Theseus’s Land Theft

Theseus’s Land Theft

 

This combines the transitivity of complicity with Theseus’s Ship to make a paradox.

 

Imagine that Theseus got off his Ship, bearing stolen goods; namely, a golden fleece. He wore it awhile. Then his son inherited it. His son gave it to a merchant in exchange for ten tall vases full of olives. And so on, in a chain of trades, sales, inheritances, and gifts. One day I bought it from the thrift store, at the low, low price of six dollars and sixty-six cents, including tax.

 

Was I the receiver of stolen goods?  If not, then did Theseus get the fleece without theft? If Theseus stole the fleece, but I am not complicit in the theft, then is complicity transitive? If not, then when along the chain did the transaction turn innocent?

 

This question parallels Theseus’s ship, which Athens kept in shape by replacing its parts as they wore out. One day not one part of the ship was the same as it was at the start. Was it the same ship?

 

You can put this in terms of the paradox of the Heap. Imagine a heap of sand grains. If you remove one sand grain then it will still be a heap. Remove another sand grain and it will still be a heap. And so on. If you eventually remove all but one grain of sand, then is that a heap? If not, then at which grain of sand did it change from heap to non-heap?

 

Theseus’s Ship has a heap of replacements, Theseus’s Theft has a heap of trades.

 

Another version is Theseus’s Land Theft. If he took some land, and it then proceeded down a heap of trades to me, then am I a land-thief or not? If yes, then who isn’t? If no, then at which trade was the land not stolen?