purchased clothes to save that person some "grief," even though he/she personally does not care for the style of these clothes.

The first thing our test requires is to determine if there is anything of recognized worth (value) between the individuals involved in this "social" transaction. This example is a good one because the short answer is, "it depends." Does Person B really want Person A's honest opinion about his/her clothes that have already been purchased and are currently being worn, or is the question more rhetorical and socially ceremonial?

If the former, then the answer is yes, there is something of recognized value between the two individuals being exchanged: trust. While trust does not have a quantifiable "monetary" value, this intangible "possession" is jointly owned and defined by the two individuals through their relationship and interaction as friends. It has a very real, recognized and significant value for both individuals.

The second part of the test is to determine if theft has actually occurred. If Person B was honestly expecting an "honest" answer from Person A, and was told a lie about the clothing in question, we essentially have Person A removing a portion of "trust" from the relationship without permission or right from Person B, since trust is an item/relationship or idea of value that is both jointly defined and shared by both individual, and as Person B has defined part of it previously, that included Person A being honest with him/her when asked sincere questions of opinion.

Because the nature of the theft most likely is very small, bordering on "insignificant," the restitution for this theft is also going to be very small. More than likely, in this case, the "value" of trust being stolen can be repaid from Person A with a sincere apology. In this case as well, the apology has a real and significant value between Person A and Person B, even though we cannot put a "monetary value" upon it.

The Delusion Lifted

Well, if telling a white lie can be considered theft because it robs "trust" from a relationship between friends, could not the reverse also be true? This is an interesting question that this scenario will examine. The keystone in determining if there is theft involved here centers around a couple of simple questions:

1. Does the "Delusion" have true value as we have defined it?

The False Accusation