In this story, Aram and Mourad have their own unique definition of stealing. For a start, their definition of stealing only relates to high-value commodities, such as money. Anything of less value, like a horse, cannot be considered an act of theft.
Secondly, Aram and Mourad believe that stealing involves selling the stolen item to somebody else. In other words, if they decided to sell the horse to somebody else, that would make it an act of stealing—not the act of taking the horse.
As a result of their unique definition, the boys do not believe that taking John Byro's horse constitutes an act of stealing. After all, they are "crazy" about horses and fully intend to return the horse to Byro after they have learned to ride. So, in their opinion, they have simply borrowed the horse and cannot be portrayed as criminals.
Aram does know, really, that Mourad, having taken the horse from its owner, has stolen the horse. This is his first thought, although he then tries to justify it because:
He wants to be able to ride the horse, and;
He knows that his family is renowned for honesty and therefore could not possibly have stolen anything.
As such, he determines to himself that it isn't really stealing if, like he and his cousin, a person is "crazy" about the thing that has been stolen. Because Aram and Mourad only want to ride the horse and have fun with it, they haven't stolen it, in his mind. He determines that taking something like a horse is completely different from stealing money from someone, and what they have done could only be construed as stealing if they tried to sell the horse for money. In other words, stealing entails some kind of profit or financial gain from another person's property.
No comments:
Post a Comment